Why care about extinction?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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

If we continue current trends it will be in a few thousand years.

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.

You're the one who made the assertion. If you can't support your claim with the math then I'm just going to ignore it.

Let me get YOU started...

48 hours in a day.

8 bacteria in 1 hour.
16 bacteria in 1:20.
32 bacteria in 1:40
64 bacteria in 2:00
128 in 2:20
256 in 2:40
512 in 3:00
1024 in 3:20
2048 in 3:40
4096 in 4:00
262144 in 6 hours.
16777216 in 8 hours.
8589934592 in 10 hours.
9223372036854775808 in 20 hours.
590295810358705651712 in 24 hours.
19,342,813,113,834,066,795,298,816 in 30 hours

3.48449144 × 10^41 in 2 days.

Which species of salmonella are we referring to?
What is the lifespan of individuals of this species?
What is the approximate size of 1 individual of this species?
What is the approximate size of 3.48449144 × 10^41 individuals of this species?
How does that compare to the mass or size of the earth?

Obviously. Which is?

I don't know. Do you?

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.

Go ask Hawking to do the math. I already said I couldn't.

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

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.

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.

Which was never my argument. My argument was and I'm quoting myself here...

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

This wasn't an argument that loss of a lot of mammalian species would cause ecosystemal collapse. The argument was that we should not RISK IT because we don't know what could happen.

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.

Considering it's an alien planet of which we know nothing about, what "substantial evidence" is there that it doesn't have oxygen? You're making an assumption based on the planet that we do know about and then using the to apply to all planets in the universe now?

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.

It's unlikely that humans would evolve in modern society when most natural selection pressures are removed. People who would normally die without civilization live and multiply.

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.

Read my first post in this thread. I've quoted my post for you already and you skimmed right over that as well.

Here it is again...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.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

Observation is only one aspect of science. The scientific method requires scientists form "hypothesis" on the observations. A hypothesis is a speculation based on the facts and observations about how or why a specific phenomenon occurs.

If scientists did not speculate then Einstein would of never came up with his theories of relativity. His "Gedankenexperiment"s were speculations about chasing a light beam. If scientists didn't speculate then Newton would of never determined the facts of gravity, since he used speculation about how a cannon ball would travel around the planet.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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

It was only supposed to go on for 2 days.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As could the extinction of other animals if we intervened.

I know.

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

The whole "like Venus" thing isn't supposed to be taken literally anyway. It just gives an example of what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like. It's true that the earth has mitigating facts that would prevent it from being identical to Venus but the fact is, if global warming continues for hundreds of years at the rate it's predicted to occur over the next 100 years, we're in the frying pan.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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

Probably would not exist.

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?

We really don't even know how much poorer we are.

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

Your comparison between "natural selection" and systematic killing off of species by humans simply doesn't work. Humans are killing them off at a rate too fast for natural selection to make any difference.

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?

Maybe we are. Maybe we aren't. It's in our best interest to make sure we aren't.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

GM yeast vats are probably the most basic.



See above

How are "yeast vats" an example of 'ecosystems optimized towards supporting humans'?

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.

What are you basing this on?

The Drug companies would beg to differ.

The Drug companies use plants and trees to find cancer cures often.

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

Many cancer drugs were discovered by using plants or trees and are still used to treat cancers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel#History

This agent proved difficult to synthesize and could only be obtained from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree, which forced the NCI into the costly business of harvesting substantial quantities of yew trees from public lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camptothecin

Camptotheca acuminata, a deciduous tree found in southern China. Stem woods of Nothopodytes foetida (previously known as Mappia foetida) found in the western ghats of India are an even better source of camptothecin.

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.

Ever heard of a thing called "Zoo's"? or Wildlife sanctuaries?

Oh wait, Even better..There's this new thing called "Traveling". Great way to get outside of "place X".

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.

So the fact that a "mauritanian" child won't see non-local wildlife is a reason not to fight for the preservation of wildlife for people who could see it? Who's to say this child won't grow up and decide to travel to these places to see the wildlife?

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

I'm just as worried for any endangered species. Sure some plants or fungi play important roles in the ecosystem, but then again, Tigers and Lions are simply more fun to look at.

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.

********. How many times has some dormant virus found in some plant species killed off many people? I can't think of one instance.

How many times has plants or trees provided us with insight on how to cure a disease? I can list dozens.

You haven't produce a reason to preserve them either.

Sure I have.

What many don't seem to be understanding is that all life on earth is part of the global ecosystem. This means that every single species has evolved to be part of a fragile chain of other species. If one species goes extinct it can cause many other species to go extinct which in turn can cause many other species to go extinct. Humans, being part of that chain, have an invested interest in the well being of all species, even the ones that don't seem to make much of a difference. Scientists can't predict how the extinction of a single species will affect the entire ecosystem let alone the extinction of hundreds or thousands of species. This has effects for all humans in every way imaginable. If humans care about the existence of their species then they should care about the extinction of any species.

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.

 

[athon]

If we continue current trends it will be in a few thousand years.

This is a claim. It requires evidence of some sort that is not merely a one-liner from a prominent scientist. Jekyll offered a refutation above; address it.

You're the one who made the assertion. If you can't support your claim with the math then I'm just going to ignore it.

Dustin, this is basic mathematics. Andy was actually rather kind and did it for you, and came up with 2.23 x 10^43 bacteria.

Which species of salmonella are we referring to?
What is the lifespan of individuals of this species?
What is the approximate size of 1 individual of this species?
What is the approximate size of 3.48449144 × 10^41 individuals of this species?
How does that compare to the mass or size of the earth?

Huh? I don't think you're even caring to think. This is not a debate for you but rather some word game, and it shows. It is 223 with 41 zeroes after it. Multiply that out, given that one salmonella is about a square micrometre (or thereabouts) and we're looking at 223 x 10^36 square km. The earth's area is 510 million square km. My maths is rough, granted, but even allowing for several order of magnitude, you get my drift.

But the point is lost on you anway, as it demonstrates that following a curve tells you nothing of eventual outcomes unless you know the limitations.

I don't know. Do you?

You made the claim, buddy. Now you're admitting you made it up out of thin air. Thanks for your honesty.

Go ask Hawking to do the math. I already said I couldn't.

Again, you made the claim. I didn't. Again, thank you for honestly admitting you don't have a clue about your own claim and just fabricated it.

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.

Touching. And I agree. But this is aesthetics and not rationality. I happen to like aesthetics and will fight to support it, but I don't for a moment pretend I'm using objective reason. I would have loved to have seen a real mammoth, and dinosaurs, and the first life forms... But I can't. Shame that. But again, it's subjective desire and not reason.

Which was never my argument. My argument was and I'm quoting myself here...

This wasn't an argument that loss of a lot of mammalian species would cause ecosystemal collapse. The argument was that we should not RISK IT because we don't know what could happen.

Based on historical occurances, not a lot would happen. Of course, we aren't 100% certain. Science isn't ever 100% certain. But again this is argument from ignorance, which again you demonstrate you don't understand.

Considering it's an alien planet of which we know nothing about, what "substantial evidence" is there that it doesn't have oxygen? You're making an assumption based on the planet that we do know about and then using the to apply to all planets in the universe now?

Yes. It's called inductive reasoning.

It's unlikely that humans would evolve in modern society when most natural selection pressures are removed. People who would normally die without civilization live and multiply.

As I said, start a new thread about this so not to derail this one. You obviously don't understand evolution.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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?

I don't believe there are such things as "ends of evolutionary chains" in that sense. If humans are the "end of our evolutionary chain" then the next step is extinction. We're a dead end. However given changes in environment and enough time, any species can continue to change to fit it's environment.

As far as "higher life forms". I don't believe in those either. I don't believe humans are "higher life forms" in any sense of the word. Yes, they are the most 'intelligent' life forms on this planet but that's all. They aren't physically stronger, they don't have some of the other amazing attributes that other species have. Humans evolved to fit their environment and that's it. There was no "goal" when they were evolving.

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

If that's happening the likely the plant is it's main food source and the reason the animal is endangered to begin with is because the plant is endangered. I see a problem, likely caused by humans that needs to be fixed.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This is a claim. It requires evidence of some sort that is not merely a one-liner from a prominent scientist. Jekyll offered a refutation above; address it.

I've already provided evidence.

Dustin, this is basic mathematics. Andy was actually rather kind and did it for you, and came up with 2.23 x 10^43 bacteria.

Ok now answer my other questions.

Which species of salmonella are we referring to?
What is the lifespan of individuals of this species?
What is the approximate size of 1 individual of this species?
What is the approximate size of 3.48449144 × 10^41 individuals of this species?
How does that compare to the mass or size of the earth?

Huh? I don't think you're even caring to think. This is not a debate for you but rather some word game, and it shows. It is 223 with 41 zeroes after it. Multiply that out, given that one salmonella is about a square micrometre (or thereabouts) and we're looking at 223 x 10^36 square km. The earth's area is 510 million square km. My maths is rough, granted, but even allowing for several order of magnitude, you get my drift.

We're not talking about "area". We're talking about the actual size of the earth. The earth isn't hollow.

But the point is lost on you anway, as it demonstrates that following a curve tells you nothing of eventual outcomes unless you know the limitations.

Give me reasons the current trends won't continue for a few hundred more years.

You made the claim, buddy. Now you're admitting you made it up out of thin air. Thanks for your honesty.

I did make the claim. Which only supported your assertions.

Let's assume no thermodynamic limit.

Ok, The earth can get as hot as the sun.

Makes no difference for my argument.

Again, you made the claim. I didn't. Again, thank you for honestly admitting you don't have a clue about your own claim and just fabricated it.

Hawking made the claim as well. Go ask him for the math. I just said I couldn't do it.

Touching. And I agree. But this is aesthetics and not rationality. I happen to like aesthetics and will fight to support it, but I don't for a moment pretend I'm using objective reason. I would have loved to have seen a real mammoth, and dinosaurs, and the first life forms... But I can't. Shame that. But again, it's subjective desire and not reason.

How aren't aesthetical reasons rational reasons?

Based on historical occurances, not a lot would happen.

What historical occurrences?

Of course, we aren't 100% certain. Science isn't ever 100% certain. But again this is argument from ignorance, which again you demonstrate you don't understand.

There's nothing wrong with preferring to be safe rather than sorry. Yes, We do not know what would happen if many mammal species died out. However, preferring to be safe rather than sorry we must protect them.

Yes. It's called inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning can be flawed simply because you can't extrapolate such things with such limited information. Saying "Oh, We know that a few planets closest to us don't have oxygen, therefore this totally alien planet light years away from earth doesn't either!" That's called a "fallacy".

As I said, start a new thread about this so not to derail this one. You obviously don't understand evolution.

That's a nice copout. This is my thread and if I want to de-rail it I can.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

To any extent. Right now they do the opposite--developers are allowed to do anything they want (in the name of the free market) until or unless someone can bring a lawsuit proving that they're going to cause some specific and irreversible damage (as loss of a cuddly mammal species or pretty bird).

When I lived in Ecuador, my then wife who is a botanist would sometimes have jobs (via the national herbarium) where they'd have to try to catalog and rescue any plants they could in an area about to be destroyed by an oil pipeline (or actually more so by the concomitant road construction). Ecuador has more native plant species than all of North America, and about 1/4 of them are endemic. When they essentially destroy one of these little Andean valleys (especially in the intermediate altitudes), they usually lose endemic species. (Many of these endemics occur only in one valley.) It's pretty hopeless to rescue the plants; you can never reproduce the soil chemistry etc. in a hot house, especially given the time constraints.

To the main argument going on: yes life on Earth will undoubtedly go on no matter what humans do to it. The problem is, if the global ecosystem is significantly changed, it won't be human life that goes on.

Even short of that, on one level we're losing the chance to learn a lot. (As above, there's a lot we'll never learn about the plants that have been needlessly or shortsightedly wiped out by humans.) Even short of extinction, how sad it is that pretty soon we may not be able to study our nearest relatives, the chimps and bonobos, in their native habitat.

 

[EternalSceptic]

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?

Ecology is a very complex regulation system and it has been working smoothly over millions and millions of years. And yes, extinction was and is part of this regulating processes.

But such systems are not infinitely tolerant to manipulations from outside and might run out of control at a certain point. Humans developing intelligence, tools and weapons, making them immune to natural enemies has already caused sort of a runaway condition (earth is highly overpopulated)

I am not saying that "turning the knobs" is a Bad Thing per se, but before we do it we should be damn sure we know what we are doing.

That said, preserving existing species at least as samples for aesthetic and scientific reasons is IMO desirable and our technology gives us more and more tools to do so.

Finally, yes, we may be a dead end in evolution. Time will show.

 

[athon]

To any extent. Right now they do the opposite--developers are allowed to do anything they want (in the name of the free market) until or unless someone can bring a lawsuit proving that they're going to cause some specific and irreversible damage (as loss of a cuddly mammal species or pretty bird).

I agree that some form of solid conservation needs to be equated to economical significance. It's a conflict of values; most governments see supreme value in a growing economy. Many citizens are happy to sacrifice some of the economical growth of environmental sustainability.

To the main argument going on: yes life on Earth will undoubtedly go on no matter what humans do to it. The problem is, if the global ecosystem is significantly changed, it won't be human life that goes on.

I disagree. We have an amazing ability to survive in a range of environments thanks to our ability to model and change our immediate surroundings. Just look at the range of habitats we occupy thanks to this. Cultures will suffer, behaviours will change, and many people will suffer as a consequence, but humanity will continue in some form.

Even short of extinction, how sad it is that pretty soon we may not be able to study our nearest relatives, the chimps and bonobos, in their native habitat.

I fully agree. Please, I say again; I'm not arguing that extinction is good. I am saying that for the most part it is a moral and aesthetic desire we have based on our view that we like complexity, diversity, and to observe directly our environment. For some things we might argue that life will be harder if organisms die or that ecosystems change, but for the most part it is emotional desire that drives us to preserve.

Athon

 

[athon]

I've already provided evidence.

Wrong. You gave a Stephen Hawking quote which has no supporting evidence. That is argument from authority. Try again.

Ok now answer my other questions.

Which species of salmonella are we referring to?
What is the lifespan of individuals of this species?
What is the approximate size of 1 individual of this species?
What is the approximate size of 3.48449144 × 10^41 individuals of this species?
How does that compare to the mass or size of the earth?

I answered those. The species is irrelevant. The lifespan is irrelevant to my point (that without such parameters, a graph can be misextrapolated). The size I approximated. The area of the earth I gave. You didn't read it.

We're not talking about "area". We're talking about the actual size of the earth. The earth isn't hollow.

WTF??? What does that have to do with bacteria covering the earth?

Look, the analogy is beyond you. I'm sorry I used it. Hopefully it made sense to somebody who has the capacity to comprehend it, because it missed its mark with you.

Give me reasons the current trends won't continue for a few hundred more years.

Look, this is really simple; you made the claim that it will reach Venus-like temperatures, hence you provide the evidence of this.

I did make the claim. Which only supported your assertions.

Let's assume no thermodynamic limit.

Ok, The earth can get as hot as the sun.

Makes no difference for my argument.

You are not playing with a full deck of cards, are you?

Hawking made the claim as well. Go ask him for the math. I just said I couldn't do it.

Again, you have no evidence and admit to just swallowing a claim without understanding what it is you're believing. This is all making sense now; you haven't a critical bone in your body. Woo to the core.

How aren't aesthetical reasons rational reasons?

Because they are subjective. What I find beautiful another will not. We cannot rationalise an objective situation with subjective qualifications. My opinion of aesthetics could be different to yours, and neither of us has any grounds for being more right. That is why we endeavour to use reason where we can, as objective reality provides a strong foundation to which we can all relate.

What historical occurrences?

The dodo died out, and we didn't see any great crash in ecosystem. A change perhaps, but Mauritius retained its ecosystem intact. Want another?

There's nothing wrong with preferring to be safe rather than sorry. Yes, We do not know what would happen if many mammal species died out. However, preferring to be safe rather than sorry we must protect them.

Go and find out what an argument from ignorance is and then come back. You still don't know why this logic is flawed. Your statement is technically not wrong, but the logic you are using to support your claim is.

Inductive reasoning can be flawed simply because you can't extrapolate such things with such limited information. Saying "Oh, We know that a few planets closest to us don't have oxygen, therefore this totally alien planet light years away from earth doesn't either!" That's called a "fallacy".

A fallacy is it? Haha. Just what sort of fallacy is it? Man, seriously, it's like you've learned a couple of cool sounding words and then try to play science as if you know how.

Inductive reasoning extrapolates from an observation what the general might be in the face of the unknown. Based on the observation that no two planets have exactly the same elemental compositions, gravity, orbits etc., we can induce that an unknown planet will also not have the same elemental composition, or gas ratio. The likelihood of there being a planet with the exact same oxygen ration as Earth is miniscule when all variations are accounted for. I am not arguing from ignorance, but rather inductive reasoning (I won't even go into how to use deductive logic in this situation!).

Compare this with the fact that from the evidence we have, there is no indication than an oceanic ecosystem will dissolve if humpbacks disappeared completely. Arguing that any small amount of uncertainty has equal weight to the evidence is a fallacy, and one based on ignorance.

That's a nice copout. This is my thread and if I want to de-rail it I can.

Copout? I said open a new thread and we'll discuss it. It is poor form to derail a thread - even one's own - with a divergent topic.

Athon

 

[Ginarley]

I have only skimmed through this thread so far, but the topic is one that I have put a bit of thought into. The biodiversity issue is a fascinating one but I can't help but feel that it is based on "iconic species". I seriously get the feeling that the conservation movement is very much about conserving the world as it is right now or possibly how it was some time in the past. I am pretty strongly against this idea.

In most cases the reason a species is going extinct is because its habitat has changed, either naturally or thanks to humans changing/destroying it. The reason it is going extinct is because the animal is not well suited to its changing environment - whether that be human hunters, human foresters or a another source. This point is important because the extinction is natures way of readjusting to new circumstances.

Conservation in these circumstances doesn't make sense. Sure keeping species alive as curiosities never hurts, but they form no part of the ecosystem in zoos. The ecosystem is essentially rejecting them which is why they are going extinct. Artificially preserving them does not help things at all.

The preservation of habitats and maintaining an environment that is vibrant and growing is a good goal because that indicates a healthy ecosystem - it really doesn't matter in the slightest what species actually populate it and nature will itself figure out which species work best in it over time.

I also think (although I have little to back me up on this so i'm open to suggestions) that while macro-organisms are important, micro-organisms dominate the health of ecosystems to a far greater degree.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wrong. You gave a Stephen Hawking quote which has no supporting evidence. That is argument from authority. Try again.

No, I showed the current trends and extended them over a a few times more. There's no valid reason for them not to be extended that far.

I answered those.

No you didn't.

The species is irrelevant.

No it's not. Different species behave differently and have different lifespans.

The lifespan is irrelevant to my point (that without such parameters, a graph can be misextrapolated).

The lifespan is relevant because you're assuming they all live long enough to be able to populate the world.

WTF??? What does that have to do with bacteria covering the earth?

Look, the analogy is beyond you. I'm sorry I used it. Hopefully it made sense to somebody who has the capacity to comprehend it, because it missed its mark with you.

Moving the goalpost again...

Look, this is really simple; you made the claim that it will reach Venus-like temperatures, hence you provide the evidence of this.

I've shown you the trends. Unless you can give me a valid reason they can't be extended then I rest my case.

You are not playing with a full deck of cards, are you?

Yet another copout insult.

Again, you have no evidence and admit to just swallowing a claim without understanding what it is you're believing. This is all making sense now; you haven't a critical bone in your body. Woo to the core.

The only "woo" here is you. Your tactics remind me of creationists. Arguing that there's no rational reason to prevent extinction? Oh yes, How critical...

Because they are subjective.

So? Subjective things can't be rationalized? This doesn't make one bit of sense.

What definition of "Subjective" are you using? Provide a link. I can't find a single definition of the word that fits the way you're using it.

What I find beautiful another will not.

So?

We cannot rationalise an objective situation with subjective qualifications.

Why?

My opinion of aesthetics could be different to yours, and neither of us has any grounds for being more right.

This is irrelevant. The argument is whether or not you have the right to take away what I find beautiful. I.E. wildlife. and whether or not my and many others admiration of it can be a reason to keep it. Which it can.

That is why we endeavour to use reason where we can, as objective reality provides a strong foundation to which we can all relate.

Point being?

The dodo died out, and we didn't see any great crash in ecosystem. A change perhaps, but Mauritius retained its ecosystem intact. Want another?

That's because it's a single species. We still don't know exactly how the dodo bird's extinction affected the local ecosystem of Mauritius. Since we simply don't know what affects the extinction had on the ecosystem, studies are still ongoing.

Go and find out what an argument from ignorance is and then come back. You still don't know why this logic is flawed. Your statement is technically not wrong, but the logic you are using to support your claim is.

Aside from simply saying I'm using an "Argument from ignorance". How is my argument wrong exactly?

A fallacy is it? Haha. Just what sort of fallacy is it? Man, seriously, it's like you've learned a couple of cool sounding words and then try to play science as if you know how.

Could be many. Hasty generalization in particular. You're taking a tiny tiny sample of planets and then using that as evidence other planets won't have oxygen since those don't.

Inductive reasoning extrapolates from an observation what the general might be in the face of the unknown. Based on the observation that no two planets have exactly the same elemental compositions, gravity, orbits etc., we can induce that an unknown planet will also not have the same elemental composition, or gas ratio. The likelihood of there being a planet with the exact same oxygen ration as Earth is miniscule when all variations are accounted for. I am not arguing from ignorance, but rather inductive reasoning (I won't even go into how to use deductive logic in this situation!).

So if a planet had a gravity difference of 5% more and an oxygen ratio difference of 30% more, we could not survive on it?

Not only is your logic faulty, so are your facts.

Compare this with the fact that from the evidence we have, there is no indication than an oceanic ecosystem will dissolve if humpbacks disappeared completely.

Good grief, You're the one arguing from ignorance here. My argument was simply that we should protect humpbacks because we don't know what effect their extinction would have on oceanic ecosystems.

Arguing that any small amount of uncertainty has equal weight to the evidence is a fallacy, and one based on ignorance.

WHAT EVIDENCE? The "Lack of" evidence? Please tell me you're not claiming that the "lack of" evidence humpbacks extinction will negatively affect the ecosystems is evidence it won't....

Copout? I said open a new thread and we'll discuss it. It is poor form to derail a thread - even one's own - with a divergent topic.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2506066#post2506066

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have only skimmed through this thread so far, but the topic is one that I have put a bit of thought into. The biodiversity issue is a fascinating one but I can't help but feel that it is based on "iconic species". I seriously get the feeling that the conservation movement is very much about conserving the world as it is right now or possibly how it was some time in the past. I am pretty strongly against this idea.

You shouldn't be.

In most cases the reason a species is going extinct is because its habitat has changed, either naturally or thanks to humans changing/destroying it. The reason it is going extinct is because the animal is not well suited to its changing environment - whether that be human hunters, human foresters or a another source. This point is important because the extinction is natures way of readjusting to new circumstances.

These circumstances should not exist to begin with. Humans should avoid destroying the habitats of these endangered animals. If humans were not so stupid as to continue to reproduce, then there would be no need to do these things. These pressures we're putting on these animals don't need to be put on them.

Conservation in these circumstances doesn't make sense. Sure keeping species alive as curiosities never hurts, but they form no part of the ecosystem in zoos. The ecosystem is essentially rejecting them which is why they are going extinct. Artificially preserving them does not help things at all.

You're missing the entire point. We humans are the ones responsible for destroying their habitats and thus their ecosystems. What you're essentially saying is that we should not preserve them because their ecosystems are rejecting them because we destroyed their ecosystems!

Ding, Ding, Ding! Anyone home? Stop destroying their habitats and then they won't have trouble adjusting to their ecosystems!

The preservation of habitats and maintaining an environment that is vibrant and growing is a good goal because that indicates a healthy ecosystem - it really doesn't matter in the slightest what species actually populate it and nature will itself figure out which species work best in it over time.

Over time, I.E. tens of thousands of years. It makes no sense to destroy ecosystems basing it on the crooked justification that they might recover in tens of thousands of years. That's simple absurdity. We need to preserve their ecosystems as they are and make sure they don't become destroyed.

 

[andyandy]

It was only supposed to go on for 2 days.

after one week there are more bacteria than hydrogen atoms in the known universe - that's slightly more than the number needed to cover the earth don't you think?

Looking at the numbers i'm confident that athon's assertion is correct...

nevertheless i'll do the working out as well.....

Now bear in mind that this is all based on estimates - it is not an absolute answer - but then neither is "cover" an absolute measure - so we can just plug in some plausible numbers and see what we get.

if we take the dimensions of a salmenella bacteria to be 2micrometresx0.1x0.1 we can change that up to km³ to give us 2x10^-28km³
we can take the surface area of the Earth to be 509600000km²and decide that we want a covering 1cm deep across the entire planet.
This gives us a cubic area of 5096km³
Now all we need to do is divide one by the other

5096km³/2x10^-28
= 2.54x10³¹
So we can see that be using these estimates that after two days there would be more than enough salmenella to cover the entire planet to a depth of 1cm, and so Athon's assertion is perfectly acceptable.

Now if you want to talk about limiting factors, well of course they exist - because if they didn't, well, the planet would be full of salmenella bacteria....

 

[EternalSceptic]

Over time, I.E. tens of thousands of years. It makes no sense to destroy ecosystems basing it on the crooked justification that they might recover in tens of thousands of years. That's simple absurdity. We need to preserve their ecosystems as they are and make sure they don't become destroyed.

There is an additional point to it: Microorganisms as well as many short living small beasts like insects adapt much faster to changes in environment than their natural enemies and the most annoying and dangerous of them are generally those which are most difficult to limit/extinct.

So if we change the environment too fast we will pretty soon live in a world with growing populations of these beasts, forcing us to still increase our manipulation of the ecosystem. To which end?

I just think of multiresistent bacteria in hospitals as an example.

 

[athon]

after one week there are more bacteria than hydrogen atoms in the known universe - that's slightly more than the number needed to cover the earth don't you think?

Andy, thanks for having the patience to go through the maths. It's more patience than I have. The point will be totally lost on Dustin, but it does make for an interesting example of the power of exponential growth. I'm sure others here (like me) find this kind of amazing.

Now if you want to talk about limiting factors, well of course they exist - because if they didn't, well, the planet would be full of salmenella bacteria....

Exactly. The point is, if we look at the initial stages of logarithmic growth, it would be easy to see a future of wading through a bacterial slime after leaving the fridge door open for a few days. Hence the logic Dustin is using.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Andy, thanks for having the patience to go through the maths. It's more patience than I have. The point will be totally lost on Dustin, but it does make for an interesting example of the power of exponential growth. I'm sure others here (like me) find this kind of amazing.



Exactly. The point is, if we look at the initial stages of logarithmic growth, it would be easy to see a future of wading through a bacterial slime after leaving the fridge door open for a few days. Hence the logic Dustin is using.

Athon

There are plenty of reasons why bacteria won't continue to spread at that rate. You haven't provided a single reason why we can't extrapolate a few hundred years after the trends I posted.