RE: Scientists Infect Frogs with Deadly Disease to Save Them
Okay, that's not a bad point. You are right, the disease is natural in origin and there are frog species that do have a resistance to it. But here is the problem: we have already interfered. Humans have facilitated the spread of Bd through accidental and purposeful transportation of amphibians carrying the fungus. It is now present on every continent amphibians live on, THANKS TO US. So This is less about fixing a natural problem and more about addressing our own mistakes. Bd is infecting new species that have no means of coping with it and the fungus is spreading quickly.
The other problem is the sheer quantity of animals being lost. To lose an entire species sucks, but guess what? It happens, and it is natural; species have been arising and going extinct for millions of years. But this single fungus affects a third of all amphibian life on Earth (never mind all the other threats amphibians face). If you lose 1/3 of an entire group of animals, you are looking at a far more serious loss that could easily result in an environmental collapse (predator/prey relationships, keystone species, etc).
There are many diseases out there among animals, and we don't do anything to combat the vast majority of them. But we turned the fungus into the far-reaching pandemic it has become, so I believe we have an obligation to undo the damage WE inflicted.
I do agree with you but I can't help but think about the Butterfly Affect. And then my mind turns to the Bubonic Plague and the 25-50% loss in human population. And while we may have lost hereditary lines, the species still survived. Maybe that's apples and oranges, but I never claimed to have a normal brain. LOL Nature is a fantastical thing, isn't it?
It definitely is! And I think you're making some good points here: As much as I (and I'm sure most people) don't enjoy seeing animals suffer, we have to realize that disease is a natural and NECESSARY part of life to control populations. I think under many circumstances, it would be unwise to eradicate diseases as that would ultimately have a negative effect on the population.
The problem with chytrid is it symbolizes a new and growing problem: diseases are being spread far faster, and over a greater range than they would naturally occur. Nature is all about balance, and of course diseases are part of that balance. It's certainly not uncommon for that balance to shift and nature is capable of correcting for this over time. The big problem is that today, people are putting an unspeakably large amount of pressure on the ecosystem, and we have tipped that balance in unfavorable directions. With time, I'm sure nature COULD overcome these as well, but the rate at which we damage the ecosystem and put pressure on it, I don't think it's going to recover on its own (my personal opinion).
The butterfly effect is already in motion; we are the cause of the incredible spread of chytrid. And you're right, no matter what we do, it's going to have consequences. The hope here is to at least minimize the consequences of the actions we have already taken (yes, I'm aware that will only continue the effect, but it may also be a step forward in helping nature re-achieve its balance).
The Bubonic Plague argument is tricky. Remember, only humans were affected by this; had we been lost, the ecosystem would more than likely have barely been affected. But here we are talking about a huge percentage of ALL amphibian species (imagine if the plague had afflicted all the world's mammals). It's also difficult to compare human diseases to amphibians based on our own response. Even with our limited knowledge of diseases, we implemented quarantine procedures that likely had some effect on the spread of the plague. Amphibians do not have this same experience, and are, in general, completely ill prepared to deal with the mess we unleashed on them.