Wildlife Species Plummeting Down 1% Per Annum

Dextur

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
10,628
Reaction score
1,776
Points
1,945
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7403989.stm

Seems almost unbelievable, apparently humankind is wiping out 1% of the worlds species every year.

Can this actually be right, I'll accept we are a rotten lot at times, but these numbers are appaling if accurate.

I notice however the article doesn't actually state how we are achieving this, obviously over fishing and so forth has a knock on effect, but it doesn't clearly state any specific cause.

Rather sad..
 
The sooner our petty little species is wiped from the face of this planet the better. Lets just wait for natures revenge, she will restore the balance one day - its inevitable.


Gary
 
Things like this make me think of the section of The Matrix when agent Smith is telling Morpheous that humans are simply a disease, using up all natural resources and killing everything around, then moving on.

It is sad but it's also true, it'll take a miricale to put the wrongs to rights.

Smaz.
 
The sooner our petty little species is wiped from the face of this planet the better. Lets just wait for natures revenge, she will restore the balance one day - its inevitable.


Gary
Or at the very least, more governments need to role out 1 child policies like China's in the 3rd world.

The environment can't support such large numbers of people in such resource poor areas.

All the aid in the world can't help a mother support 10 kids in the middle of a drought. It is so tragic.
 
and how many new species are discovered every year ?

over 90 percent of all the species that ever existed are extinct. darwin and all that.

1 percent ? not significant.
 
and how many new species are discovered every year ?

over 90 percent of all the species that ever existed are extinct. darwin and all that.

1 percent ? not significant.

Extinction rates are occurring at an enormous rate, comparable with a mass extinction event.

Most of this is due to habitat loss caused by human deforestation and clearance. Other reasons include pollution, hunting and man made climate change.

In short, the difference is that we are responsible for this, it is not some naturally occurring phenomena, or because organisms are poorly adapted to their environment.

Most of the organisms that we prize highly are beautifully specialised, and it is precisely these organisms like swordfish, orchids, tigers, whales etc, etc, that are dying out.

A lot of specialised species are cornerstones to the ecosystem they live in and their extinction will lead to collapses of food webs globally.
 
As the number of species is unknown
How can anyone calculate the % becoming extinct each year?

Just more alarmist Bo$%&£ks IMHO

If 1,500,000+ species have so far been named, would anyone care to list the 15,000 that became extinct last year?
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml

And finally
If nobody has thought a species important enough (big enough, or obvious enough) to name yet, do I really care if it becomes extinct or not?
 
1 percent ? not significant.
Whether its 1% or 0.0001% isn't important, its the potential to amplify into serious ecological effects i.e. the food chain as GG mentioned .... nature has a way of obtaining equilibrium, but that "way" could be disastrous for an organism or two (including us directly, or indirectly/economically if it impinges on farming, waterways etc etc etc)
 
As the number of species is unknown
How can anyone calculate the % becoming extinct each year?

Just more alarmist Bo$%&£ks IMHO

If 1,500,000+ species have so far been named, would anyone care to list the 15,000 that became extinct last year?
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml

And finally
If nobody has thought a species important enough (big enough, or obvious enough) to name yet, do I really care if it becomes extinct or not?

There is an amazing concept called extrapolation. You may have heard of it.

It is used quite extensively in science. :suicide:
 
Estimates put the number of species between 2 million and 50 million.

So what is your estimate of 1% from those numbers?
 
Name just 1 of the species you think went extinct last year?

It's just unbelievable how thoughtless and gullible some people are!
 
Name just 1 of the species you think went extinct last year?

It's just unbelievable how thoughtless and gullible some people are!

One of the most pertinent.

Yangtze River Dolphin.
 
I think your mistake is in taking quotes from a website with a clear "climate change we're all doomed" agenda.
Maybe if you could provide a link to the Zoological society website where they name a few species (or maybe 20,000 species) that have become extinct in the last year, would appear to be more credible. Lets face it, I'm only asking you to name one species that has become extinct in the last year. As you appear to believe between 20,000 and 500,000 species became extinct in that period, it shouldn't be too hard.

One of the most pertinent.

Yangtze River Dolphin.
According to Wiki, that was declared extinct before 6 Dec 2006 ......... so not in the last year.
(Last confirmed sighting was in 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji)

Come on guys, 20,000+ gone in the last year ..... it should be (dead) easy!

EDIT: Well I've been looking for a list of recently extinct species without any results. You would think with all the claims of humans destroying the earth, there would be prominent lists of extinctions on all the environmentalist sites .... but there isn't. I did find a list of about 10 previously thought extinct species, recently rediscovered. But that just indicated the opposite of what we wanted here. Maybe we aren't losing 20,000 species a year after all ..... just another scare story.
 
your not worth arguing with, read Games Gurus sig and think on fella.

debate over as far as i'm concerned. Stupid people aren't worth debating with. and as i've pointed out you've already taken the prize for the most stupid post ever.

Well, if you want to be insulting and call me stupid, at least I know the difference between "your" and "you're"
 
Just getting away from the aggravation for a moment I think one should take a broader view in the light of an expectation that Earth will be capable of supporting life of one sort or another for a further billion years or more.

My opinion is that mankind was put on earth by nature or Gaia or whatever to effect a long term enhancement of the options available to the planet in creating and supporting future life forms.

Our main function is to use our Earth given intellect to convert so called natural ingredients into more and more complex new substances. If we kill off ourselves and everything else in the process then no matter it is all part of the natural long term plan.

In due course all those new substances will be used by the planet to create more complex and sophisticated organisms than could ever have existed without our creative input.

Our influence on the planet is but a blink in eye of fate and we will help nature to produce creatures that can become closer to the ideals of any Creator than could ever have existed without us.

Rejoice in our usefulness and the eventual advancement of creation that we will enable.

On the other hand it would be nice if we could achieve the same outcome without the intermediate destruction but as far as the planet is concerned it matters not one jot.

Will that help some of you to sleep at night ?
 
Just getting away from the aggravation for a moment I think one should take a broader view in the light of an expectation that Earth will be capable of supporting life of one sort or another for a further billion years or more.

My opinion is that mankind was put on earth by nature or Gaia or whatever to effect a long term enhancement of the options available to the planet in creating and supporting future life forms.

Our main function is to use our Earth given intellect to convert so called natural ingredients into more and more complex new substances. If we kill off ourselves and everything else in the process then no matter it is all part of the natural long term plan.

In due course all those new substances will be used by the planet to create more complex and sophisticated organisms than could ever have existed without our creative input.

Our influence on the planet is but a blink in eye of fate and we will help nature to produce creatures that can become closer to the ideals of any Creator than could ever have existed without us.

Rejoice in our usefulness and the eventual advancement of creation that we will enable.

On the other hand it would be nice if we could achieve the same outcome without the intermediate destruction but as far as the planet is concerned it matters not one jot.

Will that help some of you to sleep at night ?

That all smacks of determinism which I don't buy into i'm afraid.

I also don't agree that intelligence can be equated to advancement or complexity.

Many organisms have forgone complexity in order to survive, eg the starfish has "unevolved" a brain.

In terms of sophistication, you could argue by virtue of our detrimental impact on the environment that humans are perhaps the most crude life form to have inhabited the earth.

Also, in terms of complexity and sophistication, the number of phyla of organisms (the stage in hierarchy directly below kingdom, eg Animalia, Plantae, Protoctista, Monera, Fungi) has decreased dramatically over time.
 
That all smacks of determinism which I don't buy into i'm afraid.

I also don't agree that intelligence can be equated to advancement or complexity.

Many organisms have forgone complexity in order to survive, eg the starfish has "unevolved" a brain.

In terms of sophistication, you could argue by virtue of our detrimental impact on the environment that humans are perhaps the most crude life form to have inhabited the earth.

Also, in terms of complexity and sophistication, the number of phyla of organisms (the stage in hierarchy directly below kingdom, eg Animalia, Plantae, Protoctista, Monera, Fungi) has decreased dramatically over time.


Missed the point I'm afraid.

For one thing I was tongue in cheek.

For another the complexity and sophistication I was referring to was the extra complexity and sophistication that nature would be able to imbue in new living creatures with all those new chemical compounds created by us during our brief tenure.

We are but a short lived algae destined to flourish and die like those oceanic blooms which also use up all available nutrients to the detriment of itself and other life forms until nature gets a chance to restock the vacant space with new nutrients and life forms.

Actually I think mankind will eventually reach a stable sustainable accommodation with the planet but it will be a hairy ride along the way.
 
Dominant life form on the planet is bacteria. Bacteria formed the atmosphere, live from very deep underground up to the reaches of space. We cannot live without them and arguably they farm all other life forms on the planet and all other life forms are dependent upon them. And we only understand a tiny percentage of them - much less how many species there are. They will probably be the last to go when the planet does finally die.
How much effort goes into understanding them...
 
well, people...let's think about this...
1% NEGLIGIBLE???
AT A RATE OF 1% SPECIES LOSS PER ANNUM, WE HAVE 100 YEARS UNTIL ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET IS DEAD.

NAME 1 SPECIES WHICH WENT EXTINCT IN 2007/8?
OK, LET'S SEE...
THE PANAMANIAN GOLDEN TOAD
THE BAIJI / YANGTZEE DOLPHIN
THE WEST AFRICAN BLACK RHINO
THE SPIX'S MACAW
PO'O-ULI / THE BLACK-FACED HONEYCREEPER

GOOD ENOUGH FOR YA?

COME ON PEOPLE, WISE UP, GROW UP, AND GET UP FROM BEHIND YOUR PC'S AND L I V E YOUR L I F E

WE ARE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 3RD WORLD WAR, AND WE HAVE ONLY 100 YEARS ON THIS PLANET AS A SPECIES...
 
Welcome to the forum Chris.:hiya:

You will find you don't need to SHOUT here, it's not that kind of forum.

I think a point well made is that while it's depressing the figures are soft interms of reliability.
 
Bacteria formed the atmosphere, live from very deep underground up to the reaches of space ... How much effort goes into understanding them...
Quite a lot of research actually goes on in this area - I used to work in an extremophiles research lab dealing with acidophiles, halophiles, thermophiles, psychrophiles, etc (samples collected from Yellowstone National Park, Montserrat, the Alvin submersible in the deep sea, the Antarctic, etc etc ); and I now deal with many labs engaged in such research
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom