Tiny animals stop Australian mine (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

The discovery of tiny, cave-dwelling animals measuring just 4mm in length has halted plans to develop a $10bn (£5bn) mine in Western Australia.

Environmental protection officials rejected the iron ore mine proposal from mining giant Rio Tinto when 11 species of troglobite were discovered.

The troglobites are tiny cave-dwelling creatures which resemble spiders.

They feed on organic matter deep underground and will die if exposed to ultraviolet light outside their caves.

The chairman of Western Australia's Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Wally Cox, said the proposed mine would cause the extinction of at least five of the newly-discovered species.


***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6508103.stm

[TheMadMonk]

1. I'm not sure I like the way this is going.

the scenario being "prevented" here is one that has certainly played out numerous times before. Odds are good that any isolated cave system will have it's own set of unique species. It's a fact of life and evolution. Any isolated ecosystem will evolve its own unique mix of fauna, some of which may well be unique species. It's an inherent artifact of evolutionary processes.

So with this as precedent, essentially all decent sized system of caverns are now off limits to any form of (destructive) development.

What next? Waterholes around artesian bores?

Fair enough to knock a development on the head (or require significant modifications) to save a once ubiquitous species now on the brink. However, to do the same because an aphid's 3rd cousin got lost in the dark and evolved to the conditions seems a little ridiculous.

[Nihil]

2. Sounds pretty good to me!

> So with this as precedent, essentially all decent sized system of caverns
> are now off limits to any form of (destructive) development.

And so it should be. It is about time that the rapacious habits of greedy
humans start to be restrained, little by little.

> It's a fact of life and evolution.

Whilst that's true enough in the grand scheme of things, there is little
that is "natural" about species being killed off as a side-effect of mining.

> However, to do the same because an aphid's 3rd cousin got lost in the
> dark and evolved to the conditions seems a little ridiculous.

What is more ridiculous: to protect something that illustrates the wonder
of evolution or to mindlessly propagate consumerism at all costs?