Why care about extinction?

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is another one of those 'humans aren't nature' arguments, which are massivel flawed. It's an easy argument to win if you manipulate the definition of nature to be 'anything that doesn't have anything to do with humans'.

I think this is a complete mischaracterization of the argument Dustin is making. In fact, he's saying the opposite--we ARE connected with everything else, sometimes in ways we don't even know about.

I've always thought that we should recognize our ignorance in some of these decisions. When we do a cost/benefit analysis of something intrusive (usually habitat destruction), the burden of proof should be on the side that is proposing the change. (In other words, rather than trying to proof how important a loss might be when we probably don't know, the people wanting to make the disruption should have to prove that it won't hurt us.)

 

[athon]

I think this is a complete mischaracterization of the argument Dustin is making. In fact, he's saying the opposite--we ARE connected with everything else, sometimes in ways we don't even know about.

My apology. I wasn't trying to alledge that Dustin was using this argument, but rather it is a common argument used. It did come across as if Dustin was saying this, and I should have clarified.

I've always thought that we should recognize our ignorance in some of these decisions. When we do a cost/benefit analysis of something intrusive (usually habitat destruction), the burden of proof should be on the side that is proposing the change. (In other words, rather than trying to proof how important a loss might be when we probably don't know, the people wanting to make the disruption should have to prove that it won't hurt us.)

True, however to what extent should this be satisfied? There is always room for doubt, and even the best models will have flaws. If a study is done and is satisfied that there is no immediate impact, it says nothing about the risk of losing something that has a minor negative impact later down the track.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This is another one of those 'humans aren't nature' arguments, which are massivel flawed. It's an easy argument to win if you manipulate the definition of nature to be 'anything that doesn't have anything to do with humans'.

Even if you assume that anthropogenic extinction is "natural" then that's still not an argument to allow it. After all, a giant meteorite destroying earth would be 'natural' by the same definition. No one would argue against preventing that.

Extinctions have happened before because of new species being introduced. Ecosystems always evolve, with niches being emptied and replaced by novel organisms better suited. Humans have changed the environment massively, but just because the scale is unprecedented doesn't mean the action is unique. The 'extinction is amoral' reasoning is based on subjective views on the matter, on emotional reasoning which mourns when something passes.

Sorry, No. You're making many baseless assumptions that simply don't stack up to the facts. Extinctions have happened before but how is that an argument in support of currently human caused extinctions? You're arguing that somehow "life will adapt" because it has before. This is a baseless assumption. In the past extinction events, there was no constant pressure on life preventing it from evolving like there is now. Evolution takes millions of years to occur. At the rate humans are going, earth will be uninhabitable in that time scale. Add the amount of global warming that is predicted in the next few hundred years and multiply that over a million years. Earth will be another Venus.

Indeed, we can tie some threadbare rationality to lamenting the loss of biodiversity for human resources. However, this is very selective. When the tigers all die, there will be minimal impact on the surrounding ecosystem (hardly any great plagues of tiger food, for instance), yet we will still be upset. So this form of rationality doesn't equate our emotional responses; we'd sooner mourn those species we find human-like (tiger versus, say, a parasitic worm in a swamp), even though the disappearance of some insect might have a greater impact on our own wellbeing.

I don't see how this is an argument against preventing extinction. And even parasitic worms in a swamp might contain scientific clues that could greatly benefit humans.

The truth is, we could lose most mammalian species in the world and the impact on our wellbeing would be negligable.

Evidence? Look at the example presented earlier of the screwworm. That one tiny creature, when driven to the brink of extinction by humans, caused deer populations in several states to burst out of control.

http://www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/gray_book02/fad/scm.php

We can't even predict what would happen if we lost many mammalian species.

We could remove all humpbacks and no ecosystem would crumble. Even large shifts in niche occupation would balance out in due time.

Tens of thousands of years...

Hell, all the species around today are still here in spite of the Permian Extinction. That's the wonderful thing about life. It's so resilient.

Err, The Permian extinction happened 251 MILLION years ago. 99% of the life today didn't even exist then.

Extinction isn't a good thing for humans, by any means, especially for some key species. But the truth is that there is no doom and gloom reason why it's bad in most cases, especially those we celebrate most (such as pandas and tigers).

Sure there is. Lots of doom and gloom.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep, precisely, we should keep all species around because they might be useful some day.

Which is why I am in favor of keeping nukes. Extinct nuclear war is a bad thing, because we might need it some day.

I keep reading this, and I can't seem to make sense out of it.

Are you considering nuclear weapons to be a species? Is this some sort of analogy? If so, I don't get it. Nuclear weapons are like a species that has no conceivable utility to the ecosystem and therefore to our existence (so we'd be better off without it)?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yep, precisely, we should keep all species around because they might be useful some day.

Which is why I am in favor of keeping nukes. Extinct nuclear war is a bad thing, because we might need it some day.

An argument can be made in defense of keeping nukes active, only if humans were competent enough to have them. Which I don't believe they are.

However comparing the huge long term risks of keeping active nukes compared to the tiny short term benefits from exploiting a species to extinction is beyond absurd.

Elimination of a species does not cause a collapse in an ecosystem; the ecosystem changes in response.

This generally takes thousands of years since organisms must evolve to fill the niches left behind. These are in the GOOD circumstances. In the bad circumstances, the organism that went extinct causes a huge ripple effect throughout the ecosystem that kills of many more species that in turn cause a huge ripple effect.

A bird that dines only on mosquitos, if unable to learn to eat something else, would go with the extinction of mosquitos, but another bird that feeds on something else would fill the niche. Bad if you lose your favorite bird from a personal standpoint, meaningless from an ecosystem standpoint.

So let's take Bird A and Bug A. Bird A eats only bug A and when the bug A goes extinct then so does Bird A. However bugs generally play large roles in ecosystems other than being food for other organisms. Let's assume that bug A is required to colonize a specific plant and when but A goes extinct then so does that plant. With that plant extinct then whatever eats that plant goes extinct and whatever eats that which eats that plant goes extinct. Thus causing many more ripples throughout the local ecosystem which cause many other species to go extinct. This sort of scenario is far from uncommon.

I'm not sure exactly how to say it, but there seems to me to be something wrong with the idea that the Three Gorges Dam shouldn't have been built because a certain rare dolphin will go extinct. Doesn't our knowledge of the benefit to humans count? Doesn't our knowledge that the ecosystem will change, for the detriment of some species but for the benefit of others, but not be destroyed count for something?

No. If humans can't find a way to prosper without causing a species to go extinct then they aren't trying hard enough. China wouldn't need such a dam if it wasn't so overpopulated.

 

[athon]

Even if you assume that anthropogenic extinction is "natural" then that's still not an argument to allow it. After all, a giant meteorite destroying earth would be 'natural' by the same definition. No one would argue against preventing that.

I never argued that we should not prevent it. Again, you're reading what you want to read, not what is actually there.

Sorry, No. You're making many baseless assumptions that simply don't stack up to the facts. Extinctions have happened before but how is that an argument in support of currently human caused extinctions?

It's not. Again, you're reading something that is not there.

You're arguing that somehow "life will adapt" because it has before. This is a baseless assumption. In the past extinction events, there was no constant pressure on life preventing it from evolving like there is now. Evolution takes millions of years to occur. At the rate humans are going, earth will be uninhabitable in that time scale.

WTF?? Are you serious? You have no basis for this, no evidence, and no logic. You're just making this up as you go along. Where is your evidence that anthropogenic extinctions will extinguish all life? The claim is ludicrous and requires a motherload of evidence. Nothing short of irradiating the planet down through several miles of crust will sterilise the planet completely.

We are indeed changing the planet in massive ways, but claims of this calibre are based on your emotional ranting rather than any reason or facts.

Earth will be another Venus.

Hahaha. You have no idea, do you? Point out the evidence to suggest Earth will probably enter into a runaway greenhouse event following current trends.

I don't see how this is an argument against preventing extinction. And even parasitic worms in a swamp might contain scientific clues that could greatly benefit humans.

I never said that. I said that again the reasoning given is weak. 'We should not make a species extinct because ecosystems will crumble' might work for some species, but not most. For most it's an emotional wish.

We can't even predict what would happen if we lost many mammalian species.

That's an argument from ignorance, Dustin. I can use that to argue anything.

Err, The Permian extinction happened 251 MILLION years ago. 99% of the life today didn't even exist then.

I am dumbfounded that you've just said this. Well done, Dustin. I'm speechless at the stupidity of this statement.

Sure there is. Lots of doom and gloom.

Um, yes. Claims of planetary sterilisation is an extreme 'doom and gloom' claim, unsupported by evidence.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I never argued that we should not prevent it. Again, you're reading what you want to read, not what is actually there.

Sure sounded like it.

It's not. Again, you're reading something that is not there.

Sounded like it to me.

WTF?? Are you serious? You have no basis for this, no evidence, and no logic. You're just making this up as you go along. Where is your evidence that anthropogenic extinctions will extinguish all life? The claim is ludicrous and requires a motherload of evidence. Nothing short of irradiating the planet down through several miles of crust will sterilise the planet completely.

Or global warming...

Hey, How much life is on Venus?

We are indeed changing the planet in massive ways, but claims of this calibre are based on your emotional ranting rather than any reason or facts.

Or cold hard facts...

Hahaha. You have no idea, do you? Point out the evidence to suggest Earth will probably enter into a runaway greenhouse event following current trends.

The predictions even at the lowest predict an increase of over 2 degrees celcius over the next 90 years. 5 degrees celcius in the CCSR/NIES model. That's over 40 degrees in about 90 years. If it continues at that increasing rate (which it looks like it will based on all of the models) then we will absolutely be in a Venus situation within less than a million years. Extrapolate this model and extend it at the current rate 500 years and you've got a 200 degree increase of overall temperature for the planet. 400 degrees in 1000 years. And so on. So basically I was being very very conservative in saying it could be a million years before it happens. Based on the best climate models, if extrapolated to a few thousand years, we'll be another Venus.

I never said that. I said that again the reasoning given is weak. 'We should not make a species extinct because ecosystems will crumble' might work for some species, but not most. For most it's an emotional wish.

Most species live in tight ecosystems and numerous studies have shown that when once species goes, many go with it. Here's a study concerning how extinction patterns affect ecosystems.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5699/1141

That's an argument from ignorance, Dustin. I can use that to argue anything.

So?

I am dumbfounded that you've just said this. Well done, Dustin. I'm speechless at the stupidity of this statement.

The Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) extinction event, sometimes informally called the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred approximately 251 million years ago (mya), forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

Um, yes. Claims of planetary sterilisation is an extreme 'doom and gloom' claim, unsupported by evidence.

Here's an article detailing a study showing that humans won't even be around long enough to see the biodiversity of earth recover if a good percent of the species go extinct.

 

[athon]

Sure sounded like it.

So, you can't read. I couldn't care less what wishful thinking you put into it.

Hey, How much life is on Venus?

How much life has ever been on Venus?

The predictions even at the lowest predict an increase of over 2 degrees celcius over the next 90 years. 5 degrees celcius in the CCSR/NIES model. That's over 40 degrees in about 90 years. If it continues at that increasing rate (which it looks like it will based on all of the models) then we will absolutely be in a Venus situation within less than a million years. Extrapolate this model and extend it at the current rate 500 years and you've got a 200 degree increase of overall temperature for the planet. 400 degrees in 1000 years. And so on. So basically I was being very very conservative in saying it could be a million years before it happens. Based on the best climate models, if extrapolated to a few thousand years, we'll be another Venus.

This is precisely why I became a science teacher. It's shocking that this form of stupidity even exists, let alone that people take it seriously.

Do you know if you put a warm chicken out on a bench on Friday afternoon with one Salmonella bacterium on it, by Monday morning the entire planet will be covered in bacteria! It's true - just do the math. If you look at the exponential curve of bacterial reproduction, you can make this same stupid statement.

If I need to explain to you the connection between my claim and yours, then I seriously think you're out of your depth.

Most species live in tight ecosystems and numerous studies have shown that when once species goes, many go with it. Here's a study concerning how extinction patterns affect ecosystems.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5699/1141

Nice study. Shame it has nothing to do with what I said. You, sir, are the king of strawman arguments.

So?

Go look up 'argument from ignorance', then come back to the sandpit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

I know what the Permian extinction is, Dustin. Seriously, it's like having a discussion with a three-year old. It was the '99% of all life alive now wasn't even around then' statement I was dumbfounded over. I still am.

Here's an article detailing a study showing that humans won't even be around long enough to see the biodiversity of earth recover if a good percent of the species go extinct.

Again, so? This is a study stating that even a relatively small percentage of extinctions will lead to a relatively long period of relatively lower biodiversity. I never claimed otherwise. Ecosystems will indeed change if key species are removed. Some species play more integral roles than others; I never said they didn't.

The logic flounders when we care more about all of the pandas than we might about a single population of marine worm, when the latter holds more significance. The argument, therefore, is an emotional one based on a sense of aesthetics more than about decreased biodiversity.

Furthermore, so what if biodiversity drops? Life on Earth will continue ultimately (you still haven't demonstrated any evidence for your sterilisation statement) and I even argue that humans will continue to flourish, even if our lifestyle and various cultures have to adapt.

I'm not arguing for extinction. I'm against it. I just have the ability to see that my reasoning is an aesthetic and emotional one, rather than a rational one.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How much life has ever been on Venus?

I don't know if live has ever existed on Venus. But I do know that no life or at least 99.99% of life on earth would die within seconds if put on Venus.

This is precisely why I became a science teacher. It's shocking that this form of stupidity even exists, let alone that people take it seriously.

If you're a science teacher then I feel bad for your students...

Do you know if you put a warm chicken out on a bench on Friday afternoon with one Salmonella bacterium on it, by Monday morning the entire planet will be covered in bacteria! It's true - just do the math. If you look at the exponential curve of bacterial reproduction, you can make this same stupid statement.

Evidence?

If I need to explain to you the connection between my claim and yours, then I seriously think you're out of your depth.

Copout. Do you have any reason to believe that temperatures won't continue to increase at that same predicted rate? Any reason at all?

Nice study. Shame it has nothing to do with what I said. You, sir, are the king of strawman arguments.

The study shows how bad of an effect extinction has on ecosystems. Your earlier claims were that most extinctions would have little or no effect on them.

Go look up 'argument from ignorance', then come back to the sandpit.

I know what it means. So what if I'm arguing from ignorance? I'm arguing for "precaution" not for epistemological existence.

Imagine being on an alien planet. You and I are walking around on the planet. We don't know whether or not the planet has oxygen and can't determine if it does.
I say "We had better not take our helmets off, We do not know whether or not it has oxygen!"
You say "Argument from ignorance!"
You remove helmet.
You die.

I know what the Permian extinction is, Dustin. Seriously, it's like having a discussion with a three-year old. It was the '99% of all life alive now wasn't even around then' statement I was dumbfounded over. I still am.

Yes. Around 99% of the species that exist today did not exist then.

You said...

Hell, all the species around today are still here in spite of the Permian Extinction. That's the wonderful thing about life. It's so resilient.

This sentence makes no sense because MOST of the species alive today didn't even exist when the Permian extinction occurred. The species that did exist were the ancestral species of our modern species, sure, but your sentence implied that such a mass extinction occurred and still all of the species around today survived it. Showing not only ignorance of the history of extinctions but of evolution in itself.

Again, so? This is a study stating that even a relatively small percentage of extinctions will lead to a relatively long period of relatively lower biodiversity. I never claimed otherwise. Ecosystems will indeed change if key species are removed. Some species play more integral roles than others; I never said they didn't.

Your argument was that even if we killed off most mammal species then the effect would be negligible (point I refuted)

Then you argued that the "large shifts" in the ecosystem would "balance out" in due time. I pointed out that it would in the shortest time scales take tens of thousands of years thus making the point irrelevant for human concerns.

The logic flounders when we care more about all of the pandas than we might about a single population of marine worm, when the latter holds more significance. The argument, therefore, is an emotional one based on a sense of aesthetics more than about decreased biodiversity.

Who ever mentioned Panda's? I didn't. Looks like you're the one inventing straw men here not me.

Key creatures in an ecosystem are clearly more important from an ecological standpoint. However ecological arguments aren't the only arguments against extinction.

Furthermore, so what if biodiversity drops? Life on Earth will continue ultimately (you still haven't demonstrated any evidence for your sterilisation statement) and I even argue that humans will continue to flourish, even if our lifestyle and various cultures have to adapt.

It depends on what biodiversity drops.

I'm not arguing for extinction. I'm against it. I just have the ability to see that my reasoning is an aesthetic and emotional one, rather than a rational one.

Mine is both aesthetic, emotional as well as rational. You're simply not smart enough to see that there are many rational and pragmatic reasons to prevent extinction.

 

[athon]

I don't know if live has ever existed on Venus. But I do know that no life or at least 99.99% of life on earth would die within seconds if put on Venus.

Hell, you got me there big guy. Wow, game, set and match!

Is this like one of those candid camera things? Are you serious? What does this statement say about anything?

Evidence?

Salmonella bacteria reproduce through binary fission once every 20 minutes. The maths isn't difficult.

Copout. Do you have any reason to believe that temperatures won't continue to increase at that same predicted rate? Any reason at all?

Geeze. You have a point. Guess the Earth will be hotter than the sun in a few million years. Then what? Maybe hotter than the big bang after that! Where will it stop???

Demonstrate where temperatures will fall into equilibrium then, Dustin.

The study shows how bad of an effect extinction has on ecosystems. Your earlier claims were that most extinctions would have little or no effect on them.

I said most mammalian. Sure, wipe out a few dozen key bacteria or a few types of plant from any ecosystem and watch it crumble. Wipe out all humpbacks...then what? Can't use that same argument any more. Guess that means we can wipe out humpbacks and it won't matter.

I know what it means. So what if I'm arguing from ignorance?

Oh, I seriously have to add this to my sig! Classic!

Yes. Around 99% of the species that exist today did not exist then.

You said...

*sigh* Yes. Permian extinction -- big and bad. 99%. Gone. Global biodiversity today - all of it - is here in spite of that event. We arose from that 1%. So, even though most species were wiped out over relatively short period of time, all of life we have today persevered.

Your argument was that even if we killed off most mammal species then the effect would be negligible (point I refuted)

Then you argued that the "large shifts" in the ecosystem would "balance out" in due time. I pointed out that it would in the shortest time scales take tens of thousands of years thus making the point irrelevant for human concerns.

For modern human concerns, true. Humans might evolve into something else over 10 million years. So? The article said nothing about humans being wiped out by reduced biodiversity.

Who ever mentioned Panda's? I didn't. Looks like you're the one inventing straw men here not me.

Not at all. The 'humans will suffer if biodiversity reduction makes ecosystems collapse' argument might work for some species, but not all. Why not wipe out pandas? I'm saying the rationality doesn't hold in many situations. If all oceanic algae disappeared tomorrow, we'd suffer big time. No arguments there. But it doesn't translate to humpbacks.

Key creatures in an ecosystem are clearly more important from an ecological standpoint. However ecological arguments aren't the only arguments against extinction.

Wonderful. Got another argument then, that's rational?

Mine is both aesthetic, emotional as well as rational. You're simply not smart enough to see that there are many rational and pragmatic reasons to prevent extinction.

You're either being intentionally obtuse - again - or just feel like arguing for the sake of it. If the latter, you're wasting time and making yourself look rather immature.

I'm saying that in many cases the 'ecosystem collapse' argument doesn't hold true. WWF uses the panda as its symbol, for instance; why? It's an emotional tug. People don't want pandas to disappear. But humans wouldn't be affected in any appreciable way if they all disappeared tomorrow.

If E.coli went extinct tomorrow, we'd be in real trouble, sure.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hell, you got me there big guy. Wow, game, set and match!

Is this like one of those candid camera things? Are you serious? What does this statement say about anything?

It says that if earth were like Venus we'd all be dead.

Salmonella bacteria reproduce through binary fission once every 20 minutes. The maths isn't difficult.

Once every 20 minutes? Do the math then right here and come to the conclusion that the entire planet will be filled with the bacteria after a few days.

Geeze. You have a point. Guess the Earth will be hotter than the sun in a few million years. Then what? Maybe hotter than the big bang after that! Where will it stop???

Obviously there's a thermodynamic limit...

Demonstrate where temperatures will fall into equilibrium then, Dustin.

I'll let Hawking do the math...

I said most mammalian. Sure, wipe out a few dozen key bacteria or a few types of plant from any ecosystem and watch it crumble. Wipe out all humpbacks...then what? Can't use that same argument any more. Guess that means we can wipe out humpbacks and it won't matter.

1. Humpbacks do play an important role in their ecosystems.
2. As I stated earlier, I provided various arguments against extinction and ecosystem sustainability is just one.

Oh, I seriously have to add this to my sig! Classic!

I like how you completely ignored my example of how arguments from ignorance aren't always invalid. Especially in cases like this that aren't arguing for some epistemological existence only for specific action. Allow me to explain again...

Imagine being on an alien planet. You and I are walking around on the planet. We don't know whether or not the planet has oxygen and can't determine if it does.
I say "We had better not take our helmets off, We do not know whether or not it has oxygen!"
You say "Argument from ignorance!"
You remove helmet.
You die.

*sigh* Yes. Permian extinction -- big and bad. 99%. Gone. Global biodiversity today - all of it - is here in spite of that event. We arose from that 1%. So, even though most species were wiped out over relatively short period of time, all of life we have today persevered.

Yes,It took tens of millions of years as well. How is this of any relevance to us humans in our current predicament?

For modern human concerns, true. Humans might evolve into something else over 10 million years. So? The article said nothing about humans being wiped out by reduced biodiversity.

Explain to me how humans could evolve in modern society. What natural selection pressures are there?

Not at all. The 'humans will suffer if biodiversity reduction makes ecosystems collapse' argument might work for some species, but not all. Why not wipe out pandas? I'm saying the rationality doesn't hold in many situations. If all oceanic algae disappeared tomorrow, we'd suffer big time. No arguments there. But it doesn't translate to humpbacks.

One argument won't work for all species.

Wonderful. Got another argument then, that's rational?

More reasons to care about extinction of species is simply the fact that we want future generations to be able to observe their beauty directly, and not just from a text book. How tragic would it be for your offspring to blame your generation for not being able to witness first hand, many species that are currently going extinct? I for one, would of loved to of seen the Dodo bird or the Thylacine, or even the recently extinct Chinese river dolphin.

You're either being intentionally obtuse - again - or just feel like arguing for the sake of it. If the latter, you're wasting time and making yourself look rather immature.

I'm simply pointing out how absurd your reasoning is. If one can even call what you're doing "reasoning". Which is a compliment.

I'm saying that in many cases the 'ecosystem collapse' argument doesn't hold true. WWF uses the panda as its symbol, for instance; why? It's an emotional tug. People don't want pandas to disappear. But humans wouldn't be affected in any appreciable way if they all disappeared tomorrow.

So?

If E.coli went extinct tomorrow, we'd be in real trouble, sure.

Possibly.

 

[andyandy]

how absolute is your opinion is that "extinction is bad?"

let's take mosquitoes,


1) I develop a way of creating a population crash amongst mosquitoes worldwide - and as a result mosquitoes become extinct within 10 years Would you weight the ecological loss of mosquitoes more highly than the 3-5 million deaths caused annually through mosquito bourne infections?






2) I attempt to bring down the mosquito population to a minimal level to preserve ecological diversity, and thus prevent the massive annual loss of human life as a result of mosquito bourne infection, however there is a chance that in doing so i will inadvertantly cause their extinction. At what percentage risk of extinction would you be happy to carry out such a scheme?

less than 1%?
less than 5%
less than 20%
less than 50%
Even if the risk is very high it's worth trying
Even if the risk is zero it's not worth trying




3) Should any non-anthropocentric considerations affect our decision as to whether we bring about a species crash or species extinction of mosquitoes given their devastating impact upon human health? How much weight should these be given?

 

[athon]

It says that if earth were like Venus we'd all be dead.

If Earth was to become Venus, sure. Demonstrate where this is likely in the imminent future.

Once every 20 minutes? Do the math then right here and come to the conclusion that the entire planet will be filled with the bacteria after a few days.

I'll give you a head start then. 1 bacteria becomes 2 in 20 minutes... 20 minutes after that, 2 becomes 4.... there are then 8 bacteria 60 minutes later, and 16 in an hour twenty... keep going for two days and see how many you have.

If you seriously can't do year 7 mathematics, then... well, actually it would explain a lot.

Obviously there's a thermodynamic limit...

Obviously. Which is?

I'll let Hawking do the math...

Which is where? This is an article where he makes the statement...and then how the Chinese love him. Without anything backing it up it's purely an argument from authority. Try again.

1. Humpbacks do play an important role in their ecosystems.
2. As I stated earlier, I provided various arguments against extinction and ecosystem sustainability is just one.

So you said. Please, go on. What are they?

I like how you completely ignored my example of how arguments from ignorance aren't always invalid. Especially in cases like this that aren't arguing for some epistemological existence only for specific action. Allow me to explain again...

I ignored it because your example isn't an argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance is when a premise is argued to be true only because it hasn't been argued to be false. I wouldn't take my helmet off on a planet because it hasn't been shown there is no oxygen; I wouldn't do it because there is substantial evidence that other planets don't have earth's oxygen supply.

Explain to me how humans could evolve in modern society. What natural selection pressures are there?

Start another thread on it to not derail this one. The strange thing is that I'm not in the least bit surprised you've said this. I must be habituating to your ignorance.

One argument won't work for all species.

Great. Let's go for a rational argument as to why we should give a toss if pandas all die then. Or humpbacks. Or tigers. Or giant tortoises.

Athon

 

[Beady]

Science is based on speculation.

Don't you know any better than that?

Science is based on careful observation and record keeping. Pseudoscience is based on speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[andyandy]

Once every 20 minutes? Do the math then right here and come to the conclusion that the entire planet will be filled with the bacteria after a few days.


.

Do the math? Right here?

Ok.

It's very simple....

if we take n=1,2,3 to be 20 minute time intervals with n1= 20 minutes, then we can model the expansion at n by 2ⁿ
after one day (n=72) then there will be 4.7x10²¹ bacteria
after two days (n=144) there will be 2.23x10⁴³ bacteria
after 1 week (n=504) there will be 5.24x10 ¹⁵¹ ....a number so staggeringly huge it's about 70 zeroes bigger than the estimates for the numbers of hydrogen atoms in the entire visible universe....

so yes, you wouldn't have to wait long at all for the planet to be filled with bacteria.....

makes you glad for limiting factors

 

[Jekyll]

Because it can be prevented. For one.

As could the extinction of other animals if we intervened.


Here's a nice easy article on why we shouldn't end up like Venus.
http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/48867/will-earth-ever-sizzle-like-venus

 

[Beady]

how absolute is your opinion is that "extinction is bad?"

let's take mosquitoes,

Nah. Let's take dinosaurs. What would humans and other modern species be like if the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct?

Come to think of it, what was the effect on the biosphere when Proconsul died out? How much poorer are we, without the passenger pigeon and the dodo?

Isn't extinction part of how Natural Selection works? If we could eliminate the process of extinction, what then?

What evidence is there that humans will not prove to be an evolutionary dead end, worthy of extinction? If it happened to Neanderthal, why not us? Would Nature even notice?

 

[geni]

Explain how.

GM yeast vats are probably the most basic.

Explain how.

See above

So therefore no other life forms can provide cures for disease?

There probably are but the odds of finding them are minimal. The odds of finding stuff through working out what kind of chemical will have the effect you want look rather better.

We can't synthesize something when we don't even know what it is. We also can't predict how various molecules will react with other molecules with certainly when we don't even know what those molecules are. You're putting too much emphasis on chemists being able to predict how some hypothetical molecule will react with another molecule when they don't even have a basis for the said molecule. The chemistry of disease is far too complicated then simply finding a chemical, inventing some hypothetical chemical to counteract it and then predicting how it will interact with the other chemical.

The Drug companies would beg to differ.

If it were that easy we'd have cancer cured by now.

In some cases we pretty much have. Cancer is hard though since it is so darn simular to cells operateing normaly.

I haven't mentioned your atrocious grammar and spelling up until now but this sentence makes absolutely no sense. "most people won't see much stuff outside of what lives where they do"? What's that supposed to mean? I'm assuming English isn't your first language. At least I hope it isn't.

Most people live in place X. Most people will never see an species that live outside place X. Please consider the world outside the US and europe.

If you're saying that textbooks are better than first hand experience then you're simply full of it. I and anyone else interested in animals would much rather observe them first hand and up close then simply looking at pictures of them in a text book. This is why people go bird watching, wildlife watching, go to zoo's, etc. If you prefer textbooks over real life experiences then that's your preference, but don't try to argue it as a case in support of extinction!

Ever hear of a country called Mauritania? It's just below western sahara. The odds of your average Mauritanian kid seeing an animal that does not live localy even in a text book are mininimal.

Many animals are critically endangered.

Most of the animalia kingdom is not. Frankly I would be far more worried about plants, fungi, and protists than the animalia kingdom.

You really can't predict that. It could be that their DNA holds the secret to cure aids or cancer or some other deadly disease. It's impossible to know for sure.

It is also imposible to know that their DNA does not contian a dormant virus that will kill us all however that is equaly unlikely.

Moreover, Even if they had no effect on human survival. So what? That's not an excuse not to preserve them.

You haven't produce a reason to preserve them either. Which is rather strange since there is one. They are funny. Thus for the time being humans will put effort into makeing sure at least 2 of the remaining species survive. Obviously we may one day have different priorities.

 

[The Painter]

Originally Posted by The Painter
Without extinction or mass extinction events of the past, Man would not have evolved.

So?

Just curious, do you think Man is the end of the evolutionary chain? Is it possible that Man is just a stepping stone in evolution and when we are gone a higher life form may evolve?

Just as an aside;
What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

1) I develop a way of creating a population crash amongst mosquitoes worldwide - and as a result mosquitoes become extinct within 10 years Would you weight the ecological loss of mosquitoes more highly than the 3-5 million deaths caused annually through mosquito bourne infections?

I believe they could still be kept under controlled circumstances.

2) I attempt to bring down the mosquito population to a minimal level to preserve ecological diversity, and thus prevent the massive annual loss of human life as a result of mosquito bourne infection, however there is a chance that in doing so i will inadvertantly cause their extinction. At what percentage risk of extinction would you be happy to carry out such a scheme?

less than 1%?
less than 5%
less than 20%
less than 50%
Even if the risk is very high it's worth trying
Even if the risk is zero it's not worth trying

When we're talking about Mosquito's we're not talking about a single species but literally hundreds of species and over 41 Genra's. Mosquito's are not a species but an entire "family" of species belonging to the family Culicidae.

At what % chance of extinction would I consider decreasing the population of the family Culicidae? I wouldn't risk it above 20%. That's just me.

3) Should any non-anthropocentric considerations affect our decision as to whether we bring about a species crash or species extinction of mosquitoes given their devastating impact upon human health? How much weight should these be given?

A lot of weight.