Post by theend on Dec 1, 2019 2:44:08 GMT
A while ago I red the book "The Dragon Behind The Glass". I recommend it. It basically deals with most sought after aquarium fish in the world, the Red Arowana. It's a bit messy of how this fish over others become so revered but it is. Apparently it basically now only exists in captivity. It is rare to see one in the wild. Arguably, there are much more of them raised in captivity than are in the wild.
Recently there was a fire. I guess depending who you listen to, the koala bear may or may not be functionally extinct as their natural habitat may be so damaged that there is not enough to sustain a population. Let's assume that their environment is screwed. I would reckon there is the possibility in the not so distant future that there would be more in zoos than in their natural habitat.
My question is not related to my last thread. My question is -if there is a true value to having a species only exist in captivity? I believe that if the koala's environment was completely screwed that the human species would do their best to preserve them in zoos. I don't know how soft koalas become in zoos. But, for the purpose of argument- Let's assume that being raised in captivity softens them to the point where they can not effectively reenter the wild. Say, they suck at finding their food sources or what not. Is there a point where we, as humans, just decide to let a species go? Does it matter if one species goes extinct?
Recently there was a fire. I guess depending who you listen to, the koala bear may or may not be functionally extinct as their natural habitat may be so damaged that there is not enough to sustain a population. Let's assume that their environment is screwed. I would reckon there is the possibility in the not so distant future that there would be more in zoos than in their natural habitat.
My question is not related to my last thread. My question is -if there is a true value to having a species only exist in captivity? I believe that if the koala's environment was completely screwed that the human species would do their best to preserve them in zoos. I don't know how soft koalas become in zoos. But, for the purpose of argument- Let's assume that being raised in captivity softens them to the point where they can not effectively reenter the wild. Say, they suck at finding their food sources or what not. Is there a point where we, as humans, just decide to let a species go? Does it matter if one species goes extinct?
