WinterOrbit said:
According to the article, there may be about 3200 tigers left in the wild.
That's an estimate.
And a very bad one.
Not to mention tigers are extremely efficient hunters and a large population of them is unsustainable, and that they're masterful at getting around human eyes, like most other good predators.
So, tell me again how people think there's only 3,200 tigers left in the wild when there's probably more than that in zoos alone?
Xzi said:
Agayek said:
Meh. It's unfortunate if they die out, but if they can't survive on their own, it's not something we should be overly concerned about. Species go extinct at least on a weekly basis, it's not a big deal. Hell, it's part of evolution/natural selection.
No it's not. Tigers were surviving just fine for thousands of years before the industrial age came along. I'd have to look up the exact numbers, but humans now have caused extinction at a rate several times greater than what it naturally was during civilized man's early history.
Here you go:
Bottom line, we need to stop being hugely consumerist douchebags.
That's because Tigers never had anything to contend with but other tigers. An isolated species suited for its environment almost perfectly that is so finely tuned it can't adapt to things like modern weaponry and industry.
Sad fact is that it was bound to happen. If not man, whatever dominant species came out on top would have destroyed the tigers as well. And every other species that man has destroyed, for they'd have to be as good of predators as we are to make it this far.
Nature made us this way. She provided a harsh world to live in--man responded with aggressive action and the ability to warp the world he lives in. I see it more as nature cutting the fat so she can get lean for the prize fight between Man and Earth--at which point she'll knock our teeth out.