View Full Forums : Three Extinctions Per Hour, Thanks to Human Activity


Tudamorf
05-22-2007, 03:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070522/sc_nm/climate_extinctions_dc_2<b>U.N. urges world to slow extinctions: 3 each hour</b>

OSLO (Reuters) - Human activities are wiping out three animal or plant species every hour and the world must do more to slow the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs by 2010, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

Scientists and environmentalists issued reports about threats to creatures and plants including right whales, Iberian lynxes, wild potatoes and peanuts on May 22, the International Day for Biological Diversity.

"Biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate," U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement. Global warming is adding to threats such as land clearance for farms or cities, pollution and rising human populations.

"The global response to these challenges needs to move much more rapidly, and with more determination at all levels -- global, national and local," he said. Many experts reckon the world will fail to meet the goal set by world leaders at an Earth Summit in 2002 of a "significant reduction" by 2010 in the rate of species losses.

"We are indeed experiencing the greatest wave of extinctions since the disappearance of the dinosaurs," said Ahmed Djoghlaf, head of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. Dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, perhaps after a meteorite struck.

"Extinction rates are rising by a factor of up to 1,000 above natural rates. Every hour, three species disappear. Every day, up to 150 species are lost. Every year, between 18,000 and 55,000 species become extinct," he said.

"The cause: human activities."

DODO

A "Red List" of endangered species, however, lists only 784 species driven to extinction since 1500 -- ranging from the dodo bird of Mauritius to the golden toad of Costa Rica.

Craig Hilton-Taylor, manager of the list compiled by the World Conservation Union grouping 83 governments as well as scientists and environmental organizations, said the hugely varying figures might both be right, in their way. "The U.N. figures are based on loss of habitats, estimates of how many species lived there and so will have been lost," he told Reuters. "Ours are more empirical -- those species we knew were there but cannot find."

U.N. climate experts say global warming, blamed mainly on human use of fossil fuels, will wreck habitats by drying out the Amazon rainforest, for instance, or by melting polar ice.

The World Conservation Union also said that one in every six land mammals in Europe was under threat of extinction, including the Iberian lynx, Arctic fox and the Mediterranean monk seal.

"The results of the report highlight the challenge we currently face to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010," European Commissioner Stavros Dimas said.

Europe's goal is to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, tougher than the global target of slowing losses.

Another report by a group of farm researchers said that global warming may drive many wild varieties of plants such as potatoes and peanuts to extinction by mid-century, wiping out traits that might help modern crops resist pests or disease.

The WWF conservation group and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society said that whales, dolphins and porpoises were "facing increasing threats from climate change" because of factors such as rising sea temperatures.

A survey in Britain said climate change might actually help some of the nation's rare wildlife and plants -- such as the greater horseshoe bat and the turtle dove -- to spread to new areas even as others faced threats to their survival.Yep, humans are about as beneficial to this planet as a giant asteroid hitting the Yucatan Peninsula.

Aidon
05-22-2007, 03:39 PM
Hey, I know. Why not just kill off humans so the 123783432 billion species of insects can take over!

Tudamorf
05-22-2007, 03:41 PM
Hey, I know. Why not just kill off humans so the 123783432 billion species of insects can take over!The humans need not be killed to prevent the mass extinctions. They just need to wisen up.

Oh, and without those 123783432 billion species of insects, there would be no world ecosystem.

Aidon
05-22-2007, 08:24 PM
I'm well aware...but your hysterionics compelled my own.

MadroneDorf
05-22-2007, 09:44 PM
Actually after each mass extinction events biological diversity and amount of species tend to go up in the long term because of the disruption to established species.

In the long run humans will have caused the emergence of millions of new species!

Humans can't be good or bad for the planet, because there is no such thing as good for the planet, there is only good for the current residents of the planet.

I mean I guess technically, blowing our planet in half would be "bad" for it but I don't think we possess the technology to do that yet.

Really what we should look at is is our activity good for the continuing existence of humans on the planet?... [The answer is no]

Answer might be pretty much the same but its a better way to phrase it!

Anka
05-22-2007, 10:29 PM
In the long run humans will have caused the emergence of millions of new species!

I suspect that's an inaccurate picture. If we make pandas extinct then there are not going to be new pandas emerging. We'll might get black bears emerging that are slightly different from other black bears but we would get nothing new that we would actually value as biodiversity in our lifetimes.

MadroneDorf
05-22-2007, 10:50 PM
Well it will take hundreds of thousands of years, but if previous mass extinctions are any guide, then in the long run their will be more species.

Tudamorf
05-22-2007, 11:58 PM
Well it will take hundreds of thousands of years, but if previous mass extinctions are any guide, then in the long run their will be more species.Depending on the amount of damage humans do before extinction, it could take anywhere from a few million years to hundreds of millions of years. (If we only leave bacteria behind it could be billions of years.)

That's really no excuse to lay waste to the planet today.

Tinsi
05-23-2007, 03:24 AM
Several replies and not ONE UN-bashing yet? Who are you and what have you done to my grovers?

B_Delacroix
05-23-2007, 09:21 AM
How many species are there?

If we take the outside value I found of 100 million, the world will be empty in 63 years.

This is pure hyperbole. While, sure, we shouldn't run about killing things willy nilly, we aren't as unnatural as some would have us believe. Part of the extinctions are natural. Several species went extinct before even humans existed. It wasn't all by huge disasters. We also discover new species every day, nobody talks about that because its not politically astute to do so.

Palarran
05-23-2007, 09:47 AM
I think your math is a bit off.
3 species/hour * 24 hours/day * 365.26 days/year * 63 years = 1,656,819 species.
3 species/hour * 24 hours/day * 365.26 days/year * 3802 years = 99,987,733 species.

Alternatively, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the number of species that become extinct in a given time period would be proportional to the total number of species. (If we somehow got to the point where 10 species remained, would we really continue to lose 3 species per hour?) So, it could be interpreted as human activities causing the extinction of 0.000003% of all species each hour.

log 0.5 / log 0.999999997 = 231,049,060 hours for the number of species to be cut in half.
231,049,060 hours / (24 hours/day * 365.26 days/year) = 26,357 years.

Now, that's not to say that the loss of 3 species per hour is good or even acceptable, but let's at least get the math right. :P

Erianaiel
05-23-2007, 01:35 PM
I think your math is a bit off.

Now, that's not to say that the loss of 3 species per hour is good or even acceptable, but let's at least get the math right. :P

Sorry for snipping what is doubtlessly very smart math, but I am afraid it is way beyond my comprehension.
The danger with such rapid extinction is not in the species gone themselves, but in the loss of the ecosystem they are part of. While most look at the top predators the real danger is at the bottom where loss of a species (or plant) could threaten the existence of all animals that feed on it. The loss of coral in the oceans would not only be the extinction of several hundred of species right there, but also the thousands species of fish that directly or indirectly depend on coral to survive. The loss of one species (humming birds) may seriously threaten the survival of many types of plants. It is like a densely woven fabric. It can survive a few broken strands but the more are gone in one place the bigger the chance is of the whole thing starting to unravel.

And what is disappearing is not the most numerous species (bacteria and insects) but the ones we are depending on a lot more directly. Life will continue to exist on earth, but it is not necessarily going to be an ecosystem that is particularly hospitable to humans.


Eri

Tudamorf
05-23-2007, 02:49 PM
Part of the extinctions are natural.Yes, about 1-2 per year (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/complex_life/complex_life.html) (the background rate).

At least we know we aren't responsible for about 0.002% of it!We also discover new species every day, nobody talks about that because its not politically astute to do so.The key word being "discover," not "create." And most of those do make news, by the way.