Why care about extinction?

[athon]

Why biodiversity matters.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-i-think-biodiversity-matters.html

I don't think anybody is arguing that as a whole, biodiversity is unimportant. It's one of those 'voter's fallacy' things; voting is important. Yet if I don't go and vote this weekend, it won't make any real difference to the outcome.

It's slightly different with biodiversity. Killing a species of algae will see fisheries collapse and people starve. That is unreasonable, if we state that we don't want people to die.

Killing a species of panda makes no real difference to an ecosystem. It is irrational to say an ecosystem will collapse if there are no pandas. Therefore, arguing that we should not kill all pandas has no rational justification. It's the same as somebody telling me that if I don't go and vote, my favoured party won't get in. This is an irrational claim (even though I really should go and vote).

The difference is a small one, but significant if people are to be encouraged to protect global biodiversity.

Athon

 

[Ginarley]

You shouldn't be.

Conservation is not a healthy goal - it stagnates things. We should be aiming much higher than that.

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.

I agree for the most part, but the fact remains that those pressures are there and the effort for maintaining existing species that are not well suited is a weak one. Even if we work aggressively to restore and regrow habitats, the new ecosystems that develop will not be the same as the old ones, and this is not a bad thing. They will be much better suited to their new circumstances and the right species will populate them, and they will find a nice stable equilibrium over time.

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!

I think you are confusing an ecosystem with a species... I never said preserving ecosystems is a bad thing - my point is that the composite species really don't matter. What matters is that it is healthy and vibrant and we should do our best to encourage that. Preserving individual species is usually a waste of time unless you somehow restore the habitat and system to a point where they are well suited to it.

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

Lol - actually I'm in my office... but ignoring your silliness, we already have destroyed their ecosystem and yes thats a bad thing, BUT there is no guarantee that any particular species will remain suited to the ecosystem if we return it to health because it is always changing. The focus should not be on species but the system as a whole.

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.

I almost agree here however the key though is to preserve the health of the ecosystem not to lock it in some arbitrary state that it once was in. It doesn't matter at all what species are in the ecosystem, only that there is a healthy system that delivers all the ecosystem services needed.

Conservationists everywhere are obsessed with two things - the first is returning things to how they were (an unlikely occurrence since complex systems are not generally reversible) and with maintaining iconic species regardless of their niche. Neither of those things are particularly important to an ecosystems health and the real effort should be in ensuring habitats and ecosystems are restored to healthy states where they can go on developing themselves.

Who knows, maybe one day we will end up with stable and vibrant ecosystems that work well with the human species rather than trying to return to old ecosystems that we've already shown don't

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Conservation is not a healthy goal - it stagnates things. We should be aiming much higher than that.

"Stagnates" things? Do you realize that evolution takes millions of years? There's nothing to "aim" to.

I agree for the most part, but the fact remains that those pressures are there and the effort for maintaining existing species that are not well suited is a weak one. Even if we work aggressively to restore and regrow habitats, the new ecosystems that develop will not be the same as the old ones, and this is not a bad thing. They will be much better suited to their new circumstances and the right species will populate them, and they will find a nice stable equilibrium over time.

Do you realize that evolution takes millions of years?

Lol - actually I'm in my office... but ignoring your silliness, we already have destroyed their ecosystem and yes thats a bad thing, BUT there is no guarantee that any particular species will remain suited to the ecosystem if we return it to health because it is always changing. The focus should not be on species but the system as a whole.

We haven't destroyed all ecosystems and there's still a lot to preserve.

 

[Ginarley]

"Stagnates" things? Do you realize that evolution takes millions of years? There's nothing to "aim" to.

Systems can change much quicker than that though - they adapt all the time and can do quite quickly. Bacterial evolution can occur in days not millions of years - don't get caught up in the idea that birds and other big animals are the driving force of an ecosystem.

What we should be aiming for is to improve the health of ecosystems not to conserve it. When you allow for regrowth of deforested areas it will never come out the same as it was before, new species will take up niches that they previously couldn't and the system will end up a little different. IMO this is a good thing.

Do you realize that evolution takes millions of years?

Depends on the animal and circumstances. And the ecosystem is more than just the constituent animals - it includes the resources, minerals, light, climate and an abundance of other features.

We haven't destroyed all ecosystems and there's still a lot to preserve.

Absolutely - but "preserve" is such a negative action - we should be encouraging growth and development of the existing ecosystems and encouraging new ecosystems to develop where there are none left.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Systems can change much quicker than that though - they adapt all the time and can do quite quickly. Bacterial evolution can occur in days not millions of years - don't get caught up in the idea that birds and other big animals are the driving force of an ecosystem.

I'm talking about animals, not bacteria.

What we should be aiming for is to improve the health of ecosystems not to conserve it. When you allow for regrowth of deforested areas it will never come out the same as it was before, new species will take up niches that they previously couldn't and the system will end up a little different. IMO this is a good thing.

It never turns out being a good thing. Give me one example of deforestation and ecosystem destruction being a 'good thing'. Species don't "fit new niches". Animals that adapt slowly die. Go extinct.

Depends on the animal and circumstances. And the ecosystem is more than just the constituent animals - it includes the resources, minerals, light, climate and an abundance of other features.

For animals it takes tens of thousands-millions of years.

Absolutely - but "preserve" is such a negative action - we should be encouraging growth and development of the existing ecosystems and encouraging new ecosystems to develop where there are none left.

Macro ecosystems develop so slowly that it would be impossible for humans to encourage their "growth and development". Generally thousands of years for species to evolve new niches and humans really can't control such things in such time spans. What humans need to do is preserve the ecosystems they have left so as no more species go extinct.

 

[Ginarley]

I'm talking about animals, not bacteria.

I don't see an individual bird species (for example) making that much difference to an ecosystem one way or another - the fundamental drivers (and I think the majority of the biomass although I'm not 100% on that one) is found in micro-organisms..

It never turns out being a good thing. Give me one example of deforestation and ecosystem destruction being a 'good thing'. Species don't "fit new niches". Animals that adapt slowly die. Go extinct.

I never said deforestation was a good thing - I said ecosystems naturally regrowing is a good thing - where deforestation has occurred its a little too late to stop it... and where it hasn't we should let the ecosystem grow naturally (which is a different paradigm to "preservation"). Regardless of what we may prefer, the world is a different place post development to 10,000 years ago. Ecosystems must adapt whether we like it or not.

For animals it takes tens of thousands-millions of years.

Animals can adapt more quickly than that, and lets face it, any ecosystem that isn't functioning properly will take time to reestablish itself regardless. There is much more value leaving it to its own devices than trying to control or preserve it.

Macro ecosystems develop so slowly that it would be impossible for humans to encourage their "growth and development". Generally thousands of years for species to evolve new niches and humans really can't control such things in such time spans. What humans need to do is preserve the ecosystems they have left so as no more species go extinct.

The difference in our opinions is more subtle than perhaps you think - perhaps a meeting point is that I think all we need to preserve is the space for ecosystems to develop naturally and not the system itself.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't see an individual bird species (for example) making that much difference to an ecosystem one way or another - the fundamental drivers (and I think the majority of the biomass although I'm not 100% on that one) is found in micro-organisms..

Depends on the bird species. Some make more difference than others and the more we lose the more damage it does.

I never said deforestation was a good thing - I said ecosystems naturally regrowing is a good thing - where deforestation has occurred its a little too late to stop it... and where it hasn't we should let the ecosystem grow naturally (which is a different paradigm to "preservation"). Regardless of what we may prefer, the world is a different place post development to 10,000 years ago. Ecosystems must adapt whether we like it or not.

1. Where deforestation IS occurring it's not too late to stop it. We can simply make new laws or regulations to protect what there is left.
2. You're misunderstanding what the term 'preservation' means. What it means is to preserve ecosystems from destruction.

Animals can adapt more quickly than that, and lets face it, any ecosystem that isn't functioning properly will take time to reestablish itself regardless. There is much more value leaving it to its own devices than trying to control or preserve it.

Which is why ecosystem destruction should be prevented.

The difference in our opinions is more subtle than perhaps you think - perhaps a meeting point is that I think all we need to preserve is the space for ecosystems to develop naturally and not the system itself.

I believe you're misunderstanding what the term 'preservation' means. What it means is to preserve ecosystems from destruction not to try to keep them in some sort of time warp.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Subscribing...

 

[xingyifa]

Dustin
While normally this would be irrelavent, what are your academic credentials as related to this topic. It seems like the majority of the other posters on this thread do not feel that your evidence stands by itself. Thus, to some extent, your argument is based on your authority in this field.

 

[athon]

Dustin
While normally this would be irrelavent, what are your academic credentials as related to this topic. It seems like the majority of the other posters on this thread do not feel that your evidence stands by itself. Thus, to some extent, your argument is based on your authority in this field.

Dustin's authority in the field is more or less irrelevant. It's his arguments which are lacking; indeed, if he did present as somebody with academic qualifications or research in the field of ecology or biology, I'd find it questionable how he attained it or whether he was being truthful; the information he presents is foundational at best.

Either way, it's a case of addressing his logic and his evidence, not his background.

Athon

 

[MG1962]

I have always thought biomass far more important than bio diversity. The history of this planet is full of major extinction events that have resulted in radiation of speices to fill vacant environments.

Dont ask me for a sitation, but I recall sometime ago reading that coral had actually gone extinct at least three times in the fossil record, but it is such a natural speciation that something constantly evolves back into coral

 

[xingyifa]

Dustin's authority in the field is more or less irrelevant. It's his arguments which are lacking; indeed, if he did present as somebody with academic qualifications or research in the field of ecology or biology, I'd find it questionable how he attained it or whether he was being truthful; the information he presents is foundational at best.

Either way, it's a case of addressing his logic and his evidence, not his background.

Athon

While yes, in a perfect world, a good argument should stand by itself, this is not a perfect world. I would agree that dustin's debate skills could use some serious refining, however the crux of your disagreement seems to lie in the interpretation of his evidence. You argue that the CO2 charts he is using cannot be extrapolated in a linear manner over a period of hundreds of years while he says that they can. Since no one has provided documentation either way (only grossly misunderstood metaphors), it comes down to who should one believe. Thus, I would say that at this point, academic credentials are relavent to the discussion unless one of you can site a paper that explains why those graphs are valid under current models for x number of years.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin
While normally this would be irrelavent, what are your academic credentials as related to this topic. It seems like the majority of the other posters on this thread do not feel that your evidence stands by itself. Thus, to some extent, your argument is based on your authority in this field.

Try reading my posts and judge for yourself. Or try doing your own research in this matter. My credentials are indeed irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is my argument, whether people agree with it or not.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

While yes, in a perfect world, a good argument should stand by itself, this is not a perfect world.

In this world or a perfect world.

I would agree that dustin's debate skills could use some serious refining, however the crux of your disagreement seems to lie in the interpretation of his evidence.

Sure, My debate skills could improve. Anyones could. But I'd be willing to bet I'm better at it than you are.

The crux of his disagreement seems to he his presumptuous philosophy that aesthetic arguments can't be rational arguments for preservation of species and wildlife.

You argue that the CO2 charts he is using cannot be extrapolated in a linear manner over a period of hundreds of years while he says that they can.

And even if I were a famous climatologist with decades of experience, It would be irrelevant to my argument and would lend no credence to it.

Since no one has provided documentation either way (only grossly misunderstood metaphors), it comes down to who should one believe.

There's no "documentation" that the climate models can be extrapolated for hundreds more years. It was an assumption offering an example of how hot Earth could possibly get. It wasn't even meant to be taken literally.

Who should one believe? You'll need to make that decision without knowing our credentials because that would no doubt bias your conclusions.

Thus, I would say that at this point, academic credentials are relavent to the discussion unless one of you can site a paper that explains why those graphs are valid under current models for x number of years.

There are no such papers proving any such thing and still, our credentials are irrelevant.

 

[andyandy]

There's no "documentation" that the climate models can be extrapolated for hundreds more years. It was an assumption offering an example of how hot Earth could possibly get. It wasn't even meant to be taken literally.
.

No, there's no documentation that one can look at a co2 vs time plot with a 100 year projection, and extrapolate from that 1000years hence using an exponential plot because it's an utterly ridiculous thing to do. You don't need documentation to know that, just a basic grasp of maths and modelling. High school level should be sufficient.

For you to claim it wasn't meant to be taken literally is simply disingenous -

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

The four bolded sentences were clearly to be taken literally as part of your argument. And all four show staggering ignorance.

 

[athon]

While yes, in a perfect world, a good argument should stand by itself, this is not a perfect world. I would agree that dustin's debate skills could use some serious refining, however the crux of your disagreement seems to lie in the interpretation of his evidence. You argue that the CO2 charts he is using cannot be extrapolated in a linear manner over a period of hundreds of years while he says that they can. Since no one has provided documentation either way (only grossly misunderstood metaphors), it comes down to who should one believe. Thus, I would say that at this point, academic credentials are relavent to the discussion unless one of you can site a paper that explains why those graphs are valid under current models for x number of years.

Dustin's graph extrapolation relies on his extending the lines as a current trend for an indefinite amount of time, with his assumption that this can be done infinitely (or at least to a time in the far, far future of his choosing). This assumes that CO2 levels will continue indefinitely and / or that there are no negative feedback mechanisms, only positive ones. It doesn't take an expert in global environment studies to see the flaw in this.

CO2 levels aren't endless. Furthermore, the CO2 we're releasing is in the form of fossil fuels, and of those, only the fossil fuels we are able to access directly and convert. So there is a finite level of CO2 that can be placed into the atmosphere. For Dustin to make the claim that this level is sufficient to create a Venus-like environment, he must demonstrate that with evidence.

Secondly, our oceans are great stablising force when it comes to temperatures and atmospheric gas ratios. This comes at a cost; variations across the globe in terms of climate and local weather patterns are extremely susceptible to changes in oceanic currents, affected by haloclines (salt differences) and thermoclines (temperature differences). Furthermore, while the ocean can suck up a lot of CO2, this does make it more acidic, making it difficult for calcium-shelled animals to retain their shell's integrity, inevitably killing them.

None-the-less, the impact of our global water bodies on warming is to be taken into account. I don't deny global warming and great changes in weather patterns, yet considering we are vastly different to Venus in chemical composition, position in the solar system (much further away from the sun than Venus), and climactic feedback mechanisms, it is up to Dustin to demonstrate sufficient similarity to argue that we will also achieve a runaway greenhouse effect.

The awful thing is that he might indeed be correct. Give the evidence, I might agree. If Dustin had expertise, he would see the need for evidence beyond a graph. But Dustin has no evidence, he argues emotively and passionately, but insensibly. Sadly, it's his kind who detracts from the climate debate.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, there's no documentation that one can look at a co2 vs time plot with a 100 year projection, and extrapolate from that 1000years hence using an exponential plot because it's an utterly ridiculous thing to do. You don't need documentation to know that, just a basic grasp of maths and modelling. High school level should be sufficient.

For you to claim it wasn't meant to be taken literally is simply disingenous -



The four bolded sentences were clearly to be taken literally as part of your argument. And all four show staggering ignorance.

The only one showing ignorance is you. Let me quote what I said and underline the most important aspect of it...

Based on the best climate models, if extrapolated to a few thousand years, we'll be another Venus.

I never said that they could absolutely be extrapolated to a few thousand years or even a few hundred. I simply used it as an example of potential climate change.

 

[athon]

The crux of his disagreement seems to he his presumptuous philosophy that aesthetic arguments can't be rational arguments for preservation of species and wildlife.

You have not demonstrated how aesthetics are rational. Aesthetics are opinions based on the emotions one has to an observation. They are subjective - in that they are personal views which cannot be objectively right or wrong.

If they are neither right nor wrong, an aesthetic opinion cannot be used on its own in the place of reason in an argument. It can be a means to an end in itself (i.e., X cannot be done as it will make me unhappy, and I personally do not want to be unhappy). But simply stating that X cannot be done because it is aesthetically displeasing is assuming that this is an objective outcome for all, which is false.

If 99% of the planet's population couldn't care less about the extinction of some organisms, then should they be saved? I'm sure you would continue to argue they should. It is where the generalised 'aesthetics is reasonable' argument falls down.

Athon

 

[andyandy]

I never said that they could absolutely be extrapolated to a few thousand years or even a few hundred. I simply used it as an example of potential climate change.

dustin, in the context of this sentence if is equivilent to when. If you want to argue that it was an example, then why would you choose an example that was completely and utterly ludicrous?

Using the climate trends for 100 to extrapolate temperature in 1000 years isn't that crazy.

Yes it is. Utterly stupid.

If current trends continue, there's really nothing that would prevent it from going that far.

Statement based on if clause. Yes there is. This is simply wrong.

That's over 40 degrees in about 90 years.

Statement. This is completely wrong.

If it continues at that increasing rate (which it looks like it will based on all of the models)

Statement. This is completely wrong.

then we will absolutely be in a Venus situation within less than a million years.

Statement based on if clause. Shows complete lack of understanding about exponential growth and about the actual temperature of Venus. Venus is only about 450 degrees C - so by your reasoning we should reach this in just over 1000 years. We will be hotter than the sun in about 18,000 years. In a milion years the temperature will be 200x2¹⁹⁹⁹ degrees C. This is such a stupendously large number that the calculator isn't up to the task, but for reference we can see that 200x2¹⁰⁰⁰ is 2.14301721 × 10³⁰³ - and this should be big enough to cast some doubt on your modelling ability....

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.

A ludicrous suggestion based on a complete lack of knowledge of exponential growth or climate science.

Dustin, how old are you? Seriously....i have a working premise that you're about 16-17....and that really is the only mitigating factor i apply when reading your posts.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You have not demonstrated how aesthetics are rational. Aesthetics are opinions based on the emotions one has to an observation. They are subjective - in that they are personal views which cannot be objectively right or wrong.

If they are neither right nor wrong, an aesthetic opinion cannot be used on its own in the place of reason in an argument. It can be a means to an end in itself (i.e., X cannot be done as it will make me unhappy, and I personally do not want to be unhappy). But simply stating that X cannot be done because it is aesthetically displeasing is assuming that this is an objective outcome for all, which is false.

If 99% of the planet's population couldn't care less about the extinction of some organisms, then should they be saved? I'm sure you would continue to argue they should. It is where the generalised 'aesthetics is reasonable' argument falls down.

Athon

To avoid going in circles...

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.

It's not a complicated definition; subjective, as in 'Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world' (http://www.answers.com/topic/subjective). Aesthetics is a subjective opinion.

So based on your definition of "subjective" which means 'taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world' would you argue that your thoughts aren't rational since they take place inside of your mind and not in the external world?