Sauron

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2921669.stm

Grim future for gorillas and chimps

Man's two closest relatives in the animal kingdom will be on the edge of extinction within a decade, unless drastic conservation measures are put in place immediately.

That is the alarming conclusion of a major international study of gorillas and chimpanzees in the forests of Western Equatorial Africa, published in the scientific journal Nature.

The dense jungles of the Republic of Congo and Gabon were previously thought to be the last stronghold of the two species, since deforestation in this region has been much less intense than in other parts of Africa.

But a comprehensive survey of ape numbers in Gabon between 1998 and 2002 has revealed a dramatic decline in the population in recent years, caused by a combination of commercial hunting for bush meat, and the deadly Ebola virus which has also attacked local people.

Non-praying Mantis

I agree it would be a tragedy, but it would not be the first time that we would be responsible for the extinction of one of our closest ancestors. All of our Homo and Australopithecus ancestors are already extinct.

NPM

Strawberry

NPM,

IMO, the extinction of those ancestors isn't quite the same as the current situation; after all, early humans probably didn't know that they were endangering/wiping out another species, but we do know what's happening to apes today, and we have the power to stop (or at least postpone) it if we so choose. Also, I'd wager that other environmental factors besides the influence of modern humans probably figured into the extinctions of earlier hominid species as well.

(Just my 2 cents. [/derailing thread])

Godless Dave

<nitpick>I think you mean relatives, not ancestors, at least in reference to chimps and gorillas, who are not our ancestors.</nitpick>

Sauron

I wonder how fundies view extinctions. I mean, after all - God gave mankind dominion over the earth, and then humans screw it up by killing off these unique and beautiful species that God created.

I can't imagine that God is going to be very pleased to see how careless humans have been with his creation, eh?

The Lone Ranger

I've been told on numerous occasions by religious people that "God gave us dominion over the Earth and all its species." Therefore, they're ours to do with as we please, and if we drive other species to extinction, it's perfectly acceptable to do so.

It seems to be a frighteningly common attitude among the very religious.

My standard reply is something along the lines of what you've suggested: "If God gave us this beautiful planet and all these wonderous species, don't we have a responsibility to take care of this precious gift? Wouldn't you be upset at someone if you gave them an expensive and irreplaceable gift and they proceeded to mistreat and ultimately destroy it?"

Cheers,

Michael

Nickle

Remember, God created "kinds," not these individual species. So we lose a few, who cares, we still have other members of the original kind.

After all, we are in the ape kind, and we're not in danger. Be thankfull. Curl up with a good book (as long as it's The Good Book) and forget all about it.

Doubting Didymus

Usually, creationists place humans in their very own kind. The word 'kind' varies on practically every possible point except this one.

lpetrich

The next question is what to do about these poor apes. Will it be necessary to create refuges for them? Something like oversized zoos?

And whatever is done, there has to be a way of ensuring that the apes are worth more money alive than dead.

Alternatively, they might end up 100% domestic species, as has happened to horses and bovines. Wild populations of Equus caballus and Bos taurus are all feral -- domestic animals gone wild.

madmavman45

hmm.. in terms of caring/nurturing for the earth, that IS the primary calling given in Genesis. however, sin has manifested itself in two opposite directions: 1. people go on a terror spree and butcher and destroy for no purpose other than their own pleasure, this results in species going extinct, forests defaced/destoryed, etc -or- 2. people go crazy "protecting" the earth and limiting what other people can and cannot do (aka treehuggers aka anyone who turns the earth into something more than it was designed for (typically taking on goddess status)). neither of these positions is right, as the "lets do anything we want to the earth" is not being a good steward of the gift we have been given, and ignores the fact that we are indeed called to care for the earth. the flip-side of the coin is the environmentalists, who think that we should do whatever we possibly can to protect this earth (which IS only temporary), and forget the charge of taking dominion and subduing creation (but not in the fashion of senario 1). both sides miss the boat. on the one hand, we can't stop harming our environment, because that is the nature of sin. we are at odds with creation, and have been since the fall. on the other, it is an abuse of power to go through and lay waste to entire areas of land. i'm not supportive of either situation, since you cannot enjoy something that is majorly defaced (case 1) or something that has been quaranteed off for only a few "select" individuals (case 2). besides, the earth is temporary, and will be renewed one day everything here will be scorched (to the environmentalists) but we still are called to respect and take care of our property (the other extreme)