Hey all,
This has been brought up before I believe, but usually in the context of evolution; as such, I've been wondering, there are numerous animals species that went extinct during the 20th Century (thylacine, three subspecies of tigers - Bali, Javan, Caspian, Caribbean monk seal), but with PODs in, say, the 1840s, or 50s, or even 60s, is it not possible that the butterflies caused by these PODs could allow some of these animals to survive?
What I'm driving at here is, we often say that a single divergence can butterfly away every person born after that POD, and therefore the events those people caused. Creatures like the thylacine evolved long before my proposed PODs, and although there are more factors than just certain people that contributed to its extinction, I'm loathe to believe it was inevitable.
For example, the American bison was reduced to near extinction in the 1880s, but today there are more than 500,000 bison in North America. This was because of zoological thinking in the 1880s and 1890s that brought the animal back from the brink. The thylacine and bison were hunted for very similar reasons (so to speak). Bison were hunted primarily to prevent competition with cattle rancher herds, a large economic asset in the midwest at the time. Granted, they were also culled to drive the natives from the land and for sport and skins. The thylacine were similarly hunted to extinction because of the needs of farmers in Tasmania.
The thylacine was already pretty much extinct from mainland Australia by the time Europeans came long, but the species itself survived right up until 1936 (last specimen died in Hobart Zoo in 1936). As with the bison, there were other factors leading to the extinction of the thylacine, including competition with introduced dogs, habitat destruction as farms grew, but generally they were culled due to claims that thylacines hunted and killed sheep.
Whether or not this is true, if I proposed a random POD in the 19th Century, could it be a logical thought process to assume that the thylacine could very well be saved from extinction? As with the bison, if any zoological and conservationist-inclined Tasmanians or Australians make enough noise about it, could the species be saved?
In previous discussions people proposed that the extinction was inevitable. Why? Competition with farmers and introduced species will always exist. Look at the kiwi of New Zealand for example. Rabbits were introduced in huge numbers, along with wild pigs (which would feast on kiwi and tuatara nests), and later stoats to cull the rabbits, and these introductions devastated the New Zealand kiwi populations. And yet today captive breedings programs have saved them.
Another example is the kangaroo. While never hunted to near-extinction, the kangaroo is a grazing animal (especially the red kangaroo) that lives in and around Australian cattle ranches, but this animal was not slaughtered to allow the cattle first priority. I understand that the reasons behind killing a carnivore and killing a herbivore can and do differ, but while certain animals in OTL were saved, others were not. The Tasmanian devil, closely resembling the thylacine in behaviour and habitat, was not wiped out, and they have a worse reputation for being murderous and evil (hence the name 'devil', due to their ghoulish yowls).
You may have noticed that I am specifically thinking of the thylacine here despite mentioning previously other species, but I find this to be the most unique and the most important as far as biodiversity is concerned.
Anyway, if I've swung too far from the swingset on this post, forgive me, when I get an idea I tend to let my thoughts loose, but does anyone have any thoughts or opinions?
This has been brought up before I believe, but usually in the context of evolution; as such, I've been wondering, there are numerous animals species that went extinct during the 20th Century (thylacine, three subspecies of tigers - Bali, Javan, Caspian, Caribbean monk seal), but with PODs in, say, the 1840s, or 50s, or even 60s, is it not possible that the butterflies caused by these PODs could allow some of these animals to survive?
What I'm driving at here is, we often say that a single divergence can butterfly away every person born after that POD, and therefore the events those people caused. Creatures like the thylacine evolved long before my proposed PODs, and although there are more factors than just certain people that contributed to its extinction, I'm loathe to believe it was inevitable.
For example, the American bison was reduced to near extinction in the 1880s, but today there are more than 500,000 bison in North America. This was because of zoological thinking in the 1880s and 1890s that brought the animal back from the brink. The thylacine and bison were hunted for very similar reasons (so to speak). Bison were hunted primarily to prevent competition with cattle rancher herds, a large economic asset in the midwest at the time. Granted, they were also culled to drive the natives from the land and for sport and skins. The thylacine were similarly hunted to extinction because of the needs of farmers in Tasmania.
The thylacine was already pretty much extinct from mainland Australia by the time Europeans came long, but the species itself survived right up until 1936 (last specimen died in Hobart Zoo in 1936). As with the bison, there were other factors leading to the extinction of the thylacine, including competition with introduced dogs, habitat destruction as farms grew, but generally they were culled due to claims that thylacines hunted and killed sheep.
Whether or not this is true, if I proposed a random POD in the 19th Century, could it be a logical thought process to assume that the thylacine could very well be saved from extinction? As with the bison, if any zoological and conservationist-inclined Tasmanians or Australians make enough noise about it, could the species be saved?
In previous discussions people proposed that the extinction was inevitable. Why? Competition with farmers and introduced species will always exist. Look at the kiwi of New Zealand for example. Rabbits were introduced in huge numbers, along with wild pigs (which would feast on kiwi and tuatara nests), and later stoats to cull the rabbits, and these introductions devastated the New Zealand kiwi populations. And yet today captive breedings programs have saved them.
Another example is the kangaroo. While never hunted to near-extinction, the kangaroo is a grazing animal (especially the red kangaroo) that lives in and around Australian cattle ranches, but this animal was not slaughtered to allow the cattle first priority. I understand that the reasons behind killing a carnivore and killing a herbivore can and do differ, but while certain animals in OTL were saved, others were not. The Tasmanian devil, closely resembling the thylacine in behaviour and habitat, was not wiped out, and they have a worse reputation for being murderous and evil (hence the name 'devil', due to their ghoulish yowls).
You may have noticed that I am specifically thinking of the thylacine here despite mentioning previously other species, but I find this to be the most unique and the most important as far as biodiversity is concerned.
Anyway, if I've swung too far from the swingset on this post, forgive me, when I get an idea I tend to let my thoughts loose, but does anyone have any thoughts or opinions?