Perfection
The Great Head.
Certainly development has an impact on biodiversity, but how great is it?
A world without bio-diversity? Try Mars
I'm talking about a decrease on the level humans would produce, which should be obvious from context clues.
Planet Earth
- Thread starter happy_Alex
- Start date
I'm talking about a decrease on the level humans would produce, which should be obvious from context clues.
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
Perfection, If it were only I saying it I would agree. But you are debating facts which are well established. After all I will take the word of David Attenborough and hundereds of scientists, anyday over any old chump on an internet forum
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
It's huge, as the UN repoted, see BBC article above.
Narz
keeping it real
That fact that Jerico and Perf can honestly deny that humans are devastating the planet amazes me. It shows just how addicted people are to the viewpoint that humans can do no wrong. Global warming is real, overpopulation is real, destruction of the rainforests is real, acidification of the ocean is real, desertification is real. Anyone who tries to say that these are no coorelated to human actions is either grossly stupid or grossly misinformed.
Till
Adventurer
This issue has been covered in a podcast of the Nature magazine. At 21:40 Bradley J. Cardinale from the University of California, Santa Barbara, is interviewed. He conducted a study on how biodiversity affects ecosystems. In the interview he states: "The fossil record suggests that we lose about 100,000 species every millennia" .."modern day estimates are actually several orders of magnitude higher". He doesn't give any source for these estimates, though.
As examples of how this loss of biodiversity affects us he lists:
- Prodcution of food
- Recycling of dead stuff
- Ability to take nutrient pollutants out of our water
Link to podcast (~13MB).
Unfortunately the paper he is talking about is not named explicitly and not listed on his "recent publications" page.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I can't fully evaluate every crappy idea I come across, I simply don't have the time.
What I do have is very astute BS detectors and given Happy Alex's presentation it seems to me that he has no clue about what his statistic actually means, nor the consequences of a moderate loss in biodevirsity.
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
Nice one Narz. We should move on from this la-la land psuedo discussion, to how we can put things right as I asked in the OT.
Narz
keeping it real
Depends on the concentration of humans. In cities the only species that can survive are the ones that can handle huge levels of filth and pollution - roaches, rats, flying rats (aka : pigeons) domesticed animals and humans. Monocropping destories ecosystems wherever it goes and by definition destroies biodiversity. Factory farms pollute rivers and destroy ecosystems also. There's no doubt that human beings in large numbers have a vast and devastation impact on biodiversity. Rainforest has the most biodiversity on the planet (at least on land) AFAIK and we're wiping it out. Just as 97% of Europe's original forest was wiped out by the population explosion made possible by industrialization.
I think perfection at least is playing Devil's advocate? Maybe I'm wrong but he's certainly doing his best to create a straw man argument. Cosidering his knowledge of bio diversity, I'm kinda surprised he's saying such things, ask the questions, but cmon let's put some effort in here
The malaise of the sublimely wise is no excuse Perf.
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
Matey, it's clear what it means.
Narz
keeping it real
Yet you have the time to waste searching for funny pictures so you can type "PC +1". Another dubious claim by Perfection.Perfection said:
The fact that you call human impact on natural systems "a moderate loss" shows you have no clue on the impact of humans.Perfection said:
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
If there's 40K species and less than 1K have gone extinct since 1500, then I doubt 16K become extinct in 1 generation.
That would be a very big change in the trend.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I'm not arguing what is or is not on the threatened species list or if there is trouble with the loss of biodiversity. Those are clear facts.Perfection, If it were only I saying it I would agree. But you are debating facts which are well established. After all I will take the word of David Attenborough and hundereds of scientists, anyday over any old chump on an internet forum
What I am concerned about your alarmist twisting of facts. The fact that numerous species are on that list does not mean that we will face a severe ecological breakdown because of it, nor that all those species will become extinct by the time my grandchildren would be around nor that our economic development will "cost us the earth".
Narz
keeping it real
He's struggling to defend his undefendable ideal (that industrial civilization's good far exceeds it's harm). His argument is as untenable as a Bible literalist's and he knows it.
Can't win 'em all Perf.
Will check back into this discussion later. Going out for a bit.
I hope to see some intelligent discourse from people who understand the fact that human life is completely dependent on our landbases and the life therein for survival rather than the abstract concepts of economics, stock prices and currency (which mean nothing when your wheat fields turn to desert and there are no salmon left in the rivers).
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
1. @@ Narz -- I never denied we have an impact on the planet. I asked how much, and what I received was no further information. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I cited a study that well reputed to try and answer my question.
2. @@ Till -- Thank you for providing to me some information on this subject. Since I listen to podcasts on my commute, I am going to download and hopefully listen to it within a week.
Now see? Wasn't that easy? A man asks a question, so instead of giving him a 1 sentence answer or accuse him of something he's not, point him in a good direction.
2. @@ Till -- Thank you for providing to me some information on this subject. Since I listen to podcasts on my commute, I am going to download and hopefully listen to it within a week.
Now see? Wasn't that easy? A man asks a question, so instead of giving him a 1 sentence answer or accuse him of something he's not, point him in a good direction.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Wait... it doesn't?
I don't understand why extinction is automatically a bad thing. Even if 15K do go extinct, is it really automatically a bad thing if it is because their environment has gone away or they are forced out of their environment due to encroachment by another species (in this case, man). I call that nature.
Yes, I think we should take reasonable steps to preserve a threatened or endangered species if it is possible, but if it is a necessary price for the advancment of humanity, so be it.
Yes, I think we should take reasonable steps to preserve a threatened or endangered species if it is possible, but if it is a necessary price for the advancment of humanity, so be it.
Mulholland
Happy New Year!!!!
The number of 'species at risk' is still a sobering number though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4563499.stm
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Eactly. We are kind of at the top of the food chain, our survival should be first and formost.
