Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

bradl

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
5,969
17,479
Yes, this sounds like overdramatization and clickbait, but in all brutal honesty, we will be seeing this within the next few years.

With that, it's shocking how with one death, your entire population of your species can decrease; in this case, by 25%.

From NPR and WashPo:

One of last four northern white rhinos on Earth is euthanized
By Sarah Kaplan - November 23 at 6:21 AM

In a single day, the world’s population of northern white rhinos declined by 25 percent.

All it took was one last ragged exhalation from a 41-year-old rhino named Nola, one of four of the massive, two-horned animals remaining on Earth.

Now there are only three.

Nola was euthanized at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park on Sunday after an illness from a bacterial infection and age-related health issues worsened, the park said in a statement on its Facebook page.

“We’re absolutely devastated by this loss,” the park said, “but resolved to fight even harder to end extinction.”

[How the fate of an entire subspecies of rhino was left to one elderly male]

The northern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) is a subspecies of white rhinoceros that once ranged across parts of Uganda, Sudan, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and into Chad and Cameroon. They’re among the largest land animals on Earth, second only to elephants. They can run at speeds of more than 30 miles per hour and their horns, tough skin and sheer size mean they have no natural predators.

Unnatural predators — i.e., humans — are an entirely different matter.

Civil war, habitat loss and poaching for their valuable horns decimated the rare breed; between 1960 and 2015 the population fell from 2,000 to five.

This year, that number fell to three: In addition to Nola, a 31-year-old Czech rhino named Nabiré died after complications from a ruptured cyst in July.

The subspecies has been extinct in the wild since 2008.

Now just three aging members of the subspecies survive at Ol Pejeta Conservancy, a preserve in Kenya. All are too old or unhealthy to breed naturally — barring scientific intervention, when these last three die, their subspecies dies with them.

The northern white rhino “disappeared right in front of our eyes,” Kathleen Garrigan, a spokesperson for the African Wildlife Foundation, told National Geographic after Nabiré’s death, “and we didn’t realize it until it was too late.”

Though its numbers once tumbled as low as Nola’s subspecies, the southern white rhinoceros, a close relative, has fared far better. According to Save the Rhino, more than 20,000 of the creatures exist in the wild after being hunted almost to extinction a century ago.

In 1900, fewer than 20 of the rhinos existed on a single South African preserve. But good fortune and local governments favored the southern white rhino: A combination of legal protections, breeding efforts and regulated trophy hunting initiatives helped bring the subspecies back from the brink. Poaching persists — a record 1,215 white rhinos were killed in South Africa in 2015, according to the World Wildlife Fund. But by microchipping their prized horns and cracking down on the illegal ivory trade, officials hope to slash that number.

Northern white rhinos are unlikely to have such a comeback story. The three who remain live under constant surveillance in Kenya, surrounded by armed guards 24 hours a day. The lone male is too old to mate, and the two females are incapable of carrying a pregnancy, according to Live Science.

It would take a miracle to even produce another northern white rhino, let alone revive the subspecies. But scientists are hoping they can manufacture one.

Veterinarian Barbara Durrant of the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research told Live Science that she and other researchers are working to develop a rhino IVF procedure that would allow them to implant an embryo produced from preserved egg and sperm. But the number of preserved reproductive cells is tiny — they come from just 12 northern whites — and the procedure is still a long way from being ready to use them. Durrant said it’s only been done twice, and both times the embryo never developed beyond a cluster of just two cells.

The San Diego Zoo has set aside $2 million for an effort that would use southern white rhino mothers as surrogates to carry northern white rhino embryos, according to Scientific American.

If all else fails, southern white rhino females may also be artificially inseminated with preserved northern males’ sperm, preserving some of the genetic traits that make the northern subspecies unique. This step, though less than ideal, would at least add to the rhino population’s genetic diversity.

Meanwhile, staff at Ol Pejeta have been hurrying to harvest eggs from the last two living females.

“It’s kind of a race against time,” the preservation’s chief executive Richard Vigne told Live Science in June of this year when the global population of the subspecies stood at five animals. “Those remaining females could all die tomorrow. Once they’re gone, then the source of eggs disappears.”

We laugh and joke about the Dodo bird from back in the early 1900s; well, we're going to have our version of it really soon. :(

BL.
 
Playing devil's advocate here. And I'll be cruelly blunt about it: so what? So a sub species of the rhinos dies out. What does this really mean? If we didn't read about it on the net, would it really matter? Animals have gone extinct for millions of years....etc etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDCODGER
Playing devil's advocate here. And I'll be cruelly blunt about it: so what? So a sub species of the rhinos dies out. What does this really mean? If we didn't read about it on the net, would it really matter? Animals have gone extinct for millions of years....etc etc

There's a difference between natural extinction and hunted to extinction, white rhino's have been by and large hunted to extinction during the colonialist era's and more recently by trophy hunters.
 
There's a difference between natural extinction and hunted to extinction, white rhino's have been by and large hunted to extinction during the colonialist era's and more recently by trophy hunters.
I get the difference. Just playing DA, and asking how does that change our world besides the hurt feelings. Extinction happens, naturally or not, as long as it's not a species crucial to the circle of life, does it affect us?
 
I get the difference. Just playing DA, and asking how does that change our world besides the hurt feelings. Extinction happens, naturally or not, as long as it's not a species crucial to the circle of life, does it affect us?

So what if ISIS kills people? Scientists are always saying that there's too many people on the planet anyway, right? As long as it doesn't affect me...
 
So what if ISIS kills people? Scientists are always saying that there's too many people on the planet anyway, right? As long as it doesn't affect me...

Animals die all the time. You missed the point of my question.
 
I always pity the dolts that cannot find anything wrong with man created extinction of species. They selfishly admit they don't care because it doesn't impact them directly. I prefer to see these animals exist for future generations to enjoy and co-exist with on the planet and enjoy nature. Rather than destroy we should live up to our potential to thrive without destruction of other species. Then again, those that don't care are quick on my list to hopefully not pass their lack of culture to offspring.
 
I always pity people who can't take a chance to educate people who are clearly asking for some knowledge, even admitting that they are playing devils advocate and are so cowardly can't even directly respond to people, instead post a generic, insulting response that does nothing more than make them feel superior to other people they deem lesser than them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernyMac
No, let's try "extinction of a single sub-species." There is no other accurate description. "Mass" does not come into play here.

According to experts, we're currently at the beginning of a mass extinction, hence my choice of words. It's only logical, actually, considering that as many have stated here, species either have an economical value for us, or they are just taking up space and ressources that could be funnelled into a species that does have value. One example would be the annihilation of rainforest (habitat to many fragile species) to make room for palm oil plantation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
So what if ISIS kills people? Scientists are always saying that there's too many people on the planet anyway, right? As long as it doesn't affect me...
Do not waste your time. If someone kills him I bet many people would be glad where he lives and we wouldn't have to waste time explaining things he just does not get. He just like to play that game and that is why the world is like that, for people who is arrogant and does not care. Lack of common sense to say the least?
 
I get the difference. Just playing DA, and asking how does that change our world besides the hurt feelings. Extinction happens, naturally or not, as long as it's not a species crucial to the circle of life, does it affect us?

Animals die all the time. You missed the point of my question.

Actually, to be fair, to @Mac'nCheese - rather than seeking refuge in outrage, this is a fair question to ask.

I always pity the dolts that cannot find anything wrong with man created extinction of species. They selfishly admit they don't care because it doesn't impact them directly. I prefer to see these animals exist for future generations to enjoy and co-exist with on the planet and enjoy nature. Rather than destroy we should live up to our potential to thrive without destruction of other species. Then again, those that don't care are quick on my list to hopefully not pass their lack of culture to offspring.

While I largely agree with you, it goes far further than that.

I beg to differ; this is not a "mass extinction."

Unfortunately, it is. And it is the only mass extinction that has come about through the direct and deliberate agency of another species, - namely, us, our good selves - rather than through something such as an asteroid, or dramatic climate change or other 'external' event.

According to experts, we're currently at the beginning of a mass extinction, hence my choice of words. It's only logical, actually, considering that as many have stated here, species either have an economical value for us, or they are just taking up space and ressources that could be funnelled into a species that does have value. One example would be the annihilation of rainforest (habitat to many fragile species) to make room for palm oil plantation.

Addressing the consequence of the enormous and transformative effect and impact of our species on the planet - which is far more extensive and much more comprehensive than that any other species, ever, in terms of transforming the planet, and moulding it to our needs, means looking at what we do, and what we have done to deliberately - and inadvertently - give rise to mass extinctions.

Our actions have included deliberately killing - and thus, wiping out - some species, and sacrificing others heedlessly and needlessly, or inadvertently - to our needs, sometimes citing religious authority to do so.

Rarely have we sought to exterminate a species deliberately - although that has happened, too - rather, the extinction is more often a result of the fact that we have systematically killed a sufficient number of the species in question, either intentionally, or inadvertently, as a consequence of other actions.

However, we cannot pretend that our actions, and our almost complete dominion of the planet don't have consequences, many of them most unfortunate for the life forms we collide with.

Nevertheless, @Mac'nCheese does pose a question that has a right to be asked, and one that ought to be asked, - if only of ourselves - rather than howled down in outrage, real and simulated: So, what? So, what, if animals die, or a species that is extraordinary in appearance but clearly redundant evolutionarily dies out? Is death not our common fate? Does evolution not bid adieu to other life forms, and other species, sometimes even more brutally than we have managed in our stewardship of parts of the planet?

These are valid questions, and ones we need to ask honestly of ourselves. Much of the debate on animal welfare is clothed in the vocabulary of anthropomorphism and steeped in sentimentality.

However, slaughtering our way across the planet in pursuit of commercial and other imperatives also begs questions, questions of the responsibility that comes with power and an understanding of the consequences of destroying the world that has given rise to us.

Thus, it is wrong, not just because, as @phrehdd has commented that he would 'prefer if future generations could enjoy nature and co-exist with nature' - though being able to recognise and respect the life that takes other forms is hugely important, - but also because our planet so far has survived through diversity and has been able to adapt to climatic and environmental change through its rich diversity of plant and animal life.

By annihilating diversity, - as happens every time we destroy another species - we ultimately damage ourselves and the chance of the planet we live on to survive us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mac'nCheese
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.