silkworm Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Daks.Your comment about extinction rate not being constant over the 50 years really does not make much difference. My point was that the rate of extinction was wildly exaggerated' date=' as expressed by Greenpeace. This is true regardless of whether extinction rate is constant or not.[/quote'] There's a HUGE difference, and based on the fact that species are interdependent, I'm sure that an extinction equation would be exponential, just like all population equations.
SkepticLance Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Silkworm said : There's a HUGE difference, and based on the fact that species are interdependent, I'm sure that an extinction equation would be exponential, just like all population equations Silkworm, I am sorry to say this, but you are just being silly. Humans have been the cause of extinctions of many species for a long, long time. At least the 10,000 years we have had agriculture, and probably since our species evolved 200,000 years ago. To turn around and say that an extinction rate of 2 per years, as we measure it, is suddently going to become 200,000 per years as Greenpeace would put it... That is plain stupid!
silkworm Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Silkworm said : There's a HUGE difference' date=' and based on the fact that species are interdependent, I'm sure that an extinction equation would be exponential, just like all population equations[/i'] Silkworm, I am sorry to say this, but you are just being silly. Humans have been the cause of extinctions of many species for a long, long time. At least the 10,000 years we have had agriculture, and probably since our species evolved 200,000 years ago. To turn around and say that an extinction rate of 2 per years, as we measure it, is suddently going to become 200,000 per years as Greenpeace would put it... That is plain stupid! Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon' date=' the rate of extinction occurring in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said in the January-February issue of American Scientist magazine. ... Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes. ... "Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the last century.[/quote'] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm Leakey Warns of Mass Extinctions CAPE TOWN' date=' South Africa, August 23, 2001 (ENS) - The world is losing between 50,000 and 100,000 plant, insect and animal species a year, Kenyan conservationist Richard Leakey said Wednesday at a lecture. This is much higher than a similar estimate Leakey gave in 1997. "Human activities are causing between 10,000 and 40,000 species to become extinct each year," Leakey said then.[/quote'] The current extinction rate of plant and animal species is approximately 1,000 times faster than it was in pre-human times and is predicted to be 10,000 times faster by the year 2050... http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/roadmap-to-recovery St. Paul' date=' Minn. — The 1200 scientists and others at the international meeting sponsored by the government of France issued a statement at the end of the 5-day-long event. It said in part, "Biodiversity is being irreversibly destroyed by human activities at an unprecedented rate. . . (demanding) urgent and significant action."... "That's sort of a 1 million to 4 million year process, and yet we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster," he says.... Scientists estimate there are 10 to 30 million plant and animal species on the planet, most of them unidentified. Each year as many as 50,000 species disappear.[/quote'] http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/01/31_olsond_biodiversity/ List of extinctions so far in 2006, 2005, 2004: # [scientific Name] Common Name(s) 2006 1 Astragalus nitidiflorus 2 Pomarea fluxa EIAO MONARCH (E) 3 Pomarea mira UA POU MONARCH (E) 4 Pomarea nukuhivae NUKU HIVA MONARCH (E) 5 Sula tasmani TASMAN BOOBY (E) 2005 1 Acanthobrama hulensis 2 Alburnus akili GOKCE BALIGI (E) 3 Barbus microbarbis 4 Chondrostoma scodrense 5 Diaphorapteryx hawkinsi HAWKINS' RAIL (E) 6 Gallicolumba salamonis THICK-BILLED GROUND-DOVE (E) 7 Gallotia auaritae 8 Salmo pallaryi 9 Telestes ukliva 10 Tristramella intermedia 11 Tristramella magdelainae 2004 1 Adenomus kandianus 2 Adiantum lianxianense 3 Akialoa ellisiana OAHU 'AKIALOA (E) 4 Akialoa lanaiensis MAUI NUI 'AKIALOA (E) 5 Akialoa obscura LESSER AKIALOA (E) 6 Akialoa stejnegeri KAUAI 'AKIALOA (E) 7 Alectroenas nitidissima MAURITIUS BLUE-PIGEON (E) 8 Alectroenas rodericana RODRIGUES PIGEON (E) 9 Alopochen mauritianus MAURITIAN SHELDUCK (E) 10 Amazona martinicana MARTINIQUE PARROT (E) 11 Amazona violacea GUADELOUPE PARROT (E) 12 Anas marecula AMSTERDAM ISLAND DUCK (E) 13 Anas theodori MAURITIAN DUCK (E) 14 Anthornis melanocephala CHATHAM ISLAND BELLBIRD (E) 15 Aphanapteryx bonasia RED RAIL (E) 16 Aphanapteryx leguati RODRIGUES RAIL (E) 17 Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha' 18 Aplonis corvina KOSRAE STARLING (E) 19 Aplonis fusca NORFOLK STARLING (E) 20 Aplonis mavornata MYSTERIOUS STARLING (E) 21 Ara atwoodi DOMINICAN GREEN-AND-YELLOW MACAW (E) 22 Ara erythrocephala JAMAICAN GREEN-AND-YELLOW MACAW (E) 23 Ara gossei JAMAICAN RED MACAW (E) 24 Ara guadeloupensis LESSER ANTILLEAN MACAW (E) 25 Ara tricolor CUBAN MACAW (E) 26 Aramides gutturalis RED-THROATED WOOD-RAIL (E) 27 Aratinga labati GUADELOUPE PARAKEET (E) 28 Argusianus bipunctatus DOUBLE-BANDED ARGUS (E) 29 Atelopus ignescens 30 Atelopus longirostris 31 Atelopus vogli 32 Atlantisia elpenor ASCENSION FLIGHTLESS CRAKE (E) 33 Atlantisia podarces ST HELENA CRAKE (E) 34 Bowdleria rufescens CHATHAM ISLAND FERNBIRD (E) 35 Bufo periglenes ALAJUELA TOAD (E) GOLDEN TOAD (E) MONTE VERDE TOAD (E) ORANGE TOAD (E) CRAPAUD DORÉ (F) SAPO DORADO DE MONTEVERDE (S) SAPO DORADO (S) 36 Bulweria bifax SMALL ST HELENA PETREL (E) 37 Cabalus modestus CHATHAM RAIL (E) 38 Camptorhynchus labradorius LABRADOR DUCK (E) 39 Caracara lutosa GUADALUPE CARACARA (E) CARACARA DE GUADALUPE (F) CARANCHO DE GUADALUPE (S) 40 Chaetoptila angustipluma KIOEA (E) 41 Chaunoproctus ferreorostris BONIN GROSBEAK (E) 42 Chloridops kona KONA GROSBEAK (E) 43 Chlorostilbon bracei BRACE'S EMERALD (E) ÉMERAUDE DE NEW PROVIDENCE (F) 44 Chlorostilbon elegans GOULD'S EMERALD (E) 45 Ciridops anna ULA-'AI-HAWANE (E) 46 Columba duboisi RÉUNION PIGEON (E) 47 Columba jouyi RYUKYU PIGEON (E) 48 Columba versicolor BONIN WOOD-PIGEON (E) 49 Conuropsis carolinensis CAROLINA PARAKEET (E) 50 Coturnix novaezelandiae NEW ZEALAND QUAIL (E) 51 Coua delalandei SNAIL-EATING COUA (E) 52 Craugastor chrysozetetes 53 Craugastor milesi 54 Cyanoramphus ulietanus RAIATEA PARAKEET (E) 55 Cyanoramphus zealandicus BLACK-FRONTED PARAKEET (E) 56 Cynops wolterstorffi YUNNAN LAKE NEWT (E) 57 Discoglossus nigriventer HULA PAINTED FROG (E) 58 Drepanis funerea BLACK MAMO (E) 59 Drepanis pacifica HAWAI'I MAMO (E) 60 Dromaius ater KING ISLAND EMU (E) 61 Dromaius baudinianus KANGAROO ISLAND EMU (E) 62 Dusicyon australis FALKLAND ISLAND WOLF (E) FALKLANDS WOLF (E) 63 Dysmorodrepanis munroi LANA'I HOOKBILL (E) 64 Dysmoropelia dekarchiskos ST HELENA DOVE (E) 65 Ectopistes migratorius PASSENGER PIGEON (E) 66 Falco buboisi RÉUNION KESTREL (E) 67 Fregilupus varius RÉUNION STARLING (E) 68 Fulica newtoni MASCARENE COOT (E) 69 Gallicolumba ferruginea TANNA GROUND-DOVE (E) 70 Gallicolumba norfolciensis NORFOLK ISLAND GROUND-DOVE (E) 71 Gallinula nesiotis TRISTAN MOORHEN (E) 72 Gallirallus dieffenbachii DIEFFENBACH'S RAIL (E) 73 Gallirallus pacificus TAHITI RAIL (E) 74 Gallirallus wakensis WAKE ISLAND RAIL (E) 75 Gerygone insularis LORD HOWE GERYGONE (E) 76 Haematopus meadewaldoi CANARY ISLANDS OYSTERCATCHER (E) 77 Hemignathus sagittirostris GREATER 'AMAKIHI (E) 78 Heteralocha acutirostris HUIA (E) 79 Ixobrychus novaezelandiae NEW ZEALAND LITTLE BITTERN (E) 80 Lophopsittacus bensoni MAURITIUS GREY PARROT (E) 81 Lophopsittacus mauritianus BROAD-BILLED PARROT (E) 82 Mascarenachen kervazoi RÉUNION ISLAND SHELDGOOSE (E) 83 Mascarenotus grucheti RÉUNION OWL (E) 84 Mascarenotus murivorus RODRIGUES OWL (E) 85 Mascarenotus sauzieri MAURITIUS OWL (E) 86 Mascarinus mascarinus MASCARENE PARROT (E) 87 Mergus australis AUCKLAND ISLAND MERGANSER (E) 88 Microgoura meeki CHOISEUL PIGEON (E) 89 Moho apicalis O'AHU 'O'O (E) 90 Moho bishopi BISHOP'S 'O'O (E) 91 Moho braccatus KAUA'I 'O'O (E) 92 Moho nobilis HAWAI'I 'O'O (E) 93 Myadestes myadestinus KAMA'O (E) 94 Myadestes woahensis 'AMAUI (E) 95 Myiagra freycineti GUAM FLYCATCHER (E) 96 Nannococcyx psix ST HELENA CUCKOO (E) 97 Nannophrys guentheri 98 Necropsar rodericanus RODRIGUES STARLING (E) 99 Necropsittacus rodericanus RODRIGUES PARROT (E) 100 Nesillas aldabrana ALDABRA WARBLER (E) 101 Nesiota elliptica OLIVE (E) ST HELENA OLIVE (E) 102 Nesoclopeus poecilopterus BAR-WINGED RAIL (E) 103 Nestor productus NORFOLK ISLAND KAKA (E) NESTOR DE NORFOLK (F) 104 Nycticorax duboisi RÉUNION NIGHT-HERON (E) 105 Nycticorax mauritianus MAURITIUS NIGHT-HERON (E) 106 Nycticorax megacephalus RODRIGUES NIGHT-HERON (E) 107 Pantanodon madagascariensis 108 Paroreomyza flammea KAKAWAHIE (E) 109 Pezophaps solitaria RODRIGUES SOLITAIRE (E) 110 Phalacrocorax perspicillatus PALLAS'S CORMORANT (E) 111 Philautus adspersus 112 Philautus dimbullae 113 Philautus eximius 114 Philautus extirpo 115 Philautus halyi 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 Philautus temporalis 125 Philautus travancoricus 126 Philautus variabilis 127 Philautus zal 128 Philautus zimmeri 129 Phrynomedusa fimbriata 130 Pinguinus impennis GREAT AUK (E) 131 Plethodon ainsworthi AINSWORTH'S SALAMANDER (E) 132 Pluchea glutinosa 133 Podiceps andinus COLOMBIAN GREBE (E) 134 Podilymbus gigas ATITLÁN GREBE (E) GRÈBE DU LAC ATITLAN (F) GRÈBE GÉANT (F) POC DE ATITLÁN (S) SOMORMUJO DE ATITLÁN (S) ZAMBULLIDOR DE ATITLÁN (S) ZAMPULLÍN DEL ATITLÁN (S) 135 Pomarea pomarea MAUPITI MONARCH (E) 136 Porphyrio albus LORD HOWE ISLAND SWAMPHEN (E) 137 Porphyrio coerulescens RÉUNION GALLINULE (E) 138 Porphyrio kukwiedei NEW CALEDONIA GALLINULE (E) 139 Porphyrio mantelli NORTH ISLAND TAKAHE (E) 140 Porzana astrictocarpus ST HELENA RAIL (E) 141 Porzana monasa KOSRAE CRAKE (E) 142 Porzana nigra MILLER'S RAIL (E) 143 Porzana palmeri LAYSAN CRAKE (E) 144 Porzana sandwichensis HAWAIIAN CRAKE (E) 145 Prosobonia ellisi WHITE-WINGED SANDPIPER (E) 146 Prosobonia leucoptera TAHITIAN SANDPIPER (E) 147 Psephotus pulcherrimus PARADISE PARROT (E) PERRUCHE DE PARADIS (F) PERRUCHE MAGNIFIQUE (F) LORO DEL PARAÍSO (S) PERICO DEL PARAÍSO (S) 148 Psiadia schweinfurthii 149 Psittacula exsul NEWTON'S PARAKEET (E) 150 Psittacula wardi SEYCHELLES PARAKEET (E) 151 Pterodroma rupinarum LARGE ST HELENA PETREL (E) 152 Pteropus subniger DARK FLYING FOX (E) LESSER MASCARENE FLYING-FOX (E) ZORRO VOLADOR OSCURO DE MAURICIO (S) 153 Ptilinopus mercierii RED-MOUSTACHED FRUIT-DOVE (E) 154 Ptychochromis sp. nov. 'Kotro' 155 Ptychochromoides itasy 156 Quiscalus palustris SLENDER-BILLED GRACKLE (E) 157 Rana fisheri LAS VEGAS LEOPARD FROG (E) VEGAS VALLEY LEOPARD FROG (E) 158 Raphus cucullatus DODO (E) 159 Rheobatrachus silus CONONDALE GASTRIC-BROODING FROG (E) PLATYPUS FROG (E) SOUTHERN GASTRIC BROODING FROG (E) SOUTHERN PLATYPUS FROG (E) GRENOUILLE PLATE À INCUBATION GASTRIQUE (F) 160 Rheobatrachus vitellinus EUNGELLA GASTRIC-BROODING FROG (E) NORTHERN GASTRIC BROODING FROG (E) NORTHERN GASTRIC-BROODING FROG (E) GRENOUILLE À INCUBATION GASTRIQUE (F) 161 Rhodacanthis flaviceps LESSER KOA-FINCH (E) 162 Rhodacanthis palmeri GREATER KOA-FINCH (E) 163 Sceloglaux albifacies LAUGHING OWL (E) CHOUETTE À JOUES BLANCHES (F) NINOXE RIEUSE (F) LECHUZÓN CARIBLANCO (S) NÍNOX REIDOR (S) 164 Taudactylus diurnus MT GLORIOUS DAY FROG (E) MT GLORIOUS TORRENT FROG (E) SOUTHERN DAY FROG (E) 165 Threskiornis solitarius RÉUNION FLIGHTLESS IBIS (E) 166 Traversia lyalli STEPHENS ISLAND WREN (E) 167 Turdus ravidus GRAND CAYMAN THRUSH (E) 168 Turnagra capensis SOUTH ISLAND PIOPIO (E) 169 Turnagra tanagra NORTH ISLAND PIOPIO (E) 170 Upupa antaois ST HELENA HOOPOE (E) 171 Valerianella affinis 172 Xenicus longipes BUSH WREN (E) 173 Zoothera terrestris BONIN THRUSH (E) 174 Zosterops strenuus ROBUST WHITE-EYE (E) http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/search-basic There are lists showing what the experts are saying, and lists of known species. None of that equals (nor is anywhere close to) 2 per year. I would say thanks for playing, but this has been a huge waste of time. You should have done this yourself instead. When you're ONLY skeptical, you're pretty much useless.
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Genius of no equal, The initial idiotic and unqualified statement of this post shows exactly where you're coming from. Anyone who has to insult and lower the debate to name calling and belittling, obviously has little substance to offer. You have lost all credibility with me. You're the A-typical scientist I simply cannot stand. Completely full of himself, with your nose up in the air so you don't have to smell the fodder of those beneath your "superior intelligence". Rather than take an opportunity to teach, you took the opportunity to attack. Negative rather than positive. Which is quite natural actually. That's the same thing mankind does with nature. Rather than take a positive approach, they take a negative one. I guess you and those hillbilly hunters and the rest of us rotten resource hogging humans have something in common after all? Oh, and if you need us to google OTHER people's insights to look smart, like your approach, we can do that for you.
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 And I think we have the capability and the potential for responsibility to do better. I don't like huamnity, I know i"ve made that clear many times over. I don't think we're "worth" more than any other organism on anything beyond a strictly personal concern for our own kind, but I recognize that we can recognize and make better choices than what we have. I just don't think it's right to go on actign the way we do, no matter whether it's "natural" or not. Frankly, i think we put too much weight in this abstract concept of "natural" as it is, falling back on it as an excuse for bad behavior. See, I used think the same thing about humanity from a youngster to early adulthood. But there's a major problem with that logic. For some reason, we feel so compelled to apply our man-made moral code in the context of the laws of nature. Our morality is just a product of empathy and pity which is NOT a trait found in the natural laws of survival. Just how far back in history do we have to go to get to a time when humans lived "with" nature rather than running all over it? Could humans be advanced with today's technologies WITHOUT harming the environment? (That's a genuine question because it's too big for me to answer.) Your economics argument is very potent and really got me thinking. So, are humans really just supposed to be relegated to simple survival mode for the rest of the time this big ole rock will support us? Seems like a huge waste of such an intelligent, impressive muscle. Economics takes advanced, cooperative lifeforms to be present...doesn't it? And SkepticLance has made some excellent points about ecosystems being altered and changed rather than destroyed. It's looking more and more, to me, like our grouping and creation of cooperative societies, leading to awesome advancements is completely natural and to be expected. And the grand ecosystem will change and adjust around this progress, meaning species get wiped out while others adapt and grow. Again, I really think it's all happening way too fast for it to keep up, but I'm still holding out.
ecoli Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Unfortunately walrusman, allowing species to die out will only hurt humanity. Think about all we could learn about language from the bonobos, but if the species goes extinct, we will loose this opportunity. THe bonobos will become extinct because of humans, so by altering our actions we can insure the bonobos does not become extinct. This will help humanity in the long run. Also, these days, species extinction is closely related with other environmental problems. So, by harming the environment (thereby causing species extinction) we are hurting ourselves in other ways to. So, you can say let evolution take it's course, which you intepret to mean, let humans wipe themselves out. I believe that evolution has given us the ability to preserve ours and other speicies as well as the environment and we have to obligation to do so. To act otherwise, I believe, would be to NOT allow evolution to run it's course. (This goes for insects too).
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Unfortunately walrusman' date=' allowing species to die out will only hurt humanity. Think about all we could learn about language from the bonobos, but if the species goes extinct, we will loose this opportunity. [/quote'] Ok, I keep hearing about all of this learning, so how long is this going to take? Bonobo's have been around a long freaking time, aren't you done yet? Seriously though, this is starting to sound a little weak to me also. What exactly are we going to learn that's worth the risk of tampering with nature to learn it? Actually, just tell me what we're going to learn from the Bonobo at all that has anything to do with our own survival? Anything... Also, these days, species extinction is closely related with other environmental problems. So, by harming the environment (thereby causing species extinction) we are hurting ourselves in other ways to. But species extinction is necessary. The blanket statement of species extinction doesn't really put any specific value on anything. Certain species can go extinct and no one will know the difference - like the "supposed" unknown species extinctions. Then other species extinctions can be vital to our own lives. So, you can say let evolution take it's course, which you intepret to mean, let humans wipe themselves out. Well, I'm just not sure. I'm not ready to stake a claim yet, but I'm strongly leaning towards letting evolution take it's course because not everybody believes this will result in humans wiping themselves out. It most certainly means the extinction of alot of species however, which also feels wrong. But that's my moral side speaking, not the pragmatic institution of survival of the fittest - and ONLY the fittest. It's hard for me to accept stepping in or halting our own advancement as if it's all unnatural. Our occupation and habitat invasion is natural or else we wouldn't be doing it all over the globe. I believe that evolution has given us the ability to preserve ours and other speicies as well as the environment and we have to obligation to do so. To act otherwise, I believe, would be to NOT allow evolution to run it's course. That's noble, caring and with good intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm just not so sure that environmental preservation isn't really just environmental recession.
ecoli Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Ok, I keep hearing about all of this learning, so how long is this going to take? Bonobo's have been around a long freaking time, aren't you done yet? WE just figured this out now, however. So, no, we are not done. Seriously though, this is starting to sound a little weak to me also. What exactly are we going to learn that's worth the risk of tampering with nature to learn it? Actually, just tell me what we're going to learn from the Bonobo at all that has anything to do with our own survival? Anything... There's more to life then merely surviving. you should know that being on a SCIENCE FORUM. But species extinction is necessary. The blanket statement of species extinction doesn't really put any specific value on anything. Certain species can go extinct and no one will know the difference - like the "supposed" unknown species extinctions. Then other species extinctions can be vital to our own lives. There may be species that can't cope it. These will go extinct. There are some species that would be able to survive if we were to alter our behavior... Which we should do for our OWN benefit. Well, I'm just not sure. I'm not ready to stake a claim yet, but I'm strongly leaning towards letting evolution take it's course because not everybody believes this will result in humans wiping themselves out. It most certainly means the extinction of alot of species however, which also feels wrong. But that's my moral side speaking, not the pragmatic institution of survival of the fittest - and ONLY the fittest. It's hard for me to accept stepping in or halting our own advancement as if it's all unnatural. Our occupation and habitat invasion is natural or else we wouldn't be doing it all over the globe. By that logic, saving habitats is also natural. So letting evolution 'run it's course' equally means altering our destructive behaviors... This could mean building better technologies to acheive the same goals.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 For some reason, we feel so compelled to apply our man-made moral code in the context of the laws of nature. Our morality is just a product of empathy and pity which is NOT a trait found in the natural laws of survival. We have it. Certain other species demonstrate it. Like it or not, we are part of nature, and we possess the capacity for a number of these "moral" concepts. It serves a purpose in creating a binding agent between humans to help us survive, because we are pack animals. It's not some useless freak emotion. But we have rather well surpassed the point of awareness and understanding that we should have the simple decency to apply this awareness to the actual world we depend on and owe our existence to.We no longer have to fall back on a more archaic "them or us" mentality so many animals need, and I say we should look at the world as our pack now, as its stewards. Just how far back in history do we have to go to get to a time when humans lived "with" nature rather than running all over it? All succesful and new species do that to a certain extent. You'll even see that the old hunters and gathers would burn tracts of forest to flush out prey. BUt I would say that it wasn't until a few hundred years ago that we became AWARE of what we were doing and what we were capable of. Even then, it seems few people realized that that might be a bad thing until this last century. I'd also point out that as industrialization took flight, things got far worse as far as the destruction humans caused. Could humans be advanced with today's technologies WITHOUT harming the environment? (That's a genuine question because it's too big for me to answer.) I don't know, I attribute human advancement to a rare few who are far ahead of the rest, but I also give warfare alot of credit. Would either of those be so prevalent and driving without an enormous, locust like population? I doubt it. The rare geniuses would be rarer still, and smaller numbers of people, in the world means to me less to fight over, so more peace, and less drive for the purpose of outdoing your foes. So, are humans really just supposed to be relegated to simple survival mode for the rest of the time this big ole rock will support us? Seems like a huge waste of such an intelligent, impressive muscle. Economics takes advanced, cooperative lifeforms to be present...doesn't it? To me this is ajust a "if it benefits us in some way, should we give a dman who else gets hurt in the process?" And with so many people on this world, there's no going back, even if that's what I advocated (which it's not) but I do think we can stop being selfish jerkass bastards and simply be more responsible and less outright destructive just for the sake of hardwood furniture, luxury gravel and potatos. And SkepticLance has made some excellent points about ecosystems being altered and changed rather than destroyed. The landscape may only be changed, but that environment, that habitat, is obliterated for many of the species that depend on it, whether animal, plant or fungus. It's looking more and more, to me, like our grouping and creation of cooperative societies, leading to awesome advancements is completely natural and to be expected. And the grand ecosystem will change and adjust around this progress, meaning species get wiped out while others adapt and grow. I see that as just another fallback excuse for saying "we might be causing the sixth great extinction, but it's okay cuz things will recover eventually at their own pace." And if I blow up a city block in New York, for a reason that benefits me, even non-malicious, it will probably be rebuilt in time. What's the difference?
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 There may be species that can't cope it. These will go extinct. There are some species that would be able to survive if we were to alter our behavior... Which we should do for our OWN benefit. What is the benefit? I'm still waiting on the answer about what there is to learn from a throw back version of ourselves that has any relevance to my survival. I know, as scientists, you all want to poke and study for gee wiz info, but that's not a good enough reason to disrupt their destined extinction. Let's put it using your logic. Look at humans. We coddle along the stupid ones rather then letting them be "eaten" and see what they do? They destory the environment allowing ALL of these species to become extinct and then totally wipe out man kind. That's what happens when animals that are weak are allowed to live anyway. When a species is about to go extinct, not only is the individual animal unfit, but the whole freaking species is weak. You can even use me as an example. I should have been eaten a long time ago.
silkworm Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Anyone who has to insult and lower the debate to name calling and belittling' date=' obviously has little substance to offer. You have lost all credibility with me. You're the A-typical scientist I simply cannot stand. Completely full of himself, with your nose up in the air so you don't have to smell the fodder of those beneath your "superior intelligence". Rather than take an opportunity to teach, you took the opportunity to attack. Negative rather than positive. Which is quite natural actually. That's the same thing mankind does with nature. Rather than take a positive approach, they take a negative one. I guess you and those hillbilly hunters and the rest of us rotten resource hogging humans have something in common after all? Oh, and if you need us to google OTHER people's insights to look smart, like your approach, we can do that for you.[/quote'] You're the type of "intellectual" I can't stand. Everything you say is eqiuvocated, unqualified, contradictary, nonsensical, and assanine. Everything you do is a provocation based in nothing. You are a person who makes the statement true, "A LITTLE bit of knowledge, is a dangerous thing." I never made a claim to superior intelligence, but all I do is study science - I work for my knowledge. And you have me cast very wrong, as you dismiss everything I say to you with more equivocated drivel. I have made an attempt to discuss with you, but I'm not sure it's possible. I love to share knowledge with others, and I have attempted a positive approach in this discussion, but there is a breaking point. And you've met it. Scientific knowledge is free to own, and scientific education is well worth it. I suggest you make the investment, and stop destroying post quality here.
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 I see that as just another fallback excuse for saying "we might be causing the sixth great extinction, but it's okay cuz thing will recover eventually at their own pace." And if I blow up a city block in New York, for a reason that benefits me, even non-malicious, it will probably be rebuilt in time. What's the difference? The difference is WE built the city block in the first place. But WE didn't invent or build this earth and the ecosystem - we are a product of it, or a player in it. So we don't understand what our interference will cause in the long run. I know you think we do, but I absolutely do not. I'm not advocating we should just occupy, destroy and wipeout everything in some murderous orgy of natural propogation. We can be responsible and take more care, and still wipe out species in the process. And with so many people on this world, there's no going back, even if that's what I advocated (which it's not) but I do think we can stop being selfish jerkass bastards and simply be more responsible and less outright destructive just for the sake of hardwood furniture, luxury gravel and potatos. How many animals died in the process of making that computer you're typing with? I was really asking you in terms of your attitude. You said you don't like humanity and I think that's insane. You're obviously highly intelligent and your views are well thought out and articulated, but geez, what a depressing attitude. Was just curious how far back in time we had to go to find humanity that you might actually like. And then my follow up question would be why should we waste our higher level intelligence by restricting ourselves to that lifestyle.
ecoli Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 I'm not advocating we should just occupy' date=' destroy and wipeout everything in some murderous orgy of natural propogation. We can be responsible and take more care, and still wipe out species in the process. [/quote'] You're contradicting yourself within the same sentence.
Dr. Dalek Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 I'm not advocating we should just occupy, destroy and wipeout everything in some murderous orgy of natural propogation. We can be responsible and take more care, and still wipe out species in the process. I take this to mean that in the end it might be an unavoidable consequence of our technological society that a few species go extinct because of us, but we should try to minimize that number?
ecoli Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 I take this to mean that in the end it might be an unavoidable consequence of our technological society that a few species go extinct because of us, but we should try to minimize that number? I would agree with that, but it isn't what he's been saying. On this thread and on others.
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 You're the type of "intellectual" I can't stand. Everything you say is eqiuvocated, unqualified, contradictary, nonsensical, and assanine. Everything you do is a provocation based in nothing. You are a person who makes the statement true, "A LITTLE bit of knowledge, is a dangerous thing." I never made a claim to superior intelligence, but all I do is study science - I work for my knowledge. And you have me cast very wrong, as you dismiss everything I say to you with more equivocated drivel. I have made an attempt to discuss with you, but I'm not sure it's possible. I love to share knowledge with others, and I have attempted a positive approach in this discussion, but there is a breaking point. And you've met it. Scientific knowledge is free to own, and scientific education is well worth it. I suggest you make the investment, and stop destroying post quality here. Some people just don't get it. There is nothing positive about calling someone an idiot. Maybe you should crack open a different kind of book...say a dictionary. I dismissed what you said because you began everything you said with some remark about how stupid I am. Have you tried reading any psychology books? You're not going to persuade folks when you insult them. They will concentrate on your insults and skip over the subject matter. Which is exactly what I did and exactly what you deserve. The fact that you make a point to insult when it is entirely unnecessary and childish, tells me you are conceited and convinced. You're unproductive and just use forums like this to flaunt your book smarts. I don't believe you "share" knowledge at all. I think you enjoy crushing people intellectually, hoping to shrink their self esteem for some twisted, self theraputic motivation. My equivocaton comes from the fact that I'm not sure what my final thoughts really are. There are a lot of things that I believe firmly and things I'm sick of hearing without any meat and potatoes. There is a LOT of rhetoric surrounding this subject and I always hold that kind of thing suspect. I'm honest about my approach here and have conducted myself as an adult. Alot of folks on here show a lot of emotion in their posts to me. Just flat out pissed. I figure it's probably because this means alot to them. I've always been the kind of person to push against the grain or the norm - that's how you flush out the truth. If you allow people to sit on rhetoric for too long, they begin to take it for granted and it becomes a paradigm of thoughtlessness. But I'm not malevolent nor do I mean to insult anyone. I love to debate and I have NO problem admitting I'm wrong or that I don't know something. And these forums are for this kind of thing. Not just for "super smart" science dudes, but also enthusiasts who DO have something to offer the debate. Look how many people have cared enough to argue with me. I've learned alot already, even if it doesn't appear to have changed my overall views. So, I'm sorry you have to wade through such "unqualified, contradictary, nonsensical, and assanine" statements. You won't, however, have to deal with any more responses to your posts from me.
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 I take this to mean that in the end it might be an unavoidable consequence of our technological society that a few species go extinct because of us, but we should try to minimize that number? Not exactly. I don't think we should sport hunt at all, nor hunt without some kind of wildlife management in place. I don't think we should go out of our way to kill everything. I also don't think we should interfere by saving animals that are destined to become extinct. As far as destruction of habitats in the course of human advancement...that's where I'm sitting on the fence. I'm not sure we shouldn't advance and enjoy "guilt-free" economics. I'm also not sure we "need" oil and should have shaken that bad habit decades ago.
silkworm Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Some people just don't get it. There is nothing positive about calling someone an idiot. Maybe you should crack open a different kind of book...say a dictionary. I dismissed what you said because you began everything you said with some remark about how stupid I am. Have you tried reading any psychology books? You're not going to persuade folks when you insult them. They will concentrate on your insults and skip over the subject matter. Which is exactly what I did and exactly what you deserve. The fact that you make a point to insult when it is entirely unnecessary and childish' date=' tells me you are conceited and convinced. You're unproductive and just use forums like this to flaunt your book smarts. I don't believe you "share" knowledge at all. I think you enjoy crushing people intellectually, hoping to shrink their self esteem for some twisted, self theraputic motivation. My equivocaton comes from the fact that I'm not sure what my final thoughts really are. There are a lot of things that I believe firmly and things I'm sick of hearing without any meat and potatoes. There is a LOT of rhetoric surrounding this subject and I always hold that kind of thing suspect. I'm honest about my approach here and have conducted myself as an adult. Alot of folks on here show a lot of emotion in their posts to me. Just flat out pissed. I figure it's probably because this means alot to them. I've always been the kind of person to push against the grain or the norm - that's how you flush out the truth. If you allow people to sit on rhetoric for too long, they begin to take it for granted and it becomes a paradigm of thoughtlessness. But I'm not malevolent nor do I mean to insult anyone. I love to debate and I have NO problem admitting I'm wrong or that I don't know something. And these forums are for this kind of thing. Not just for "super smart" science dudes, but also enthusiasts who DO have something to offer the debate. Look how many people have cared enough to argue with me. I've learned alot already, even if it doesn't appear to have changed my overall views. So, I'm sorry you have to wade through such "unqualified, contradictary, nonsensical, and assanine" statements. You won't, however, have to deal with any more responses to your posts from me.[/quote'] There's an immense difference between question and making arguments based in nothing. Also, you are not "folks," you are you. And you equivocate drivel, and that's offensive to anyone who values science. I am not using terms to offend you, I'm using terms in an effort to communicate. I am very much not alone in my feelings towards the way you conduct yourself. I don't know where you find rhetoric, or why you feel you are qualified, not in stature but in effort, to lable anything as such. Many of these people who argue with you only do so because they care, but not about you. Generally, they find you offensive, and merely care about the issue you're making garbage out of. You show the way you conduct yourself by making statements that show you feel you can comment on the way I conduct myself personally. You know nothing about me. I actually do a lot of work trying to bring science to the public, and I wish others would simply make an effort know more. I do not try to crush people intellectually, doing so would give me no joy and be counterproductive to my personal efforts. I come here because I simply don't know enough people in my personal life to talk to about issues that are relevant to me, and you are degrading this forum by your actions by making the level of scientific discussion here far below that of what is useful. Not only do you seem not to be making an honest effort to know more, your own rhetoric is childish and contradictory. I'm basing that and commenting entirely on your posts. The way you conduct yourself has given me no choice but to call you on it. Grow up, and make an effort to know things - which is done by questioning, not by arguing unqualified points against what you arbitrarily call rhetoric.
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Also, you are not "folks," you are you. And you equivocate drivel, and that's offensive to anyone who values science. I am not using terms to offend you, I'm using terms in an effort to communicate. I am very much not alone in my feelings towards the way you conduct yourself. I don't know where you find rhetoric, or why you feel you are qualified, not in stature but in effort, to lable anything as such. Many of these people who argue with you only do so because they care, but not about you. Generally, they find you offensive, and merely care about the issue you're making garbage out of. Is this true everybody? Am I making garbage about issues you care about? Does it appear as if I don't care about these issues? Would I spend all of this time on here if I didn't? Am I offending anyone? Seriously, I would like to know. I don't agree with many folks on here, but no one has offended me except for Silkworm.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 The difference is WE built the city block in the first place. But WE didn't invent or build this earth and the ecosystem - we are a product of it, or a player in it. That's no more than narrowing your focus to within your own species, and frankly, it's selfish and stupid. There is no reason for it, not when we are capable of being so much more. So we don't understand what our interference will cause in the long run. I know you think we do, but I absolutely do not. So it's okay to reap wanton destruction across the face of the world as long as we're perfectly willing to be utterly ignorant, but it's NOT okay to try to fix or stop OUR extremely blatant and drastic mistakes simply because we can't see the future? This is irrational and not well thought out, as many of your other arguments; for instance... | v I'm not advocating we should just occupy, destroy and wipeout everything in some murderous orgy of natural propogation. We can be responsible and take more care, and still wipe out species in the process. This is ALL i have argued since the beginning of this, so what exactly have you been arguing about for the last three pages? You'll notice I said the same thing specifically once or twice, and the rest has been rationalizing why. I was really asking you in terms of your attitude. You said you don't like humanity and I think that's insane. Insane? How so? SHould I be beaming with joy for our excellent behavior over the centuries? Maybe I should buy a "the Dodos were asking for it! " bumper sticker? Damn those birds, being well adapted to their island habitat, damn them to hell, they earned it. I am not obsessed with the glorification of humans because I simply happen to be one. I don't turn a blind eye to the atrocities we've committed, the sheer disreagard for consequences and utter disdain for any and all other species. I look at the big picture, and the big picture to me is life, not humanity alone, not a soul or intelligence or the ability to give a different name to two types of rocks, but life itself. What I see in so much of humanity's legacy on Earth pisses on that. You're obviously highly intelligent and your views are well thought out and articulated, but geez, what a depressing attitude. Yeah, it's sad, isn't it? I guess I should just sweep everything under the rug and pretend things aren't the way they are. Gee, I feel better already. GROW UP. Life sucks, the world sucks, everything sucks. The sooner you come to accept that and stop trying to rationalize that simple fact away, the sooner you can truly see how great the non-sucky parts are and start to really appreciate them. I may not be a happy-go-lucky teletubby-wannabee, but I am happy, content, at peace even, and if I didn't understand the world the way I do, I can garuntee you I'd be an emotionally broken wreck of a person. Was just curious how far back in time we had to go to find humanity that you might actually like. You don't get it. A technologically advanced species can be just as some primitive tribe that worships the sanctity of every living organism, and vice versa. It's not our success, it's our attitude and belief that nothing else matters but that success. And even if that success were dependent on the way we've behaved, I don't think it's worth it. why should we waste our higher level intelligence by restricting ourselves to that lifestyle. If you ask me, we're wasting our vast potential to live in a better, maybe even utopian world by gang-raping it over and over again in between crawling into a little private corner shut off from the rest of existence to whittle neat toys and gadgets. Whoo-hoo!
mooeypoo Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 I agree completely with every word you said, AzurePhoenix! That said, I have to add something: Over the fact that we seem to be destroying the environment rapidly and therefore killing many species, we seem to be forgetting (the human race, I mean) one very important thing: Nature requires balance, and when we tip this balance by rapidly changing the face of our planet we are, in fact, killing ourselves. And that was also my point in the question of this thread. It's a lot worse than the instinction of animals, it's the possible route for instinction for the human race. If you change your invironment too quickly for your own evolutionary process, you will end up existing in an environment that doesn't support you, and you will die. It's not only about dodos anymore, it's about us. ~moo
AzurePhoenix Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 Not exactly. I don't think we should sport hunt at all, nor hunt without some kind of wildlife management in place. I don't think we should go out of our way to kill everything. I also don't think we should interfere by saving animals that are destined to become extinct. This is becoming tiresome. You draw back and say you don't have a theological outlook, despite a rampant use of the word desrving, then you decide you'll upgrade it all the way up to destiny. The reality of the matter is that a thing happens or it doesn't. It's not "meant to be." All things said, many of the species we destroyed might have gone on for a few more millennia, maybe millions of years, then likely they'd go extinct, yes, maybe leave behind one or more daughter species, and many might have been wiped out prematurely by some other random event. There was not and is not a destiny in store for any of them, only an infinite bundle of possibilities, and get this, when humans decided to meddle, they changed all the possibilities, changed one "destiny" to favor another. What sets humans apart from any other cause of extinction is that we have a friggin' choice in the matter, and could avoid it if we gave a damn. Saying that we should NOW back off and let species take the road to their HUMAN-CREATED fate because we wouldn't want to interfere is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Let me get this straight, try to see where you're coming from; we changed it all once, for the worse, but that was and is acceptable, and now it's meddling to go in and try to hold off the possibility-warping damage WE inflicted in the first place? This doesn't make sense to me. And for the sake of all I hold dear, someone slap me if I do that obnoxious capitalization for emphasis thing again.
walrusman Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 I'm just completely stunned at the thick headedness in here. I don't know how many more ways someone can explain something so simple. You add theology into my arguments because I use the word "destiny"? That's even more insane. Nevermind... I don't have the energy to go all through that post and respond to everything and you're not going to get it anyway. I've simplified it, I've blown it up and detailed it, I've summarized...I don't know what else to tell you..I give up. I sincerely think that all of you are offended because you believe I'm irreverent to nature and am glorifying its destruction. All of this because I simply state a logical fact without adding emotion behind it. The fact that extinction of species by man isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact that everybody is getting friggin sick and tired of listening to spoiled, hypocritical, pin-headed science brats crying about how humanity is soooooo aweful. ESPECIALLY when they make their own freaking mess of it trying their little experiments with a system that's WAY over their heads. Yes I KNOW man should quit pouring parking lots...Yes I KNOW man should quit cutting into wild habitat... Believe me, we all frigging know this by now - try to get past that to the OTHER side of the point, which is that not EVERY damn species of animal SHOULD - DESERVE - OUGHT TO, whatever the hell word you like best - be spared extermination. Period. Now I'm going to smoke a joint and write music about sawing down trees and murdering innocent little squirrels....AND PANDAS!!
Mokele Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 Oh, for the love of Zombie Jesus! Hands up everyone who's ever read any of Raup's work on extinction? Nobody? Good, now sit down and shut up. The persistent stupidity in this thread is about to end. Extinction is not "good" or "bad". Nor is it even survival of the fittest. Lions do not drive antelope into extinction, they just produce an evolutionary arms race. Species go extinct when exposed to something they cannot deal with: changes in habitat, loss of species they depended exclusively on, temperature changes, exceptionaly long famine, exceptionally long drought, shopping malls, invasive species, etc. The point is that animals adapt to their immediate, local environment (biotic and abiotic). When something drastically changes in that environment that pushes the species in ways it has not adapted to, it goes extinct. That's the important part: things it has not adapted to. Species are not "good" or "bad" or "smart evolvers" or "dumb evolvers". Every species evolves to suit it's niche. Extinctions occur when that niche disappears or becomes uninhabitable. Faulting a species for that is like faulting a fish for having gills. Raup has done extensive work on evolution, particularly in relation to extinction in the fossil record. Do you know what he found? The pattern of extinction with respect to phylogeny is RANDOM. In any given time span, we're as likely to lose a mouse species as a crab or worm or fish. Entire lineages die off not because they were 'less fit' but because, by chance, they faced an environmental challenge which they were unable to deal with due to factors present in all of them by shared descent, factors that may well have been adaptive in normal circumstances. Maniraptoran theropods' high metabolism was a bonus that helped them catch prey, but it was a fatal flaw when a big space rock caused a worldwide famine. The effects of extinction are mixed: important lineages can die out, extinguishing ancient and interesting groups, but in doing this they can make way for previously marginalized groups to diversify. Some lose, some win. That's life. No 'good' or 'bad', just change. Where do humans come into this? Well, first, we're no different from anything else in a major way: the arrival of a new species often causes widespread destruction, whether it's an invasive snake or new disease or a very smart ape. However, we're different in a major way: we're the first known species to be able to see on a long term extending into centuries. We can extrapolate our effects. Now, while nothing we do is *innately* good or bad, we, as humans, assign such labels to things, and, of course, different humans have different labeling schemes. Two things we are aware of, though: humans cannot be wanton in our environmental exploitation, or we'll sabotage the very infrastructure that supports us. Many fictional dystopias focus on this possibility, indicating that humans are indeed aware of it, though of course disagree about our path exists. Still, most humans agree that staying alive, at least on a personal level, is good. The other is that other species are useful. This plays into extinction because in many cases, we're just beginning to see how useful some are. Chemicals from rare sponges or plants may help save many lives. Some species might provide useful scientific models in the future as zebrafish and fruitflies do today. Basically, we can't fully asses the value of any species, because we don't know what the future holds. Of course, there's other arguements, about the value of biodiversity and species and such. But that's more apes sticking labels on things and flinging poop at each other when they disagree. The punchlines: 1) extinction is essentially random with respect to fitness 2) extinction can either harm of benefit a species, so 'good' or 'bad' depends on your perspective as a species. 3) while there's lots of disagreement about humanity's effect on the world, we all basically agree that we don't want to die and we want nifty things from nature. 4) everything else is apes slapping labels on things. Done, problem solved. Mokele
Recommended Posts