April 23, 2004

The extinction crisis is over. We lost.
posted by homunculus 20 years ago
  • devasting article.. / weeping.
  • Oh my God. This is so horrifying.
  • I guess Agent Smith was right.
  • No, actually he was wrong: "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment." That doesn't happen. Mammals do not instinctively develop an equilibrium. Without safeguards (predators for instance), they'll breed and breed, out of control... just like us. We're no different from other animals, mammal or no. The point is, we should be. I feel a little ill. It's so...sad. *half-heartedly hits head with 100 ton hammer*
  • Me, I'm going to fire up the grill and celebrate being at the head of the food chain (for now).
  • Christ....... I just emailed this article out to everyone I know. I swear, homunculus, your the most cheerful poster. I'm learning to dread reading your posts! I'm smarter for reading them, though. This is/was inevitable in my mind. Now, I will worry about what kind of horrors my offspring will have to deal with. This is the most depressing reality. Well, I'm off to call the doctor about upping my dosage of Prozac, I think I'm gonna need it.
  • I'm learning to dread reading your posts! Fear me! Mwahahahaha! (Okay, less of this and more of this.)
  • I think it's about time for a pandemic. One that kills 90% of all people. That will solve a lot of problems. There are plenty of jobs, we won't need as many natural resources (if we recycle all the stuff that's no longer needed) and maybe some species will flourish again. I already stopped breeding and tied my tubes. Now it's time to brush up my bio-engineering knowledge. Anybody knows a good introduction course in viral engineering?
  • Monkeyfilter: I already stopped breeding and tied my tubes.
  • I nominate mare as Intern of the Week at the Mengele Institute.
  • Here's a question. Could the "a few species a year" vs. "3000 species a year" statistic be biased because of the fossil record itself? It seems to me that much of this could simply be that we're aware of so many more species today - species which have always had a micropopulation because of intense specialization or symbiosis with another micropopulated species. We'd never be able to detect those in the fossil record, yet biologists today spend their lives studying them. Many species that are endangered or facing extinction today live only in a tiny area (sometimes only a few dozen cubic meters), and are slight variants of other species (though they don't interbreed, hence the speciation). They're often highly specialized - a professor of mine at college studied a small colony of insects. They lived in symbiosis with a species of plant. As it turned out, three different species of insects were needed to complete the pollenization of the plant. Very intricate. If a species like that were wiped out by, say, fire a million years ago, we'd never know. How much of the variance in the extinction rate is caused by the inability to compare apples to apples?
  • It's alright, the death of a large percentage of the human population in a few years should save some species at least.
  • Whoops, just read the other comments, what mare said. Probably more effective than a virus tho.
  • Live long and die out.
  • okay okay - everybody just stop moving don't . sshhhh!! don't touch anything. okay okay . . . okay . . . okay - okay . . *pant* *pant* . . . okay . . okay . . homunculus there is no need for that kind of . . of . . okay . . okay . .
  • *gently hoses down pete_best* Hey, you ok?
  • New housing developments in Scotland will destroy critical habitat for Britain's threatened red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), which has disappeared from most of its former range. MY BROTHERS! Could the "a few species a year" vs. "3000 species a year" statistic be biased because of the fossil record itself? Good point, but even if that is the case I sincerely doubt that the natural world has experienced this type of systematic extinction caused by another species. The megafaunal extinction of the last Ice Age and the mass extinction of the dinosaur eras might be comparable in scope but not in method. I guess I am saying that I think his point is that this is a different type of species loss than we have seen previously in the fossil record. This is terrible and makes me want to cry. However, when humans eventually kill ourselves off, everything will start all over again. I'm not afraid that life will lose, I just pity all of the speciation that we've whacked through our ignorance.
  • or malfeasance thanks Alnedra - and no, absolutely not
  • Statements like this: Nothing
  • This is not to say that people from my side of the ideological aisle are against the environment - we're not. I have kids that I want to breathe clean air, drink clean water, have effective medicines, and know a world that is not a poisonous sewer populated only by shit-frogs. But I also want then to have a world that has technology, and commerce and opportunity. Regarding the environment, I'd ask only two things: one, that both sides stop corrupting science to their political views. We desperately need to objectively KNOW for SURE what is happening in our world if we are going to recognize problems and do something about them. Lying and coloring the numbers on both sides has created atmosphere of distrust poisons any reasonable debate. And two, we need that reasonable debate to be REASONABLE - greens gotta realize that the world needs fuel and trade; corporates gotta realize tha the world needs air and water and animals. By approaching each other as partners working toward a common goal, rather than antagonists working alternately to pin the blame and eliminate the competition, real solutions - pragmatic solutions - could be found. [/rant]
  • By approaching each other as partners working toward a common goal, rather than antagonists working alternately to pin the blame and eliminate the competition, real solutions - pragmatic solutions - could be found. This also could work for Israel/Palestine and, well, just about any long term rivalry where the sides disagree with each other on principle. The problem is making both sides realize this and keep it in mind throughout the relatively long time it would take to reach the goal.
  • Related: Earth faces sixth mass extinction And unfortunately, humans will likely live.
  • The end of the world can be funny, if you don't take it so seriously.
  • y'know that's a pretty funny flash and I was about to post when it occurred to me "yeah, i think that's the point of the article. . y'know ultimately" Of course it's not the . . end . . of . . /sits_down
  • I merely posted it because the article was so frickin' depressing.
  • I'm going to have to side with the voices of reason on this one. My response to that article, honestly, was "....k". If you've been keeping score, you know that I'm almost as liberal and tree-hugging as they come, but honestly this is way over the top (see: Fes' response). Even if everything the article says is true (which I doubt), now what? Do we run around screaming and drooling? [idealistic rant] My first thought looking at the pages of MoFi lately has been "Yippee! Another thing to be afraid of!" I'm not critisizing this post at all, I'm just saying that the whole "culture of fear" idea seems to have supporting evidence coming out of the woodwork from every direction. I don't know how we as a society expect to get anything done if we keep concentrating on what the worst possible scenario is instead of the best one. And why is the worst scenario so much easier to believe than the best one? [/idealistic rant]
  • because the best scenario is lacking for evidence. People aren't saying enough things are getting better, or facts aren't supporting it or both. That's if one wants to be objective about it. Assuming there is objectivity. If we're actually here. *stares at paws, wiggles fingers* I for one welcome our new best scenario overlords, but articles like this are important to help change things for the better where we can, while we can. (I'm stopping there - don't wait for the 'if we can' cause it ain't a-comin'.) recycle, birth control, green power, etc., all reasonably and moderately pursued insofar as "moderately" can be assessed in relation to us ending the world through sheer stupidity, laziness, and arrogance. having said that, Who's up for naked sprinkler dancing!? Oop! Ack!
  • Well, Kimberly, I agree with the idea of a "culture of fear," but usually only in the sense of what the government tells us, not the environmentalists. I tend to assume that they are more likely right than wrong. Fes: of course, everyone getting together in favor of the Truth is ideal, but it ain't gonna happen. If we could somehow eliminate greed for money and power, we'd be fine. If we could get the oil barons out of power, we'd be much better off. If everyone could choose to look past the pleasures of the Now, work towards the future, and realize that if YOU are working for the benifit of EVERYONE ELSE, that means EVERYONE ELSE on the face of the planet is working for YOUR interests. Like I said, ain't gonna happen. Personally, I look forward to the Apocolypse. I do not posess the science to back up any of the claims I am about to make, but I am fairly confident Mother Earth can handle anything we can throw at her. Give her a few million years to heal up and she'll be just fine. The sooner our destructive, maggoty, arrogant little species is wiped out or at least taken down quite a ways, the better. So enjoy! Comsume, pollute, reproduce, and fuck the environment, each other, and anything else you value. It's all gonna end badly, so why care anymore? *halfheartedly punches the wall, falls down weeping, collects self and returns to partying like it's 1999*
  • MonkeyFilter: It's all gonna end badly, so why care anymore? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Say it ain't so! Weezel, f8x, whatsay we go get poor ol' pete_best and go drowned our sorrows. And helpless, hopeless sciurus can come, too. Ah, heck, all you Monkeys, com'on down. We can party in the park. And when we've had enough, we'll go pee on a bush, just as an comment on the POTUS' political agenda regarding the environment and his wallet. We'll have bananas, too. Assuming they haven't gone extinct by then. ((( :(
  • I find it interestinghow they talk about hardy species as if they're a scourge. Are we trying to reverse evolution now? It appears many of these extinctions caused by "weedy species" are just caused by species being able to go to places they hadn't been before - less biodiversity, maybe, but not much different than when the continents were all in a supercontinent, before the oceans made travel from one place to another too difficult for most species.
  • Already there, BlueHorse.
  • werd up BlueHorse! *clink*
  • Ahh, BlueHorse me friend, we'll drink together at the Resturant at the End of the Universe. Either there or the Inn at the End of All Worlds.
  • *eyes the trio from the bar, sends them a round*
  • From what a read in the article, there seems to be a problem with the central thesis. The way the article reads it sounds like the author is predicting a kind of evolutionary stasis where the present status quo will be maintained or expanded. I think this is incorrect after all, animals and plants will evolve to fit the new niches available, both the manmade ones and the ones that fall between the cracks.
  • You're just a ray of sunshine today, smt!
  • I knew someone would call me out!! Not to worry, I'm turning a new leaf this afternoon... *gargles fresh, warm chicken blood*
  • It's the end of the world as we know it... and I smell swine...
  • *shakes fist at nunia for embedding that tune in my head for the remainder of the day*
  • you know you like it
  • Sorry, I don't buy it. There exist now species that don't have a viable population--virtually extinct as we speak. Even if their numbers could be brought back, where will they live? Habitat destruction is going to impact even human beings eventually.