Log in

View Full Version : Species Extinction Rapidly Accelerating



kidicarus20
20th November 2004, 10:05
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996684

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/9999/99996684F1.JPG

(Fewer than 250 mature corroboree frogs are now thought to exist in the Australian wilds (Image: Harold Cogger))

The number of threatened species on the planet is increasing at unprecedented rates across almost all major animal groups, according to the most comprehensive evaluation of the world’s biodiversity ever undertaken.

A total of 15,568 species now face extinction, according to the 2004 Red List of Threatened Species published on Wednesday by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). This represents a rise of 3300 species compared to the 2003 list. One in three amphibians and almost half of all freshwater turtles are now threatened, as well as one in eight birds and a quarter of known mammals.

For the first time, the Red List includes an index that shows the overall change in threatened status and the projected risk of extinction for each particular species group. The conclusion is that there is an even greater sense of urgency, says Simon Stuart at Conservation International, Washington DC, US.

The distinctive rostrum of the Largetooth sawfish often becomes entangled in West Pacific fishing nets (Image: R Mitchell)
The distinctive rostrum of the Largetooth sawfish often becomes entangled in West Pacific fishing nets (Image: R Mitchell)

Callum Rankine, international species officer for the World Wildlife Fund, agrees: “Year-on-year we know that the situation is getting worse, but this time it just seems to be getting worse much faster."


New to science

There is still much to be understood about key species-rich habitats, such as tropical forests, marine and freshwater systems, says Craig Hilton-Taylor, one of the Red List’s authors. This is despite these appearing to be some of the ecologies most at risk.

For example, in Madagascar more than half the freshwater fish now face extinction. One of these, a type of killifish which is so new to science it has not yet been formally named, used to live in what was the Sakaramyi River.

But this has now been diverted for domestic water supplies leaving the last remaining specimens of this fish existing in “a handful of puddles”, sustained only by poor plumbing. “If all the people in Madagascar fixed their taps, these fish would die out,” Hilton-Taylor says.


Human geography

In addition to the list itself, the IUCN published results of a four-year analysis entitled the Global Species Assessment (GSA) which highlights problems not just in terms of biodiversity but also in terms of human geography and socioeconomics.

For example, although some countries like Australia, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico have a disproportionately high number of species at risk, the number of threatened species is likely to increase more rapidly in regions where human population growth rates are high, such as in Cameroon or India. “This is the first time we have been able to overlay species distribution maps with population growth data,” says Stuart, one of the authors of the GSA.

Habitat loss is by far the greatest threat to biodiversity but, in regions where human population growth is particularly high, “the traditional protected area approach might not work”, says Hilton-Taylor.

The challenge lies in finding ways to enable people living in poverty to develop a sustainable relationship with their local resources. “But it’s extremely difficult to get these people to live sustainably, because often they are just concerned with trying to live,” says Rankine.

The new data also offers the chance to identify countries for pre-emptive conservation initiatives. In countries such as Bolivia, Papua New Guinea and Namibia, there is currently a low human population density but a high rate of population growth, which could threaten wildlife in the future.

CorporationsRule
26th November 2004, 17:09
Move along. Nothing to see here. Proceed with the discussion of why people have different taste in music.

Somebody get me off this crazy thing called civilization!

ComradeChris
26th November 2004, 17:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:09 PM
Move along. Nothing to see here. Proceed with the discussion of why people have different taste in music.

Somebody get me off this crazy thing called civilization!
Unlike you, some people here actually care about the environment. Move along and die already.

komon
26th November 2004, 20:21
who cares? everybody wants more production
......until they only have monney to eat. they won't realise it

DaCuBaN
26th November 2004, 20:26
Unlike you, some people here actually care about the environment. Move along and die already.

Unlike you, some people here actually care about ending the subjegation of man by man, care about ending the constant suffering of people all over the world, care about halting economic globalisation. Unfortunately, some of us just don't give a rat's ass about the "environment" until we've solved more immediate problems.

Frogs, I'm afraid, are not on that list; move along.

komon
26th November 2004, 22:22
bump

ComradeChris
27th November 2004, 07:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 04:26 PM

Unlike you, some people here actually care about the environment. Move along and die already.

Unlike you, some people here actually care about ending the subjegation of man by man, care about ending the constant suffering of people all over the world, care about halting economic globalisation. Unfortunately, some of us just don't give a rat's ass about the "environment" until we've solved more immediate problems.

Frogs, I'm afraid, are not on that list; move along.
And why is the enslavement of animals and constant killing of them for millenia a lower cpncern on your mind? Quite frankly, people lead only because people allow them to lead. People aren't subjegated to anyone that they can't get out of.

When the Earth is inhabitable for your lack of concern, your lineage can point the finger at you, and say, he didn't care, it's his fault.

DaCuBaN
27th November 2004, 19:15
Yes; that's right - point and scream "heretic! heretic!"

All our actions under the price-system, except those specifically aimed toward it's destruction, are futile at best. You go and try to save those frogs, and see where it gets you.

If you want to save the frogs, you first have to make people understand why there is a problem. To do this, you must make them understand what communism actually is. This is yet another symptom of the disease from which we all suffer - let us think about how to solve it, rather than doing what amounts to scratching at the wound.

leftist resistance
28th November 2004, 05:25
Animals are part of our ecosystem.An upset will have it's effect on the environment.Less frogs will mean more insects and less snakes=less birds.More insect =more chances of plagues and spread of diseases(ie. aedes).Remember the dodo?A species of tree is endangered(or extinct?)because the dodo is no more.The tree seeds need to pass through the dodo digestive system in order to germinate successfully later on.
It would be a waste too if a certain species of flora or fauna is wiped out.We won't get to see them,so do the future generation.It would be rather selfish of us not to preserve these creatures.Isn't environmetal exploitation by human a form of exploitation too?Aren't we oppressing the things that have contributed to our survival?

DaCuBaN
28th November 2004, 05:42
Isn't environmetal exploitation by human a form of exploitation too?Aren't we oppressing the things that have contributed to our survival?

Indeed we are, but you must ask yourself which is more important: The destruction of capitalism, and hence the destruction of all that comes with it, or simply stopping this one instance of exploitation. I for one would much rather that the cause of the exploitation be removed, rather than wasting all our efforts to make good things happen under a bad system.

CorporationsRule
28th November 2004, 19:30
Capitalism is simply the current form of exploitation. Exploitation began when human being decided to eradicate all competitors and force the earth to grow only human food.

The agricultural revolution was the beginning of totalitarian ideology, the very thing that has tainted (or more accurately, characterized) every communist revolution there has been...don't you think that deserves consideration?

Our exploitation of nature, our turning the animate living world into an inanimate object to be used and controlled by man, has cut us off from our home, and simply changing our capitalist bosses to communist ones isn't going to save us.

We are all frogs. Wake up.

DaCuBaN
28th November 2004, 19:46
simply changing our capitalist bosses to communist ones isn't going to save us.

Indeed, which is why under "communism" there will be no bosses.


Capitalism is simply the current form of exploitation.

Capitalism isn't exploitation; capitalism results in exploitation, just as Feudalism did. This is why I (sometimes ;) ) call myself a communist - it is the only ideology that seeks to eradicate such ills.


Exploitation began when human being decided to eradicate all competitors and force the earth to grow only human food.

You would see is return to those days? Humankind living in perfect harmony with the world around us? You're only about... 20,000 years too late. Even back then, we were hunter-gatherers: We raped and pillaged both the plants and the animals around us to suit us. We haven't changed all that much since then, and we're not going to be changing that any time soon. You have to ask yourself, what is more important to you? The end of human suffering, or the end of animal suffering?

It's a no-brainer, frankly.


he agricultural revolution was the beginning of totalitarian ideology, the very thing that has tainted (or more accurately, characterized) every communist revolution there has been...don't you think that deserves consideration?

We have a choice: Abandon the vast advances made in agriculture - the "art" of growing food for human consumption - or let the people on the planet starve. I think there are more than enough people starving today, without some primitivist trash trying to drag us even further back to the dark ages.


Our exploitation of nature, our turning the animate living world into an inanimate object to be used and controlled by man, has cut us off from our home

The earth is a giant rock! The only "animation" to take place on it's surface is that of the plants and animals, the insects and bacteria - amongst which I include ourselves - that live upon it's surface.

Now, I agree that many of our practices are "inhumane", in that we could achieve similar results without causing as many repurcussions - negative effects that will eventually come "home to roost" - but I submit that this is simply the effect of a continuously growing population that requires feeding. Do you have an alternative to feed the 2 billion people our planet can succesfully support?

Or did you not realise that we're sitting at approximately 300% capacity?

In short, as long as humans continue cause harm to each other, I won't give a rat's ass about "the environment".

CorporationsRule
28th November 2004, 20:20
"The earth is a giant rock!"

You are not worth talking to.

DaCuBaN
28th November 2004, 20:27
You are not worth talking to.


Thank you.

leftist resistance
29th November 2004, 01:41
Capitalism maybe a cause indeed.The rich make up of about 80% of the global demand.
We were hunter-gatherers.But back then,we took only what we needed and we lived with the surrounding..not against it.We respected the environment.
Now,people take what we have for granted.We take as we please,not bothering about the impacts.
Like it or not,we are part of the environment

ComradeChris
3rd December 2004, 19:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:15 PM
Yes; that's right - point and scream "heretic! heretic!"

All our actions under the price-system, except those specifically aimed toward it's destruction, are futile at best. You go and try to save those frogs, and see where it gets you.

If you want to save the frogs, you first have to make people understand why there is a problem. To do this, you must make them understand what communism actually is. This is yet another symptom of the disease from which we all suffer - let us think about how to solve it, rather than doing what amounts to scratching at the wound.
Yes, I said point and scream "heritic!" :rolleyes: Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

My post was relatively general. Probably in trying to directly save the frogs, you'll kill something else. Humans and technology seem to be the ones causing the ecosystem imbalances.

I agree, people have to see communism as a good (to both humanity and the environment). I'm honestly more of a primitivist communist. More like agricultural communism (kind of like the plan the Khmer Rouge had; only without killing).

The Garbage Disposal Unit
4th December 2004, 01:21
Woah, Cuban! The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and concerning one's self with the liberation of humans is no excuse for pushing aside the project of earth liberation, which, ultimately, is necessary for human freedom. The massive die-off of indicator species bodes poorly for humanity as a whole - destroying the capitalist system provides a means by which industrialization might be used to meet human needs, including sustaining a livable earth, rather than in the pursuit of profit, which inevitably leads to massive ecocide.
I agree on the importence of maintaining (some) modern agricultural practices (To some degree - some of our current practices are, frankly, stupid and ill-thought out, reflecting the pursuit of profit over actual needs), we have to recognise that, ultimately, saying "Fuck the environment!" is short sighted. Communism relies on certain material conditions, and a certain degree of advanced production etc. - the means of maintaining these conditions, in turn, rely on the environment.

In simple terms, no clean water, no breathable air, no human freedom and equality.

Seriously, enough reactionary, anachronistic, quasi-Stalinist bullshit - you might not view the world in holistic terms, but, like it or not, that is how it operates. You cannot view any given struggle in a vaccum, alienable from the facts of the rest of the world.


(On a related note: Sod primitivism. I guess this deserves another thread entirely, but, uh . . . reducing the earths population by 90%? Are you being millenarian, or advocating genocide?)

I want to be an anarchist.
4th December 2004, 02:04
"In this cosmic jacuzii,
we are like frogs oblivious
to the water starting to boil,
no one flinches,
we all float face down."

- Brandon Boyd, That immortal socialist.....

ALso, although this is a bit off topic, the fact that people only lead beacuse other people allow them to couldnt be more true. Anarchy is the natural state (of existence, im not talking goverments). Anarchy is all there is, any form of state is illusory. of course this doesnt mean that the a central government is'nt wrong. It just makes it seem silly!

The destruction of the environment is down to individuals poor choices, possibly due to the way in which that individual has percieved things. The only way we can stop these problems is

A) for everyone to act in a way that is respectful to ALL life.
B) Education, which combats poor choices.
C) To 'realise' that the state doesnt actually exist. It is construct of human perception. If it were trully real, then i would be punsihed for not just the crimes i get caught for but the lawbraking i commit. Wouldnt i?

CorporationsRule
4th December 2004, 18:38
"(On a related note: Sod primitivism. I guess this deserves another thread entirely, but, uh . . . reducing the earths population by 90%? Are you being millenarian, or advocating genocide?)"

We don't have to advocate genocide. The earth is advocating genocide, which seems to me a valid response to 10,000 years of ecocide..

Bring us home mama!

Well, probably not me because my privileged ass is more than likely going to starve to death, but bring somebody home anyway.

ÑóẊîöʼn
4th December 2004, 20:53
Capitalism is simply the current form of exploitation. Exploitation began when human being decided to eradicate all competitors and force the earth to grow only human food.

Exploitation, by your definition, began when living things first began to live off each other. All animals, including humans, try to get their hands on as many resources as they can. We are not special in this regard.

There are even species that try to free-ride on our agricultural and technological advances... most humans call them 'pests'. They are no 'better' than us.

I think the only way we will render this planet lifeless is to do so intentionally - and even that might not be good enough... ice ages, continent-sized volcanic eruptions, asteroids, comets, and solar disturbances have yet to destroy life.

The point is only to keep species that are useful or aesthetically pleasing, the problem is deciding which species are so.

LuZhiming
11th December 2004, 03:20
Originally posted by DaCuBaN+Nov 26 2004, 08:26 PM--> (DaCuBaN @ Nov 26 2004, 08:26 PM) Unlike you, some people here actually care about ending the subjegation of man by man, care about ending the constant suffering of people all over the world, care about halting economic globalisation. Unfortunately, some of us just don't give a rat's ass about the "environment" until we've solved more immediate problems.

Frogs, I'm afraid, are not on that list; move along. [/b]
Is this serious? To say it in the most literal terms: Man is nothing without the environment. The environment is everything. How can one question this? Any minimal understanding of life(which you must have) will lead one to this conclusion.

Here's the reality of what you're saying: You don't care about "immediate problems," you simply refuse to deal with certain problems. And for you, the psychotic humanist approach is taken, so all problems you deem "non-human" are not ones worth dealing with. This attitude is self-destructive. Man has been killing members of its species since the beginning, but the continued extermiantion of other species and the world which surrounds them is not unlikely to cause the erradication of life, that includes humans.


Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:15 PM
Yes; that's right - point and scream "heretic! heretic!"

All our actions under the price-system, except those specifically aimed toward it's destruction, are futile at best. You go and try to save those frogs, and see where it gets you.

If you want to save the frogs, you first have to make people understand why there is a problem. To do this, you must make them understand what communism actually is. This is yet another symptom of the disease from which we all suffer - let us think about how to solve it, rather than doing what amounts to scratching at the wound.

More humanist dogma. Even your tone, "save the frogs," is opently hostile. What does Communism got to do with anything? You place fundamental problems humanity has plagued itself and the world with long before the ideas of "Capitalism" came about as a mere result of an ideology you oppose. This is because you are indulging in the present and look at things too far back as abstract and almost otherwordly. The severe problems described in this thread are part of a problem bigger than politics. Sure, the destruction of the environment is even worse because of various 'Capitalist' policies, but Communism is not the savior of this. Communism is merely a form of human politics, a strictly human creation, it has nothing to do with nature itself, and will not solve the problems facing the environment. You give the analogy of 'scratching at the wound.' You do not even know what you're saying, what you are doing is attempting to heal one while claiming it is for the improvement of another wound as well, while that other wound in reality remains untouched. These various actions of 'scratching at the wound' have not amounted to nothing, many species have been saved. People can't wait around for "the Revolution," they get things done regardless. Your reasoning seems to imply that all problems must be avoided until this grand Revolution is carried out(assuming it ever is, of course), a doctrine with severe flaws obviously.


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:46 PM
You would see is return to those days? Humankind living in perfect harmony with the world around us? You're only about... 20,000 years too late. Even back then, we were hunter-gatherers: We raped and pillaged both the plants and the animals around us to suit us. We haven't changed all that much since then, and we're not going to be changing that any time soon. You have to ask yourself, what is more important to you? The end of human suffering, or the end of animal suffering?

It's a no-brainer, frankly.

In those times, humans mostly did as any other species did, but to a greater extent, namely they exploited what they needed and that was it. There were exceptions of course, humans did exterminate species which were good at killing them, but mostly it is true to say humans lived in harmony with nature. The reason I do not advocate this way of life is because I am a human, and as a human, I recognize how much better we can live. And following what is obviously a "law" of nature, species must prioritize themselves about others. I believe in this strongly. The problem is when this priority turns into utter indulgence and contempt for non-humans(humanism another words), this kind of 'thinking' is destructive. In regards to the last part of your paragraph, I just have to make mention of how ridicolous and appaling the ending statements are. You are comparing modern-day human problems with the threat of complete extermination to other species. This comparison is exactly the kind of humanistic indulgence I'm talking about. Look, humans are not under threat of extermination, or even close. In fact, humans have the resources and the intelligence to live quite well. But that does not excuse our extermination of other species, nor does it mean we should keep having increased populations because they might be able to live well. You wish to continue the destructive actions of humans, but wish to avoid the consequences. Let me tell you something, you can't have both, it's a no-brainer.


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:46 PM
The earth is a giant rock! The only "animation" to take place on it's surface is that of the plants and animals, the insects and bacteria - amongst which I include ourselves - that live upon it's surface.

Right, the problem is that you don't have much regard for the "animation" of the rest of life, and you probably don't have much regard for the affect abiotic factors have on life.


[email protected] 28 2004, 07:46 PM
Now, I agree that many of our practices are "inhumane", in that we could achieve similar results without causing as many repurcussions - negative effects that will eventually come "home to roost" - but I submit that this is simply the effect of a continuously growing population that requires feeding. Do you have an alternative to feed the 2 billion people our planet can succesfully support?

Or did you not realise that we're sitting at approximately 300% capacity?

In short, as long as humans continue cause harm to each other, I won't give a rat's ass about "the environment".

The human population is at about 6 billion. And that is too much. The real solution is for most people on the Earth to not reproduce, it would save a lot of trouble if 90% of people on Earth would dissapear. We do not have the resources to sufficiently serve the needs of 6 billion people(if we tried, the results would come back to haunt us in the future, results which could possibly lead eventually to the extermination of the human species), so most of them need to not be here. It's as simple as that.