Just a question if anybody knows. When we talk about population, we add births and subtract deaths. But when we talk about species, we only subtract. Are there no new species? If mutations occur as frequently as I’m led to believe, wouldn’t there always be a new species evolving to fill the niche left empty by the last extinction?
I’m not doubting the rate of extinction, but I’m wondering: If things continue at the current rate, will there be no creatures in 50,000 years, or will there just be a totally unrecognizable group of freak animals adapted to an environment we can only imagine?
I opened a can of Coke yesterday and wondered how much CO2 (or more specifically, carbon) I had released into the atmosphere. With all the canned drinks opened daily, is this also a source of the problem?
Yes, new species develop and old ones go extinct. It is a gradual process, but it has happened for many billions of years before humans ever got here and will continue when and if we’re gone. It’s part of nature. If we humans are causing extinctions it is something to be concerned about and studied, but not hardly the end of the world. Even we mighty humans are no match for the forces of nature. The earth has an uncanny ability to heal itsself after various catastrophes. I’m sure if we turn out to be a catastrophe, the earth will get rid of us.
For every species we know about, there are probably thousands that haven’t yet been catalogued and taxonomized.
Well, the original article says that the human-driven extinction occurs at a rate about 1000 or 10000 times faster than “natural” extinction would. It’s probably safe to assume that Earth sans humans was in approximate equilibrium, which means that new species probably arose at the same rate as “natural” extinction, which means that new species are nowhere near filling the gap.
If you take the midroad and say that there are 15,000,000 species on this planet, and we lose 75 a day, that means that we have exactly 200,000 days left of companionship on this rock. That comes out to just shy of 548 years.
Personally, I find these numbers, despite the sourcing from Cecil, a little far-fetched.
Some math that I am interested in is the rain forest acreage. I remember hearing that same statistic since I was a teenager in the 80’s. How many acres are there actually on the planet, and shouldn’t we be running out soon?
I chalk it up to the same people who would publish those school films about fossil fuels running out by the year 2000.
I’m for the rejuvenation concept. I don’t purposely litter or buy huge vehicles, but I feel that the human race is still far within that margin where our actions have little if any effect on the planet, atleast balance-wise after the planet negates most of our pollutants.
There are new species being invented all the time - for man’s purposes. Brocc-oflower, Rhode Island Red chickens, Angus beef, seedless watermelons, oranges and grapes, chihuahuas – none of them exist in the wild – they have been genetically selected and enhanced from wild stock a long time ago. Practically everything in the grocery store is that way. Take corn, for example – it was “invented” in central America eons ago, it is very nutritious, but cannot reproduce without man’s involvement (the husks are too thick to be able to disperse the seeds, so they would rot if not liberated by man’s benevolent hand). Are these new species?, well, not really, but they are new to earth.
The question is if we want to live in an artificial world (created by man) or share the real estate with other inhabitants. I would think the world would be a much darker, lonelier place if it were just us and our domesticated ark.
Even if the numbers are exaggerated, you do understand and agree that the trend is not? IE that we ARE destroying species, forests, and topsiol at a vastly faster rate than natural, and faster than replacement ?
And be assured we will run out of fosil fuel some time. The only question is when. For oil current projections are between 20 and 50 years, coal some hundreds. IMO we should be preserving the oil for the things we can make from it such as plastics, and not just burning it off.
That’s probably not a valid assumption. Species diversity shows an upward trend over time, while obviously variable. Naturally production probably outstripped loss, we’ve reversed that temporarily.
The important point to note that most of these species (>99% by most estimates) are small invertebrates and unicellular organisms. Bugs and germs basically. These things reproduce fast an speciate rapidly. Destroying these things may not be good, but if things ever settle down they will be replaced fairly rapidly in the scale of 10s of thousands of years. While I doubt anyone would say the loss of these things is ‘good’ just how bad it is is subjective. Actual influence on humans of any sort will be small. We never see these things and they have n effect on us at all.
Topsoil is highly debatable, and I don’t agree with that at all.
The rest. Yeah probably. The question we really need to ask is “why does it matter”?
Almost certainly not. As prices increase it will become more economical to utilise alternative energy sources and synthetic hydrocarbons. There is no sensible reason why we will ever use up the last fossil fuel on the planet.
No they aren’t. For oil current projection are in the range of 100 years at current usage rates, recovery technology and economic value. Actual resource quantity runs in the range of tens of thousands of years of supply at current usage rates.
Nobody at all suggests that the world will run out of oil within 20 years.
Coal is a little fuzzier. Indisputably we have at least 500 year’s supply, but everyone admits that’s because we haven’t even bothered looking in most places.
Partly the figures are misleading. They include values for re-clearing of land previously counted.
Mostly it goes to what I said earlier. It’s not whether we are destroying it any given rate, it’s whether that arte is to fast. Even at current rates of deforestation 88% of the Amazon still remains. We really need to ask how much of the Amazon forest we really need. What is the value of having 4 million square kilometres of jungle? Is that value really comparable to the cost in terms of human lives and happiness? If we can retain 99% of the species intact and functioning with only 500 000 square kilometres, is that acceptable?
The thing is that although the figures are big, most people don’t realise just how much forest there is put there. If we kept deforestation going at current rates for the next 100 yeas, we’d still have more forest than cropland.
>The question we really need to ask is “why does it matter”?
You’re kidding, right? Clearing forests many times faster than they can grow doesn’t matter? Wiping out species at a rate hundreds or thousands of times the rate they die naturally, doesn’t matter?
The problem with species dying out isn’t that new species aren’t created. Your question assumes that there is a niche left to fill. But current methods of extinction aren’t of the sort “hunt down every red-backed tree squirrel”. Rather, it is the wholesale destruction of habitat, which removes not only species in bulk but the environments (and therefore environmental niches) in which they live. That is what the argument over species loss is about.
Blake, you’re assuming that the rate of use of fossil fuels is constant, which it isn’t. In fact, it fluctuates a little bit based on various nations’ energy policies and new strikes, which makes predictions waffle a bit. However, overall, it tends to increase.
And here’s one for the Amazon- I have read estimates that it and other rainforests are the “lungs” of the Earth. That is, they are the main sources of O2 recycling and trapping CO2 in their tissues for growth. Damage the lungs…
Species diversity increased through time, except after periods of increased species loss, such as mass extinctions. Mass extinctions are not, as many people believe, all associated with a meteor or volcanic eruption or anything of the sort; many of them took millions of years to occur.
After such an event, species that are more “generalized” (able to cope with many different conditions) are favoured, while species that are “specialized” (have a specific niche in the ecosystem) tend to die out. This is why the dinosaurs, who were very large, cold-blooded, and needed a lot of food to survive, died out after the Cretaceous-Tertiary event, while the little mammals did not. Mammals (small, warm-blooded, little food needed) were much better suited to the conditions after the event.
So diversity does not necessarily go up uniformly through time. Many global change scientists would consider the past 50 years and the next 50 years to be a mass extinction event, depending on how one looks at it. Extinction rates are higher than background extinction rates, I don’t think anybody can argue against that.
So what I understand is that you believe the only utility of the rainforest is to provide shelter for a few animals? The value of having 4 million square kilometers of jungle is that it is a hugely important piece of the carbon cycle. It is a very large carbon sink. All of the carbon that it takes in going into the atmosphere = bad.
It isn’t a question of using the last little bit up, it’s a question of using the last economically feasible bit up. You say we have 100 years of oil left at current usage rates. Is that not a cause for concern, considering that it is not a reasonably renewable resource? Oil and gas are constantly being renewed, but at a very slow rate, one that is nowhere near our usage rate.
Sounds to me like you’re trusting in our ability to come up with a better way to do things in the near future.
I am not assuming that at all and I don’t know where you got the impression I was. Ia m well aware of the genral increaseein oil use. It just isn’t relevant to this discussion to this point. ** AndrewT** stsated that oil will run out within 20 years. I pointed out hat at current rates we can assume at least 100 years, and probably several thousand at current usage rates. If usage rates quadruple in the next 20 years, which is a ridiciulous assumption, this still gives us over 20 years supply.
I’m sure you did read this. It’s a load of ignorant rubbish though. The Amazon does not produce oxygen nor does it sequester carbon. Most evidence suggests that the Amazon is a net carbon source and oxygen sink At the very best it is totally neutral. I debunked this myth in GQ a few weeks ago. I suggest you do a search there if you want more information.
Pretty much all authorities now agree that dinos were not cold blooded.
No one ever said it did.
No, it appears to be a carbon source. AT best it is neutral.
I agree that if all the carbon were liberated without concommitant sequestration elsewhere it would be a problem. This is exactly what I meant by asking why we need the Amazon.
No I didn’t say that. I said we have 100 years supply at current usage rates, recovery technology and economic value. Recovery technology and economic value are both changing to increase that figure far more rapidly than usage rates. As far as we can tell the supply realisation is outstripping demand and will continue to d so within any meaningful timeframe.
And yes, it is a reasonably renewable resource. Or at least a replaceable resource. Energy can be obtained from any number of alternatives, while the hydrocarbons can easily be replaced with vegetation derived substances.
I am trusting in what we can do right now, but have no economic, legal or moral impetus to do. When we have that impetus I see no reason to suspect we shall not do so. We always have in the past. If you believe it will be otherwise in this case then it is up t your to present some reason why you believe so.
Blake-Are you familiar with photosynthesis? The process takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and produces food for the plant and has oxygen as a byproduct.
Your words-" I pointed out hat at current rates we can assume at least 100 years, and probably several thousand at current usage rates." assumes no change in rates of usage of fossil fuels. It is neccessary to look, not at current rates, but at the rates at which current rates have changed, the “delta R,” if you will. The delta R is increasing.
Energy companies only seriously indulge in R&D in alternative energy resources when forced to-scarcity of oil makes them more money alt. energy in the short run. While absolute dollars in R&D have risen, the inflation adjusted numbers show decline, as do the numbers relative to corporate income or to all R&D.
Anyone else find it unusual that Cecil completely omitted any reference to Bjorn Lomberg’s controversial study entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist?
