• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Western black rhino declared extinct

GrnMarvl14

Lying
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
13,846
Reaction score
4
Source w/info on a few more endangered animals.

Africa's western black rhino is now officially extinct according the latest review of animals and plants by the world's largest conservation network.

The subspecies of the black rhino -- which is classified as "critically endangered" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species -- was last seen in western Africa in 2006.

The IUCN warns that other rhinos could follow saying Africa's northern white rhino is "teetering on the brink of extinction" while Asia's Javan rhino is "making its last stand" due to continued poaching and lack of conservation.

"In the case of the western black rhino and the northern white rhino the situation could have had very different results if the suggested conservation measures had been implemented," Simon Stuart, chair of the IUCN species survival commission said in a statement.

"These measures must be strengthened now, specifically managing habitats in order to improve performance, preventing other rhinos from fading into extinction," Stuart added.

The IUCN points to conservation efforts which have paid off for the southern white rhino subspecies which have seen populations rise from less than 100 at the end of the 19th century to an estimated wild population of 20,000 today.

To put it simply: This just blows. Stupid rhino hunters.
 
This is horrible. Humanity used to struggle to survive against nature; now, nature struggles against us.

I'm really hoping we can avoid situations like this in the future.
 
Simply disgusting. People still don't realise that we're ruining everything, and killing everything. This is why I dislike humans as a species in general.
 
This is why we need to decrease our population in order to make room for endangered animals who are close to extinction from loss of habitat and overhunting.
 
When they invent time machines, im going back to save the rhinos >=)
 
Are you implying that we kill humans to make room for animals?

What I'm implying is that we must try to decrease our population without the process of genocide. Abortion and gay marriage are too controversial, life in space is impossible, birth control isn't enforced much, and a one child policy similar to China's is marked unconstitutional.
 
It's definitely reasonable to suggest we decrease our population, and base some form of self-hatred on that we don't act caretakers for all the species...
 
What I'm implying is that we must try to decrease our population without the process of genocide. Abortion and gay marriage are too controversial, life in space is impossible, birth control isn't enforced much, and a one child policy similar to China's is marked unconstitutional.

Then let's hope a terrorist force releases small pox in India and China and Afrika, and then we have around three billion people less.

Or a nucleair war.

Or...

Breeding zombies that explode after 4 billion are infected which leaves room for more people.

Or the more legal options above.
 
What I'm implying is that we must try to decrease our population without the process of genocide. Abortion and gay marriage are too controversial, life in space is impossible, birth control isn't enforced much, and a one child policy similar to China's is marked unconstitutional.

I apologize for that insulting assumption.

As long as we have similar species of rhinoceros, and enough genetic material, we may be able to actually bring the extinct ones back using cloning, perhaps.
 
Aw, now I feel bad for that delicious rhino-flank burger I had just earlier...

Hmm, well, anyway, it's almost impossible to be a conservationist and a naturalist, because species of animals actually do go extinct naturally--humans can't be guilted for everything. (Should humans preserve anything that is naturally due to be extinct?)

And human intervention does have unintended consequences, whether "nature's protection" is considered, is focal, or neither. Who knows, for instance, what effect the drastic increase of a population of rhino species has. (>100 to ~20,000 southern white rhino, i.e.) Ecosystems are highly complex, with interaction between millions of organisms large and small (and even things that don't classify as traditional "organisms" like viruses are highly important). It's almost impossible for any human to decide what should be and how species should prosper.
 
Hmm, well, anyway, it's almost impossible to be a conservationist and a naturalist, because species of animals actually do go extinct naturally--humans can't be guilted for everything. (Should humans preserve anything that is naturally due to be extinct?)

While I do agree that species go extinct naturally, can't really say that we're helping in a lot of cases, destroying not only habitat but generally just killing them off. Removing species from ecosystems through unnatural means (like hunting not for food, but for trophy) could lead to consequences that's not really expected, at least in the long term, and we should be careful with fiddling with them. While I doubt that Black rhinos were a really key species, I think it's a lesson we should consider in every ecosystem.
 
Hmm, well, anyway, it's almost impossible to be a conservationist and a naturalist, because species of animals actually do go extinct naturally--humans can't be guilted for everything. (Should humans preserve anything that is naturally due to be extinct?)

We know that most extinctions in the future will be caused by human factors, so that's what needs to be prevented.
 
That really sucks.

This is why we need to decrease our population in order to make room for endangered animals who are close to extinction from loss of habitat and overhunting.

We can also all just start to consume less, which would accomplish the same thing, and not exploit third world countries so they wouldn't resort to poaching for money.
 
We know that won't happen. Humans won't do anything about other species dieing off like this until there are only a few species left, and at that point it will be far too late.
 
Wow, this sucks so hard. Now that this happened, would the animal poaching start to decrease? I doubt it.
When they invent time machines, im going back to save the rhinos >=)
Count me in. "FOR THE RHINOS!" :D
 
When they invent time machines, im going back to save the rhinos >=)

How do you know you already haven't?

What I'm implying is that we must try to decrease our population without the process of genocide. Abortion and gay marriage are too controversial, life in space is impossible, birth control isn't enforced much, and a one child policy similar to China's is marked unconstitutional.
We could work towards increase standard of living since industrialized nations seem to have decreased birth rates without any law specifically in place since children become an expensive burden.

On another note, I honestly don't see how legalizing gay marriage would cause a reduction in population. To put it bluntly, you've taken an anti-gay argument and spun it in a very hilarious fashion that isn't at all homophobic yet still seems ignorant. Just because gays are allowed to marry, doesn't mean there's going to be a sudden outburst of gayness that would significantly reduce the world's population.
 
Please note: The thread is from 13 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom