Introspection on Natural Selection

·FOREWORD·

Ever since I was a child, there has been propaganda presented to me in order to sway me towards a frame of mind that was overly compassionate about the environment and about the world. Revisiting one of my favorite childhood movies led me to realize the strong aversion towards humanity's effect on them. This isn't to say that I have been anti-polarized from this frame of mind, but I must step back and assess what I see as the reality.

·THE HUMAN CONCERN·

There is no contention that humanity's effect on the world and the other organisms living on it can cause change. This change may in some cases and in some views be negative. But one of the frames of mind that I am concerned with is the one where people are going out of their way to preserve animals, where resources as spent on doing so and where we are failing to allow natural selection to take it's course. Read slowly and carefully, as this is a heated debate for many. In the case where humanity attempts to reduce it's negative impact on the environment and other organisms that live on the planet, I am in favor of. It is in the case where time has run out in the course of natural selection and that humans step in to avert it that I am not in favor of.

Many of these people who are overly compassionate about animals on the planet seemingly fail to realize that extinction is a normal part of natural selection^[1] and it is how the progression from the very first living cell to every animal, plant and insect has come about. While it may be true that the background extinction rate (the rate by which organisms become extinct on average per frame of time) is rising, my point of concern is that we focus on reducing our negative impact on the environment, not trying to save and sustain it using our time, effort and limited resources. There is a fundamental difference here, but many will fail to make the distinction, which is why this perspective is such a fine line to develop.

In recent news, a naturalist went on record for noting his opinion that the endangered Giant Panda ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ) should be allowed to go extinct.^[2] For the most part, I agree with him. Quite frankly, the Giant Panda is a animal which carries many traits that are unfavorable to continued existence in it's current environment. Even if you remove the human factor, it doesn't change the fact that the Giant Panda has a nearly exclusive diet of bamboo, which is poor in nutrition resulting in the requirement for massive amounts of it per panda; the Giant Panda has a slow reproduction cycle, females are only available to reproduce for a few days during a window of about 2 months each year, and if they have more than one cub, they typically abandon the other cub(s) in favor of a single cub to care for (exceptions do exist)^[3]; they are solitary animals most of the time which means they don't receive the same benefits that other animals do who are communal. Ultimately, the biggest reason why the Giant Panda should be let go to natural selection is because they do not play a significant role in the ecology of the planet. The Giant Panda is just one mammal of many that share the same ecological responsibilities - the removal of the Giant Panda will have negligible consequence.

The perspective I am presenting is closely related to my precise on Directed Evolution. As we continue to evolve our technology and science, we become increasingly dependent on these solutions. This is having the consequence of preserving genetic material that will increase the occurrence of different traits which were once bad, but we can now deal with. For example, myopia (the genetic trait that causes near-sightedness) will become more prevalent in future generations because those individuals with myopia suffer no consequences from having the trait. That means they have a high chance of reproducing, and thus passing the trait of myopia to their children. Without reiterating the entire precise, this same principal can be applied to animal species which face extinction. If we expend our time, effort and resources to preserve an animal species from becoming extinct, they then become dependent on our support for survival. As time goes on, their very survival will depend entirely on us. Ultimately, dependencies like this are a weakness because if takes the control away from the subject. The pandas are no longer responsible for their own survival.

... to be continued ...


·REFERENCES·

^[1] http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/632/Extinction-Endangered-Species-MASS-EXTINCTION.html


^[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32974370/ns/world_news-world_environment/?GT1=43001


^[3] http://www.4panda.com/panda/pandatips/reproduction.htm