Planet Earth

[happy_Alex]

I'm talking about the fantastic new nature documentary by the BBC. If you haven't seen it yet it's completly incredible, we are in the second series over here in the UK, you are in for a real treat.

I was watching a program about the making of the series and the makers of the program, including David Attenborough, we talking about how many of our wonderful species are threatened with extinction, for example he was discussing how ONE THIRD of amphibians face extinction due to the destruction of their habit. I think it's clear that there is a real crisis facing our generation.

The question is how can we prevent these extinctions from hapening given the current rate of human development? Does humnaity need to use the environment to create growth. Is it possible for humanity to have a sustainable future while maintaining economic growth? Is this growth desirable if it costs us the earth?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Enviromental pollution is important, and as neat as certain animal species are, we're not doomed for causing extinctions.

Your last questions are really hard to answer... maybe, maybe not. I don't think we are all heading towards destruction though.

 

[Perfection]

I haven't seen this, but I am highly sceptical about the whole "Earth is in huge trouble" camp.

It'd be interesting to see how this exinction stat is generated.

In addition, it would be interesting to see how much of a problem such extinctions would be to our well being.

I have a sneaking suspicion both are subject to exaggeration.

 

[JerichoHill]

I'd wonder how much we influence extinctions, because I know that they happened in nature when man wasn't around

 

[happy_Alex]

I'd wonder how much we influence extinctions, because I know that they happened in nature when man wasn't around

Jericho, I really don't think that's the right question.

 

[Perfection]

Jericho, I really don't think that's the right question.

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question.
What's wrong about it?

 

[happy_Alex]

Almost a quarter of the world's mammals face extinction within 30 years, according to a United Nations report on the state of the global environment.
The destruction of habitats and the introduction of alien species from one part of the world to another are blamed for the threatened loss to biodiversity.
The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) report is officially published on Wednesday. It identifies more than 11,000 endangered animal and plant species - including more than 1,000 mammals, nearly a quarter of the world's total.
One in eight bird species is also in danger of extinction, and more than 5,000 different plants.
Human encroachment
The species likely to vanish within three decades include well-publicised cases such as the black rhinoceros and the Siberian tiger, and less well-known animals such as the Philippine eagle and the Asian Amur leopard.
The UN report is a review of the past 30 years in terms of environmental damage.
Based on that assessment, the UN says that all the factors which have led to the extinction of species in recent decades continue to operate with "ever-increasing intensity".
The encroachment of human settlement into wilderness regions, rainforest and wetlands destruction, and the impact of industry, have had a dramatic impact on the survival of threatened animals and plants.
The report says many problems could be rectified if governments implement the treaties and conventions passed since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
These include the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and the Convention on Biodiversity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2000325.stm

BBC reporting on UN environment agency. Good enough for ya?

 

[JerichoHill]

Jericho, I really don't think that's the right question.

It is definitely the right question.

If man's activities influenced/caused 5% or 95% of extinctions in the last 50 years, then the former would lead me to yawn, and the latter would lead me to question those actions further.

 

[happy_Alex]

They filmed the siberian tigers, they were quite wonderful, the camerman speculated that they might be the last people to see them, their numbers were so few.

 

[Sidhe]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question.
What's wrong about it?

Indeed whilst I agree we're exascerbating extinctions, we do need to ask honest questions about how exactly they're caused. I'm a believer in low carbon footprints, but I'm not an ardent conservationist, there needs to be a balanced perspective. And tough questions need to be asked. I really do understand the need for animal conservation, but there is also a need to balance it within our own society. We can't tread too lightly, that is not realistic, much as I would like it to be.

 

[happy_Alex]

Sorry, you wonder how much man causes extinctions? Is that is what you are saying?

 

[JerichoHill]

Since 1500 CE, 784 species have gone extinct. Currently there are 42,200 species evaluated by the IUCN, and there are 16K listed as threatened.

Obviously, being on the threatened list does not mean that you're a goner in 20 years, since only 784 species have actually gone extinct since the list is comprehensive back to 1500 CE.

Boo Ya.

 

[happy_Alex]

So tell me, what does being on the threatened list actually mean?

 

[Perfection]

BBC reporting on UN environment agency. Good enough for ya?

No, it doesn't answer JericoHill's question.

We need to ask these two questions:
1. What impact do we have on biodiversity?
2. What impact does biodeversity have on us?

From what I've seen such answers don't seem to support alarmism.

 

[happy_Alex]

Boo Ya? Is that the excuse you'll give your grandchildren when they ask why 16,000 species became extinct in our generation?

 

[Perfection]

So tell me, what does being on the threatened list actually mean?

Well the encyclopedic definition is "vulnerable to extinct in the near future" but to what degree of vulnerability marks as the limit of inclusion (and the assumptions it makes about human action) is unclear.

 

[happy_Alex]

No, it doesn't answer JericoHill's question.


1. What impact do we have on biodiversity?

We destroy it as we consume land and resources for production and development.

2. What impact does biodeversity have on us?

A world without bio-diversity? Try Mars

 

[Perfection]

They filmed the siberian tigers, they were quite wonderful, the camerman speculated that they might be the last people to see them, their numbers were so few.

Sounds like overdramatisation. There are hundreds in zoos across the world. There is considerable economic incentive to keep them around.

Boo Ya? Is that the excuse you'll give your grandchildren when they ask why 16,000 species became extinct in our generation?

That's an alarmist claim. You seem to suggest that if we don't share in your alarmism every single species that is remotely able to be killed off will be, which is a load of crock.

 

[Narz]

I'd wonder how much we influence extinctions, because I know that they happened in nature when man wasn't around

It happens a helluvalot faster now.

Edit : Perf, I don't think you are very objective.

I haven't seen this, but

I have a sneaking suspicion

Sounds like overdramatisation.

That's an alarmist claim.

 

[happy_Alex]

Well the encyclopedic definition is "vulnerable to extinct in the near future" but to what degree of vulnerability marks as the limit of inclusion (and the assumptions it makes about human action) is unclear.

So it's unclear that species cannot survive because the environment to which they are specifically adapted is destroyed, for example by deforrestation or where species, such as the Siberian Tiger are hunted to extinction.