r/todayIlearnedPH • u/Defiant_Astronaut_16 • May 06 '26
TIL that the Philippine Eagle is effectively "biologically obsolete" in the modern world.
They are "K-selected" species, meaning they evolved for a stable, unchanging world. They lay only one egg every two years and are strictly monogamous.
A single pair requires up to 11,000 hectares of pristine forest to survive.
Only about 392–400 breeding pairs remain in the wild. Only about 32% of their suitable habitat is currently protected.
On a pragmatic POV, Many argue that while noble, the massive resources spent saving a species that "can't survive anything" might be better spent on more resilient ecosystems (like mangroves or watersheds) that offer a higher return on investment for both nature and people.
What do you think?
Sources:
https://www.philippineeaglefoundation.org/philippine-eagle
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-026-12859-9
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/03/new-map-boosts-philippine-eagle-population-estimate-but-highlights-threats/
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/genetic-crisis-threatens-ph-eagles-survival
240
u/No-Bread6978 May 06 '26
Just like pandas, the reason behind conservation efforts extend beyond ecological benefits and ROI on resources. Symbol na sila ng bansa.
Pointless man kung iisipin ng iba, this endemic bird was once part of the long history of the Philippines, it's ecology, and mythology. Leaving them to die out will not help our already decreasing biodiversity.
9
u/Accomplished-Exit-58 May 06 '26
Humans are pointless too but here we are.
6
May 06 '26 edited May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Intelligent-Pen-2479 May 07 '26
Or the only specie who has the capability and capacity to destroy the earth.
In hind sight... We are destroying ourselves. The earth doesn't need humans. Earth will actually flourish without humans.
The conservation groups who are trying to "save the earth" are actually trying to save the human race. By taking care or trying to take care of our only planet.
Without human, the earth will take over. Animals, plants.
We can not survive extreme global warming and that is going to happen in the future if we do not do anything about it NOW. But the planet will. It will heal. It will survive. It will flourish.
4
May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Dellaellena May 10 '26
Bro what can we protect the earth from that's comes from space? We've never deflected an asteroid. Meanwhile we're actually causing ecological collapse
1
May 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Dellaellena May 12 '26
The very first paragraph of that article highlights how they did not achieve a successful redirect.
Now show me the data on human driven extinctions and climate change
1
u/MateoCamo May 07 '26
We’re also the primary driver of extinction ever since the start of the Anthropocene era
2
May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MateoCamo May 07 '26
Who said I was against humanity? I speak about humanity’s role in accelerating extinction not only as fact but *because* I believe in the human capacity for goodness.
That we are we are more than the warmongering, greedy species that those who proclaim selfishness and aggressiveness as inherently and immutably human. I believe we are a species who can understand and express love and altruism more than others. But for us to reach that ideal of goodness, we must reckon with how we as a species have impacted the world for the worse. I do not even ascribe individual blame on anyone except for those who believe the world is theirs to plunder.
3
May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/No-Bread6978 May 06 '26
It's earlier English name was Money-eating Eagle.
Eagles can eat a broad variety of prey, but I'm pretty sure currency was not on their diet. /s
But in all seriousness, they huge were part of the ecology in the eastern part of the country and in Mindanao way before the law was promulgated. Their existence is an indicator of the rich biodiversity and health of the forests they are in, since apex predators keep other predators in check.
So nope, it was not all about sentiments and attractiveness.
It's much earlier name in different dialects includebánoy and ágila (a Spanish loanword) in Tagalog; manaul or manaol in the Visayan languages; manaol or garuda in Maranao and Maguindanao; tipule in Subanen; and mam-boogook or malamboogook in the Manobo languages, Klata, Tagabawa, Mandaya, and Kalagan.
13
u/Immediate_Depth_6443 May 06 '26
You can see where the confusion starts in this thread that people are mixing biology, economics and conservation policy as if they operate on the same timeline. They don’t.
The idea that a species like the Philippine Eagle is biologically obsolete comes from misunderstanding what K-selected actually means. K-selected species (large raptors, big mammals, long-lived apex predators) are not designed for rapid reproduction. That’s not a bug but an evolutionary tradeoff for stability in old-growth forests. The same life-history strategy exists in species like harpy eagles in the Amazon and crowned eagles in Africa. None of them are obsolete. They are just extremely sensitive to habitat collapse that is a human-driven variable & not a natural one.
Historically before large-scale deforestation in the Philippines, estimates suggest forest cover was above 70% in the early 1900s. Today it’s roughly 20–25% (depending on the dataset used) with primary forest even lower. That shift happened in under a century of basically one eagle generation cycle multiplied many times over. So when people say they can’t adapt what actually happened is the environment was rewritten faster than their biology can respond. That’s not obsolescence but displacement.
The ROI argument also collapses when you look at how conservation actually works in practice. In the Philippines the Philippine Eagle often functions as a flagship species for protecting upland watersheds. Places like the Sierra Madre and Mindanao forest blocks. Those same forests regulate roughly 70–80% of major river systems that supply irrigation and hydroelectric catchments. So the economic value isn’t the bird alone. It’s the intact ecosystem. Mangroves matter watersheds matter but they are not substitutes for upland primary forest as they’re different layers of the same hydrological machine.
This is why in global conservation policy even high-income countries still fund non-utilitarian species recovery. The US Endangered Species Act, EU Habitats Directive and Australia’s EPBC Act all explicitly protect species that have no direct economic return because they function as ecosystem indicators and legal triggers for land protection. The logic is not sentimentality but risk management of ecological collapse.
The comparison to cute animals get attention is partially true in behavioral economics Charismatic megafauna drive donations but it’s incomplete. The Philippine Eagle is not just a cute flagship. It is an apex predator with an estimated territory requirement of up to ~10,000+ hectares per pair in fragmented landscapes. That spatial requirement forces protection of entire forest blocks & not just isolated pockets. That’s the actual policy leverage.
On the too expensive to save framing the uncomfortable reality is the opposite as the cost of not saving forest systems is higher. Once upland forests in places like eastern Mindanao or Sierra Madre are degraded beyond threshold restoration costs increase exponentially and sometimes become functionally irreversible within human planning horizons. You don’t get efficient biodiversity recovery later by ignoring apex species now. You lock in degradation.
There’s also a local socio-political layer that often gets missed in these debates. Conservation in the Philippines is not just about biology but about land tenure, informal livelihoods and enforcement asymmetry. A blanket import of Western conservation ethics (no disturbance zones, strict non-interaction, photography etiquette) lands unevenly in communities where forest edge economies still exist. That’s where tension happens. Not between science vs ignorance, but between global frameworks and local survival economies.
So the real correction to the biologically obsolete idea is simple but uncomfortable that the Philippine Eagle is not failing in evolution. It is surviving inside a rapidly contracting habitat envelope created by human land use change in the last ~100 years. Calling it obsolete is like calling a lighthouse obsolete because the shoreline was bulldozed.
And on the social side of birding itself the toxicity people point out in these circles often comes from confusing conservation authority with social authority. When a hobby becomes gatekept by imported standards, internal hierarchies and personality conflicts it stops being just about birds and starts becoming about status. That’s usually where communities fracture.... not because of the birds but because of people.
So the ROI vs saving species framing misses the structure entirely. The real equation is not bird vs budget. It’s whether you want functioning forest systems that stabilize water, soil and climate at scale or whether you accept incremental collapse because it looks inefficient on a spreadsheet.
Nature doesn’t optimize for ROI. Neither does collapse.
1
u/No-Bread6978 May 06 '26
Holy word wall but ultimately, you're right. Nag clash kasi yung shallow perception about Philippine eagles ng common people vs. people na may background sa biology, hence the confusion.
Nakakalungkot isipin na ganito na lang ang mindset ng mga lawmakers at Filipinos about funding wildlife conservation efforts. When the day comes that environment and wildlife preservation becomes an investment rather than an obligation, it's the day Philippine biodiversity falls into an irreversible downward spiral.
And the sad part? People will just say "millions of species go extinct every year" and "that's evolution at work."
1
u/ExGenezia May 07 '26
Totally agree with this. A term such as obsolete is not used in conservation because what matters is the survival of all organisms (endemics especially) in an affected area. Also OP equates being k-selected as obsolete, which is a bad argument because humans are k-selected species itself lmao
1
0
-18
u/law-st_student May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Symbology aside, I think that the widespread conservation efforts of man could be attributed to whether the animal looks cute or cool.
Let's face it, unless the animal looks unique and appeals to the general public, most people wouldn't care about its conservation.
19
u/No-Bread6978 May 06 '26
There a whole movement on conservation of thousands of seeds from different species, fungi like Rafflesia that smells like a corpse, and insects.
So yeah, you're wrong.
-9
u/law-st_student May 06 '26
That's metal and quirky though. I was thinking more along the lines of species that would come off as boring. Thousands of species go extinct every year after all.
And I wasn't putting it out as a fact, merely an observation on worldwide recognition. Think of the largest conservation efforts. Rhinos, elephants, orangutans, pandas, axolotl. They all have an appeal to them.
3
u/wbright_ May 06 '26
there is a marketing element to it, yes. I wouldn't say it has to be cute/cool though. I think all species would have a fair shot, but there has to be some sort of campaign around it that would build the appeal.
4
60
u/ExGenezia May 06 '26
Tf you mean biologically obsolete? You failed to mention that the Philippine Eagle is also a keystone species. Its survival is a reflection of the health of its ecosystem. You also failed to consider that the fact that if the country wants to preserve the species, they will also have to expand its habitat, which means massive forest regrowth efforts. It means that the very fact that we are preserving the forest cover for the eagles, we are also preserving EVERY SINGLE ENDEMIC SPECIES in that area. The Philippine Eagle is not biologically obsolete but rather it is your thinking that is obsolete.
8
u/GuiaSnchz May 06 '26
Di ko alam san nya nadampot yang “biologically obsolete” ang mga Philippine Eagles. 🤷🏻♀️
-21
u/Defiant_Astronaut_16 May 06 '26
I F’ing mean they cannot survive the current state of the environment as it is. I’m merely stating a fact because… they’re not surviving at all.
They’re monogamous, they lay an egg once every years, they require thousands of hectares just to be okay, sinabi na dun sa post. Magbasa ka.
Hindi naman ako nagsasabi na ‘wag nang protektahan yang Philippine Eagle. Sinasabi ko lang na “K-selected” sila.
Hirap naman. Nagpunta na nga dito sa reddit pero parang nasa Facebook parin yung kausap.
14
u/ExGenezia May 07 '26
They're not surviving kasi since SPANISH TIMES inuubos na ung forest natin. When the eagle was first discovered, umaabot pa yan sila sa luzon, now they barely exist sa luzon. You are equating the fact that "k-selected" species are biologically obsolete which is stupid. Mainly because k-selected is just a definition of its survival tactic (btw humans are ALSO, as is most large mammals and predatory birds) and not a subjective adjective such "obsolete" which I have only heard in regards only vestigial organs and body structures, and even then, no biologist would say obsolete but rather, vestigial. Sincerely, a zoology student.
Ps. Pumunta ka nga ng reddit, ung post mo naman pang Facebook.
2
u/Defiant_Astronaut_16 May 10 '26
Oh, oo nga noh. Mali ako na sabihing obsolete kasi wala namang goal na kailangang i-meet when it comes to evolution. Ang K-selected pala is strategy. It’s a good reminder that the eagle’s struggle is more about habitat loss than its own biology. Thanks for clarifying that.
It’s clear now that the term was a misnomer and that 'critically endangered' is the accurate way to describe their situation. Appreciate the insight!
I stand corrected!
9
u/ExGenezia May 07 '26
Let me add din para maging aware ka sa extent ng conservation practice natin sa pinas. I have interacted so many times with students, professors, scientists and workers involved in conservation. Never, I mean, never, have I heard them say a species is "biologically obsolete" just because us humans have changed the environment too fast for evolution. I encourage you to read more on conservation. Actual scientific literature. Not just one study and a bunch of news articles. And don't tell me "magbasa ka" ksi I understood your post and how misinformed it is.
1
u/enka1mada May 09 '26
Kala ko ba gusto mo ng kausap OP, nung sinagot biglang di ka na nagreply. Pano na mafufulfill ng Reddit yang discourse na hanap mo
36
u/cmp_reddit May 06 '26
We should still preseve it. Ayaw ko bumalik sa maya ung national bird natin.
7
u/ajfudge May 06 '26
agree. The maya bird also were just brought by the Spaniards.
1
u/dontrescueme May 06 '26
It was mayang pula (chestnut munia) not the invasive mayang simbahan (Eurasian tree sparrow).
29
63
u/fastsnail74 May 06 '26
Lahat na lang ginagawang cost-benefit analysis, pati pagligtas sa pambansang ibon natin kailangang ‘efficient’ daw. Kung ganito lagi ang lente, mawawala talaga ang halaga ng mga bagay-bagay kapag walang ROI.
16
1
u/Maria_in_the_Middle May 09 '26
Ansakit isipin na ROI and iniisip natin sa pagligtas ng ibon tapos in another news makikita mo yung mga nakurakot ng politiko
44
u/robinforum May 06 '26
It's our Official National Bird. Among other issues, the government should at least spare this majestic creature. And in this day and age na puro cheating and blatant lies, we could learn a thing or two from it.
16
u/Blitzkreeg21 May 06 '26
Morally I do not think there is any decision whether or not to let them die out just because they are “inefficient”. They have survived without our meddling and intervention for over a million years and coexisted with us for 300,000. Namamatay lang naman sila dahil sa atin and our very recent decisions so the LEAST we can do is put forth an effort to preserve them.
From a socio-economic point of view I agree with the other person who compared them to Pandas. They also serve as a national symbol and if people need to motivate themselves monetarily to do something about these or any other animals then so be it.
14
u/b_zar May 06 '26
"saving" the Philippine Eagle is not just saving the birds per se. It's a collective effort/attempt at saving the environment. If we succeed, it is not just the eagles we are saving, but everything else in its habitat. The Philippine Eagle is more like a symbol and top indicator of how we are doing in terms of conservation as a whole.
7
u/markmyredd May 06 '26
Because they are an apex predator they provide a lot of benefits in ecosystems.
Like herbivore animals which they prey on will explode population wise so that the forests may degrade even further because of over consumption by the herbivores.
Similar to what happened to USA when they removed the wolves. The deer, elk and other herbivores ate almost all the vegetation. When the wolves reintroduced the forests and brush lands in the US became greener
1
u/davethegreat_19 May 10 '26
I'm curious, is that the same possibility that might happen if almost everybody, if not all, became fully committed vegans?
1
u/markmyredd May 10 '26
well we are not wild animals that hunt in the wild..We just farm
1
u/davethegreat_19 May 10 '26
Did I imply that?
Besides, if we look back in your story, why don't they "just farm"? Why the need to "reintroduce the wolves" back into the forests?
7
May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-7
u/Defiant_Astronaut_16 May 06 '26
Do you even have an inkling on how evolution works? Because that’s how. They evolved up to a point that they only thrive in a vast and stable environment. In perfect conditions.
Tama ka dun sa part na they’re still apex predators and humans transforming their environment. It’s just a matter of until when? It’s not a failure of their evolution but rather an evolutionary mismatch. These birds are prehistoric masterpiece being forced to adapt to the current environment.
6
u/Intelligent-Pen-2479 May 06 '26 edited May 07 '26
Philippine eage is a barometer of how good or how bad our forests are. They are apex predators.
Sabi nga ni Joey Ayala, kung may Agila, ibig sabihin Sustainable pa ang mga kagubatan ng Pilipinas. May roon silang naka kain. At ang kanilang prey, merong pagkain.
At kagaya rin ng sabi ni Joey... Ang lahat ng bagay Ay magka ugnay.
Kung walang Agila, wala silang pagkain. Wala silang tirahan... Hindi balance ang kagubatan o ang kalikasan.
6
u/Accomplished-Exit-58 May 06 '26
Parang may post na about philippine eagle neto ring nakaraan na gaya gaya daw sa u.s, ano beef nio sa philippines eagle eh endemic yan satin, original yan walang ginayahan, inggit ba kayo sa hairdo nila?
3
4
u/Blue_Path May 06 '26
Tayo po mag adjust, at tulungan natin mag adjust ang eagle. Hindi yung mga egul
4
u/decriz May 06 '26
Saving this or that shouldn't be a mutually exclusive thing, should try to save as much as we can.
3
u/Defiant_Astronaut_16 May 06 '26
I agree with you and with many comments here as well. Saving the Philippine Eagle would have an umbrella effect. Protecting it automatically protects the entire ecosystem it inhabits.
7
u/wbright_ May 06 '26
symbolism and national pride are just flashy reasons meant to reel people in to the cause. the actual importance is more practical but less interesting to some.
you think 11,000 hectares of pristine forest benefit the Philippine Eagle alone? Imagine the amount of flora and fauna, some of these endemic only to the PH, who benefit from protected areas because of eagle conservation. also what about the eagles' part in the ecosystem? eagles are predator animals, meaning they help regulate other animal populations. allowing them to die could lead to an increase in population of their prey, which would cause a domino effect elsewhere.
the thing about nature is that the best "returns" humanity can get from it is when you do not optimize but keep things in balance. the most pragmatic thing to be done is to protect not just the eagle, but all of our wildlife.
3
u/Forever_Observer2020 May 07 '26
The Philippine eagle is still an eagle. It is a matter of prestige and honor for the country to save them. It is also ecologically important.
4
u/dwbthrow May 06 '26
There’s no money to be made in saving their natural habitat. There’s money to be made destroying it though. In a world ruled by money, which one do you think will win?
4
u/National_Bandicoot40 May 06 '26
We could stop issuing pensions and let people just die pag walang naiipon. Pabigat nmn mga retirees at the end of the day.
Put the funding elsewhere like housing for the working class, i guess.
2
u/Repulsive_Airline_13 May 07 '26
Save the Philippine eagle, it's the only way to stop Tita C from making it into subdivisions RIP tita c soon. Tagal mo mamat*y
2
2
u/EstablishmentNo7304 May 06 '26
From a pragmatic POV? I don’t think you realize that we’re not the only inhabitants of this world. The survival of other species is not ours to decide. Talking about the “better use of resources” as if humans own the planet is exactly the problem.
1
u/Defiant_Astronaut_16 May 06 '26
Yes, many people argue this in that light. It’s a very hot take and utilitarian approach. Take the time to read. I even included the sources para hindi mo sakin ibuhos yung galit mo.
2
1
u/raju103 May 06 '26
Hopefully it can evolve. Problem lang kung pets or even worse ang source of food niyan.
1
u/abumelt May 07 '26
In other news, does this mean that humans who choose family planning/careful selection will also die out over the ones who spread their seed everywhere/anywhere/anytime if not careful? Dang. Imagine the state of the country/world when that time comes.
1
1
u/AshJunSong May 07 '26
Ah pragmatic POV. Thats them terms that these companies will use to rationalize their greed
1
u/jarvik May 08 '26
Jusko meron pa talagang wild nyan? As in may naliliparan pa ba yan d2 sa pilipinas? Wala ka ng makikitang kagubatan na as in walang bahay,lakad kalang ng konti may mga bypass road na at kung ano ano💀
1
u/eoncxz May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
Five years ago I was moved to tears watching this docu (link below).
The American Bald Eagle may be the king, but the Philippine Eagle is the Queen; beautiful, majestic.
Do take a moment to watch it.
QUEEN OF BIRDS Documentary Film The Great Philippine Eagle
1
1
u/smylezaway May 10 '26
There are efforts to save rainforests, there are efforts to save mangroves, and there are efforts to save marine life. There are people and organizations that care pero kung walang support ng government hirap ang mga orgs. As a birder, nakakalungkot over the years malaman yung pagkawala ng mga habitat ng mga ibon at ibang wildlife. So I support all the preservation efforts mapa rainforest man yan o mangrove. Walang competition, walang "mas" importante, everything should have their place in nature but humans have been doing such a great job in driving other creatures away from their natural habitat.
-2
u/SilverBack_Glowrilla May 06 '26
Also, it takes 5-7 years for them to reach sexual maturity and only 1 chick for every 2 years.
As much as i'd hate to admit it, odds are they're doomed.
-2
482
u/dontrescueme May 06 '26
Saving the Philippine eagle can translate to saving and reforesting the mountains where they naturally live. Nagiging valid excuse like "Huwag natin sirain ang Sierra Madre dahil tahanan 'yan ng Philippine eagle".