Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Africa's Great Apes in Peril 20

MiTEG writes "Scientific American is reporting that the number of great apes of western Africa declined by 56% between 1980 and 2002. The decrease is larger than previous estimates because it was found that deforestation is not the only substantial cause of population reduction. Other significant causes of death are poachers and the Ebola virus."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Africa's Great Apes in Peril

Comments Filter:
  • by KDan ( 90353 )
    There goes the Welsh's safety net!!! What will they do when the sheep run out?

    Daniel
  • I normally read a story before commenting, but in this case, I'll make an exception, since the link to the article is:

    http://slashdot.org/ahref=

    What is this actually referring to?
  • when I read the title was "I wonder what Peril tastes like, and how much Great Ape meat is?"

    Sick, I know. I blame it on "spring forward" plus the annual federal government sloppy seconds from their year-long ass-raping...
  • by infernalC ( 51228 ) <(moc.elgoog) (ta) (nollem.wehttam)> on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:58AM (#5678916) Homepage Journal
    The story at Scientific American [scientificamerican.com] can be reached from this link.
  • out with old; in with the new
  • They are the closest thing to the human race on earth that we've got in terms of relative species. And what's more, they are a relatively INNOCENT species, since they are generally non-predatorial as species go (Unlike, say, the jaguar or the wolf, both of whom take up more of the precious attention of out ecologically minded society- what little precious attention that there is.)

    Without them, it can be argued that we are losing a valuable part of our environment. But Even at the most base, survivalistic level, you need them to live. why? because the diseases that can wipe these animals out are the diseases that can wipe us out. All ethical considerations of conservation and the morality of medical testing aside, we need creatures running around with something close to our DNA. And to have them wiped out by human acts in addition to general disease spread is unconscionable, and we need to be greeting this news with more interest and concern than apathy. THey die, we die, and that goes for each of the other thousands of endangered species as well. Now, before you give that snide response of, well, we can't save them all... Consider Schindler's list. Maybe we can't save them all. But we better be trying. And this is one where we really can save ONE species. Oke, i'll climb down off my soapbox, but not until i offer you this. [adoption.co.uk] More later as i gather more links.

    • But Even at the most base, survivalistic level, you need them to live. why? because the diseases that can wipe these animals out are the diseases that can wipe us out. All ethical considerations of conservation and the morality of medical testing aside, we need creatures running around with something close to our DNA

      I'm not in favor of the extinction of any animals, but I have to say that your argument just doesn't make sense. If there were no more apes or monkeys, then their natural diseases would not be

  • Homo Sapiens, that is.
    As proof, just read most of the above messages. Our planetary siblings are about to be wiped out (due primarily to our own greed) and the idiots come out of the woodwork to make jokes about it. The weakness of your education in biology is showing when you make light of a critical issue like this. You betta' recognize. All of life is woven together. Start plucking out the threads and pretty soon it falls apart. Or, if you've ever played the game called "Don't Break the Ice" where you kn
  • How much risk is there from poachers infected with Ebola?

    *blank stare*

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...