Syncaris pasadenae

[Xerographica]

There are many extinct animals that gets lots of attention... dinosaurs, dodo birds, woolly mammoths, tasmanian tigers and so on. However, most extinct animals don't get any attention. Take, for example, Syncaris pasadenae. Have you ever heard of it? I'm guessing that most of you haven't. It's an extinct species of freshwater shrimp that used to live in Southern California. The Rose Bowl was built on the shrimp's habitat. Maybe the Rose Bowl isn't entirely responsible for the shrimp's extinction, but it probably put the last nail in its tiny coffin.

You might be wondering why this shrimp, out of all the extinct species, deserves your attention. I can't necessarily say that it's objectively more deserving of your attention than any of the other neglected extinct species. For me the issue is more subjective. So it's not so easy to put into words.

First, when the shrimp was still alive, I don't know if anybody stood up for it. I don't know if even one person showed up to protest the construction of the Rose Bowl. Then, when the Rose Bowl was built, every game there has consisted of dozens of big football players trampling on the shrimps' tiny tombstones. The shrimp are the epitome of the downtrodden.

Was their extinction really worth it to watch a lousy game? How many people who purchase a ticket even know its true cost? I doubt if its even one person in a million.

While I do have the urge to protest a Rose Bowl game in the name of all the little lives that were lost, I'm loathe to make a spectacle of myself. Well, at least in real life. So from the comfort and safety of my own home, I do the next best thing.... create this thread.

Please use this thread to help give Syncaris pasadenae the attention that it should have received when it was still alive. Let us know whether you would have chosen the Rose Bowl or the shrimp. Which is more important to you? Does it matter? From my perspective, the big moral of the story is the necessity of people having the freedom to support the important things that others have overlooked.

Of course you're welcome to make fun of the shrimp and joke about their demise. But this is certainly better than you not even knowing that they existed.

[Arumbia67]

They're just shrimp. So what? Over 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. Why is this one special?

[Infected Mushroom]

My hatred for organised sports knows no bounds. Especially football.

So I support the shrimps on this one. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Bombadil]

Those shrimp are the Pandas of the the Caridea species, they wouldn't mate and were totally unsuited for the environment of stadium construction. I don't know why we'd waste money on them.

[Ostroeuropa]

There certainly should have been attempts to capture and raise at least some in captivity in zoos and such.
Merely exterminating them was wrong.

[The Blaatschapen]

The stadium should get the shrimp as its mascot.

[Topoliani]

The stadium should get the shrimp as its mascot.

This

[Dumb Ideologies]

They didn't breed quickly enough, they're weren't cute, they're weren't tasty, and they weren't particularly important to the ecosystem.

Even if I don't care much about it, sportsball at least provides some kind of entertainment and public good so the decision to build was the right one. Well done.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

They could have built the Rose bowl anywhere else yet they chose to kill the shrimp.

Dick move.

There certainly should have been attempts to capture and raise at least some in captivity in zoos and such.
Merely exterminating them was wrong.

^also this

That would have been a fair comprise.

[Digital Planets]

Who would win, a species of shrimp or some buildy bois?

[Aillyria]

Dammit, just when I thought I couldn't hate sports more.......


Poor babies!!!

[Frenequesta]

The Endangered Species Act was several decades too late.

I would have not been surprised if no one gave a damn about the shrimp when they built the stadium. Conservation efforts were limited to the national parks and a few piecemeal statutes protecting particular species, and especially in the Roaring ‘20s, development was seen as a near-unqualified symbol of human progress.

They're just shrimp. So what? Over 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. Why is this one special?

There’s a real ethical problem when a species is threatened by our own hands so much that it is not given enough time to adapt to a new environment.

They didn't breed quickly enough, they're weren't cute, they're weren't tasty, and they weren't particularly important to the ecosystem.

How do you know that? Ecology wasn’t the most popular science in the 1920s.

[Valgora]

I have nothing against the Rose Bowl or organized sports for that matter.
I do feel like building the stadium there was a bad idea; however, one could argue that they didn't know about this freshwater shrimp, while not a good excuse we should remember that hindsight is 20/20.

I don't think the building of the stadium is what caused the extinction of Syncaris pasadenae, if they were stuck to one area that was the size of a football field, then they were fucked anyways and the stadium was just the final nails in the coffin.

Protesting the Rose Bowl doesn't make any sense because this species is already gone, there's no going back. The best thing to do would be to use this to show why we need to be more careful.

[The Holy Therns]

Has the local ecosystem suffered as a result of the lack of this shrimp? If not, they can't have been particularly important. It's sad, but y'know, not important.

[Thermodolia]

They're just shrimp. So what? Over 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. Why is this one special?

^This. If they couldn't adapt then they deserved it

[Frenequesta]

I have nothing against the Rose Bowl or organized sports for that matter.
I do feel like building the stadium there was a bad idea; however, one could argue that they didn't know about this freshwater shrimp, while not a good excuse we should remember that hindsight is 20/20.

They absolutely did know about it.

I don't think the building of the stadium is what caused the extinction of Syncaris pasadenae, if they were stuck to one area that was the size of a football field, then they were fucked anyways and the stadium was just the final nails in the coffin.

Accelerating extinction isn’t a proximate cause of extinction? If I purposely killed a person with an inoperable, quickly spreading cancer with a blow to the head, I would still be guilty of murder even if the person was going to die anyway.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Has the local ecosystem suffered as a result of the lack of this shrimp? If not, they can't have been particularly important. It's sad, but y'know, not important.

In the end it wasn't an asteroid, climate change, evil AI or nuclear apocalypse that did the Earth in, it was the inexorable decline to the biosphere started by shrimpy cessation.

[Thermodolia]

They could have built the Rose bowl anywhere else yet they chose to kill the shrimp.

Dick move.

There certainly should have been attempts to capture and raise at least some in captivity in zoos and such.
Merely exterminating them was wrong.

^also this

That would have been a fair comprise.

Who cares? You didn't care till you found out today. We can't just make everything some nature reserve because some nearly extinct animal lives there

[Thermodolia]

Has the local ecosystem suffered as a result of the lack of this shrimp? If not, they can't have been particularly important. It's sad, but y'know, not important.

There hasn't been any noticeable effects

[The Holy Therns]

Has the local ecosystem suffered as a result of the lack of this shrimp? If not, they can't have been particularly important. It's sad, but y'know, not important.

There hasn't been any noticeable effects

There we go then.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The Endangered Species Act was several decades too late.

I would have not been surprised if no one gave a damn about the shrimp when they built the stadium. Conservation efforts were limited to the national parks and a few piecemeal statutes protecting particular species, and especially in the Roaring ‘20s, development was seen as a near-unqualified symbol of human progress.

They're just shrimp. So what? Over 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. Why is this one special?

There’s a real ethical problem when a species is threatened by our own hands so much that it is not given enough time to adapt to a new environment.

They didn't breed quickly enough, they're weren't cute, they're weren't tasty, and they weren't particularly important to the ecosystem.

How do you know that? Ecology wasn’t the most popular science in the 1920s.

By all means present your evidence against the null hypothesis. We can then reconsider the seriousness with which we are approaching the issue.

[Valgora]

I have nothing against the Rose Bowl or organized sports for that matter.
I do feel like building the stadium there was a bad idea; however, one could argue that they didn't know about this freshwater shrimp, while not a good excuse we should remember that hindsight is 20/20.

They absolutely did know about it.

I don't think the building of the stadium is what caused the extinction of Syncaris pasadenae, if they were stuck to one area that was the size of a football field, then they were fucked anyways and the stadium was just the final nails in the coffin.

Accelerating extinction isn’t a proximate cause of extinction? If I purposely killed a person with an inoperable, quickly spreading cancer with a blow to the head, I would still be guilty of murder even if the person was going to die anyway.

If you could quote parts of that scientific paper that prove your point that they did know building the stadium was going to kill off the last population of Syncaris pasadenae, that would be helpful.

I couldn't find anything that proved they knew the area was the last area where they lived.
I also checked, and the stadium was built in 1921.

[Frenequesta]

If you could quote parts of that scientific paper that prove your point that they did know building the stadium was going to kill off the last population of Syncaris pasadenae, that would be helpful.

I couldn't find anything that proved they knew the area was the last area where they lived.
I also checked, and the stadium was built in 1921.

I’m sorry, I thought you meant “knew about the shrimp in general.”

By all means present your evidence against the null hypothesis. We can then reconsider the seriousness with which we are approaching the issue.

I submit that the null hypothesis is not appropriate here. One of the premises behind the passage of Endangered Species Act is that every species is of some importance to the ecosystem, and that further, we cannot even know their importance to the ecosystem without a chance to study them. We don’t list species as endangered, and therefore worthy of protection, depending on their contribution to the ecosystem.

For this shrimp in particular, there weren’t much contemporary studies of its importance to the ecosystem because it got paved over at a time when environmental consciousness wasn’t really a thing. So what use is there in just asserting there wasn’t ecological importance?

[Kanarienvogel]

All though there is no point in arguing about what has already been done , it is a shame that an entire species had to be wiped away simply for the purpose of a sports stadium that could have literally been built anywhere else. I would pick the survival of an entire species over a place where a bunch of men tackle each other and pass a pigskin.

[Xerographica]

The Endangered Species Act was several decades too late.

I would have not been surprised if no one gave a damn about the shrimp when they built the stadium. Conservation efforts were limited to the national parks and a few piecemeal statutes protecting particular species, and especially in the Roaring ‘20s, development was seen as a near-unqualified symbol of human progress.

Have you heard of the snail darter controversy? In that case at least there was some controversy.

We can imagine it like tug-of-war. The snail darters were on one side of the rope and humans were on the other side. It wouldn't have been much of a contest, except for the fact that there were also some humans pulling for the snail darters.

In the case of the shrimp I don't think that any humans were pulling on their side of the rope. But I'm sure that at least some humans would have pulled for the shrimp. The problem is that these people didn't even know that the shrimp existed.

Rule #1: In order to pull for something you have to know that it exists.

My favorite example are the bees. Before the bees discover a flower patch they obviously don't know that it exists. So they can't pull for it. The first bee who discovers the flower patch automatically and naturally estimates its importance. When she returns to the hive she dances to inform the other bees that the flower patch exists. But just because the flower patch exists doesn't necessarily guarantee that it's worth pulling for.

Rule #2: In order to pull for something, you need to know if it’s worth pulling for.

The bee who discovered the flower patch conveys her estimate of its importance by dancing/longer harder. She essentially says, "Here's how hard I'm willing to pull for the flower patch... " The harder that she's personally willing to pull for it, the more likely that the onlooking bees will decide it's worth it to visit the patch for themselves. If they do so, then they estimate the patch's importance and return to the hive and submit their own report... "Here's how hard I'm willing to pull for the flower patch..." The result of this system is that the hive pulls optimally hard for each and every flower patch that it knows about.

The Rose Bowl started off as an idea that somebody was willing to pull for. The time and effort he invested in his idea said, "Here's how hard I'm willing to pull for the Rose Bowl... " Others decided it was worth it to learn about his idea, and many of them decided that it was worth pulling for. So they then informed others, "Here's how hard I'm willing to pull for the Rose Bowl..." Eventually enough people pulled hard enough for the Rose Bowl to be built. The problem is that the shrimp supporters were not pulling on the other side.

The Endangered Species Act provides some protection but it really doesn't result in society pulling optimally hard for each and every species it knows about. While it did help create a controversy for the snail darter here in the US, at the same time around the world there were countless acres of rain forest being bulldozed. CITES probably hurts more than it helps. Here are some passages from the book Orchids and their Conservation by Harold Koopowitz...

The chance that [CITES] listing would even help in their rescue from extinction is uncertain and the lists become difficult to regulate if they become too cumbersome. Many of the species referred to here are not threatened by trade but by land conversion and deforestation. In addition, other species will become extinct without our ever being aware that they were threatened, while others will become extinct without us even being aware of their existence. One can predict that, as the ineffectiveness of CITES to save species becomes ever more widely appreciated, the reluctance to support the convention will become more evident.

Consider another scenario. You are a professor at a major university and one of your doctoral students calls from Costa Rica. He has picked up some orchid plants from broken branches on the forest floor. The usual fate of orchids that fall is premature death. This is a young man who is intensely committed to conservation and hates to see anything die. You have to tell him to abandon the plants because it would be too difficult for him to get CITES papers.

The usual pattern, however, is more like that of Zambia where it is legal to turn a branch bearing live orchids into charcoal but it is illegal to take the orchids off the branch to export before burning the wood.

Non-profits like the Orchid Conservation Alliance (OCA) pull as hard as they can by buying as much rain forest as they can. The fundamental problem is that the OCA isn't going to pull optimally hard. This is simply because conservation is a public good, which means that it's subject to the free-rider problem. The amount of money that people voluntarily contribute to conservation will be a lot less than their true estimate of its importance. This is the equivalent of a bee dancing a lot less harder/longer than her true estimate of a flower patch's importance.

If you're interested, this thread that I created last year has some relevant info on the topic of conservation.