@Sifr Said 
I think there's something wrong with the definition of 'endangered species'. If I'm not mistaken, species are labelled as endangered when their population falls below a critical limit or some form of habitat destruction occurs.
However, consider humans for example. We number around 6 billion. Surely, given the present scientific criteria, we're far from making it to the endangered species list. But look at where we stand. With weapons of mass destruction, wholesale pollution and environmental degradation, we're just a step away from total annihilation. This must qualify us as not only as an endangered species but also a dangerous species. Right?
I think the whole Monarch butterfly issue misses the point completely. We should have an endangered species list and we should be number 1 on the list but we should also have a list of 'dangerous' species and there too we should be number 1. Perhaps if we shift our perspective this way, we will recognize ourselves as the true threat and encourage us to address the real problem-humans.
Meh! Losing the entire human population would only be a positive effect for the whole world.
As natural things go-human's are the only one's that have not found their proper (I'd say have lost their proper) niche in the world.
Jan 03, 2015 @ 01:46:46
