Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#81

Post by neximo64 »

eriknstr wrote: post #68
neximo64 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would not stained tusks have an impact on the elephants perception of each other? We as human beings have all sorts of perceptions on obesity, skin colour, hair colour..

I think what eknkc suggested was that the cyanide was to be applied to ivory which had already been collected, not on live elephants.

I'm not referring to cyanide, i'm referring to the colour staining of ivory on animals that are alive. The colour stops poachers wanting to kill the animal, but does it not impact the animals life - that's the question i'm asking.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#82

Post by vblord »

_Adam wrote: post #51

I find it sad to think that one day we will refer to the "Tusked Elephant" the same we way we now refer to the "Sabre-Toothed Tiger". Evolution may have found a way to survive humanity in this case, but it's reason for needing to do so is absolutely stupid.

Is this considered evolution? Maybe more like natural selection?

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#83

Post by projektir »

pavanred wrote: post #25
projektir wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I would say you haven't heard much. Natural selection is a horrific process whether or not humans are involved in it. By definition it implies the death and suffering of countless creatures so that a few are selected. This is nothing. We're concerned about it because we like elephants, but as far as nature is concerned, there's nothing wrong with killing off ~75% of all species once in a blue moon. [1] 1. https:…

I think the term natural selection is sort of a misnomer, makes it easy to misinterpret it as if many are let to die while few are selected. It just happens creatures that with certain traits are more adapted to survive and reproduce (not having tusks in this case), where as some other creatures are not and die. Hence those specific traits tend to be preserved in subsequent generations while the others just didn't su…

We could argue for a while whether it's "few" or not depending on which scale or species you're looking at, but that wasn't really the point. I'm not really even concerned with the death of a given species or organism in and of itself, but other people are.

It's a selection process that results in countless creatures suffering and dying over and over. Sometimes even the selected creatures are suffering immensely and dying shortly after reproducing.

The environment changed too drastically and killed off most species. Humans changed the environment too drastically and it killed off some species. I fail to see what is it that humans are introducing that is so novel. If anything, it just seems like we're tapping into an existing process. Or, I would say, we always were part of the existing process.

Should we promote the process? I do not think so. But talking about opposing or stopping nature is the direct opposite of the usual rhetoric one hears, which is often in the form of: "Humans are terrible and are driving these poor creatures extinct and messing up the environment, we are not paying respects to Mother Nature!"

Meanwhile "Mother Nature" is OK with flooding the entire atmosphere with a completely different gas and making it unlivable for anything that used to be there before.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#84

Post by dragonwriter »

vblord wrote: post #82
_Adam wrote: post #51

I find it sad to think that one day we will refer to the "Tusked Elephant" the same we way we now refer to the "Sabre-Toothed Tiger". Evolution may have found a way to survive humanity in this case, but it's reason for needing to do so is absolutely stupid.

Is this considered evolution? Maybe more like natural selection?

Natural selection is the mechanism, evolution is the result.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#85

Post by rbanffy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #84
vblord wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this considered evolution? Maybe more like natural selection?

Natural selection is the mechanism, evolution is the result.

Selection, natural or artificial. Evolution doesn't care.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#87

Post by mamon »

adamnemecek wrote: post #56
wtbob wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elephants take at least 20 years to start growing tusks but the 'big tuskers' are ~50 years old. Trees also take decades to grow, and yet tree farms are a viable economy. > Also, you won't be able to produce ivory cheaper than a poacher who doesn't have to invest into the elephant. So the elephant rancher shoots the poacher. That's what we used to do when cattle rustling was a thing, and it worked pretty well. > Al…

> Trees also take decades to grow, and yet tree farms are a viable economy. How much does it cost to grow a tree? It costs quite a bit to raise an elephant. > So the elephant rancher shoots the poacher. That's what we used to do when cattle rustling was a thing, and it worked pretty well. You are implying that in your plan there would be no elephants in the wild right? Also can you tell me a bit about your knowledge…

>> You are implying that in your plan there would be no elephants in the wild right?

No, I think the idea is that once we have elephant breeded on ranches then the ivory becomes cheap and easily available thus making poaching business not profitable anymore, making wild elephants safe.

Of course the problem with that approach is that raising an elephant is not cheap, so ivory from domesticated elephants won't be that much cheaper. Unless you can make enough money on elephant's meat, which is also unlikely, since, as someone in this thread noticed, growing nice pair of tusks takes 50 years, and meat of old animals tend to taste much worse than that from younger ones.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#88

Post by 0xfeba »

projektir wrote: post #21
ChristianGeek wrote: post #5

This is the saddest example of "natural" selection I've heard of.

Then I would say you haven't heard much. Natural selection is a horrific process whether or not humans are involved in it. By definition it implies the death and suffering of countless creatures so that a few are selected. This is nothing. We're concerned about it because we like elephants, but as far as nature is concerned, there's nothing wrong with killing off ~75% of all species once in a blue moon. [1] 1. https:…

Natural selection isn't "horrific", nature is.

Species who are "winning" at natural selection can also die in cruel circumstances. They just have to reproduce first.

Some Octupi guard their eggs until they hatch, and at the same time dying of starvation. Other species of insects have the young eat their parent(s) after being hatched.

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#89

Post by caub »

dvirsky wrote: post #77
caub wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only females lose them though

I wonder if it's possible to find even a rare mutation of a tusk-less male and manipulate things somehow. Or perhaps even if we do, for males tusks are really too much of a necessity for this to happen.

the article explains that males need them to fight

Re: Elephants without tusks are a response to the selective pressure of poaching

#90

Post by dvirsky »

caub wrote: post #89
dvirsky wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if it's possible to find even a rare mutation of a tusk-less male and manipulate things somehow. Or perhaps even if we do, for males tusks are really too much of a necessity for this to happen.

the article explains that males need them to fight

yeah but what if it's this or being hunted?
Post reply on HN