I can't quite imagine why they even bothered...

Scientists silence a gene in cotton so we can eat it safely now...

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=112106060235
L. sativus produces a high-protein seed, but also contains a neurotoxin which paralyses the lower body when eaten in large quantities. “A lot of times when you see people with this sort of paralysis in Asia it’s because they are forced to plant grass pea,” says Rathore. He says RNAi is "perfect" to address the problem.

Cotton candy made with real cotton!

I think I'll run right out and down some cotton. Mmmm.

Anyone eaten any good clothes lately?

[insert edible undies remark here]

They're talking about cotton <i>seed</i>, not cotton fiber. We already consume cottonseed oil, so this would just create another high protein, calorie dense food source by eating the entire seed.

Genetically modifying plants is a bad idea, though, and I see no reason why this is necessary.

I'm curious, why is genetically modifying plants automatically bad?

I'm curious, why is genetically modifying plants automatically bad?

Because he watched "Food of the Gods" when he was a kid, and it scared him.

Or "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes".



I saw them too when I was a kid, I got over the notion. Basing societal decisions on B grade sci fi movies of the 70's is a bad idea(any era actually).

Klaatu barada nikto

I think it is risky in how do you control where pollen goes? It seems to me like the genes could get away from you really quickly and possibly contaminate other plants. Hard to control for wind, insects and all the other stuff.

I'm curious, why is genetically modifying plants automatically bad?Because it's a new technique that we barely understand, and introducing genetically modified foods to the environment could have devastating, irreversible effects to the existing ecosystem, not to mention unknown interactions when eaten. Understand that once you introduce a genetically modified food into the environment, it is virtually impossible to remove it.

To complicate matters, genetically modified foods are largely controlled by a few mega-corporations who are using genetic modification and patent law not as a means to help the consumer or the environment, but as a means to corner the market on food and line their wallets.

Because of the lobbying clout that these companies have, genetically modified foods are being grown in huge quantities in the United States, without any studies as to their safety, and without even any requirement that the consumer be informed that he's eating such foods.

This is one area in which the Europeans are way ahead of us Americans. They have banned or restricted genetically modified foods, and generally require labeling.

I think it is risky in how do you control where pollen goes? It seems to me like the genes could get away from you really quickly and possibly contaminate other plants. Hard to control for wind, insects and all the other stuff.Not possibly, definitely. Fields with genetically modified crops will easily contaminate neighboring fields, and the contamination can spread for miles.

In one publicized case, a Canadian farmer's fields were contaminated with a genetically modified crop that was probably spread when some seed filtered out of a passing truck. Then the GMO patent holder sued the farmer for patent infringement, and won.

The simple fact is, we will never be able to remove genetically modified plants from the environment if we discover in the future that they are unsafe. It's one big experiment with most of the planet as a petri dish.

Genetically modifying plants is a bad idea, though, and I see no reason why this is necessary.

Tell that to India...and Africa

Tell that to India...and AfricaTheir hunger problem is caused by problems in food distribution, not production.

Well, to take a step back, their hunger problem is caused by uncontrolled breeding, maybe they should start there.

Their hunger problem is caused by problems in food distribution, not production.

Well, to take a step back, their hunger problem is caused by uncontrolled breeding, maybe they should start there.

India's problems are significantly lower than they were...because an American genetically altered wheat...only he did it via breeding instead of taking a more direct route.

If scientists had crossbred cotton until it finally produced seeds that were not poisonous...noone would complain.

Africa's issue is not in distribution, only its issue with our aid to them not helping enough. Africa's issue is they don't grow enough food.

India's problems are significantly lower than they were...because an American genetically altered wheat...only he did it via breeding instead of taking a more direct route.Natural crossbreeding is probably as old as is agriculture. It has nothing to do with genetic modification, and doesn't pose the same risks.Africa's issue is not in distribution, only its issue with our aid to them not helping enough. Africa's issue is they don't grow enough food.If you mean that they don't grow enough food in their own local villages, I suppose. But if they had a properly functioning distribution system, they wouldn't have that problem.

We should genetically engineer foods which causes infertility.

That would solve both problems.

We should genetically engineer foods which causes infertility.

That would solve both problems.Or genetically engineer humans who can't reproduce without a key enzyme. That would solve most of the world's problems.

Baby juice?

The devil's advocate part of my brain suggests that if babies as a risk of sex was completely eliminated, the number of STDs would explode, and we'd be faced with an interesting population depletion issue very quickly (I'd wager within a single generation).

Africa doesn't grow enough food because it is cheaper to import it from the US. :\

The devil's advocate part of my brain suggests that if babies as a risk of sex was completely eliminated, the number of STDs would explode, and we'd be faced with an interesting population depletion issue very quickly (I'd wager within a single generation).Depletion is the point. The world is seriously overpopulated, and the most promising way to depopulate it is to prevent people from having offspring they don't really want in the first place.

Is the world really overpopulated though?

In principle, assuming optimal use of land and distribution of resources, wouldn't the current population be sustainable?

Is the world really overpopulated though?

In principle, assuming optimal use of land and distribution of resources, wouldn't the current population be sustainable?It depends what you mean by "sustainable."

If you mean "keep 6 billion humans temporarily alive, regardless of the environmental and ecological costs," then the answer is yes.

If you mean "keep the human population alive in the long term, while keeping the rest of the planet healthy and its resources in check," I highly doubt it, unless we radically change the way we use up the planet's resources.

Soylent Green is made out of Baby Juice!



Sorry, I just had to run in and shout that.

Depends on what you think of as overpopulation in your mind too, Tuda. Japan is currently going through a negative growth period, and while many of the cities in Japan are thought of as some of the most crowded in the world, the Japanese government still sees this negative growth as a problem.

I want to try and put forth this point of view without getting into some weird never-ending loop, so here goes…

The problem with the world today is not with overpopulation, but rather with an under utilization of the current population. Taking all emotion out of the scenario, those people who are generally seen dying in their tens of thousands are generally also not contributing anything to the greater good of the world. Yes, I totally agree that this may be due to situations completely out of the control of the individuals in question however that does not change the overall picture.

If you assume that for every child born in a wealthy country, 1:4 become a viable member of society, and then you have to automatically assume that in poorer countries or countries which are politically unstable, the ratio becomes ever and ever closer to 1:1, maybe worse. In other words, if you take some of the African countries which have some of the worst cases of poverty and AIDS exposure, for every human which can etch out enough of a living to feed themselves, there are multiple others who cannot even supply themselves with the basic needs of life.

Yes, it’s cold and pretty heartless to look at things this way, but it’s a truth. While the massive numbers of people dying in third world countries is awful, many of them are creating the situation for themselves. Yes, in these countries, if a guaranteed contraceptive was available it would reduce the number of deaths per year - however, do not automatically assume that by reducing the number of deaths per year by limiting births per year that you automatically make the living standards for those people better – this is also a generally widely ignored truth.

That being said, you cannot automatically imply that the entire world is overpopulated because of specific nations and peoples being unable to provide their citizens with the basic necessities. If the United States, the UK or even China or India began to follow Japan in a trend of negative growth, I would bet money that the governments of each of those countries would have serious concerns and have many meetings on how to reverse the trend.

Depends on what you think of as overpopulation in your mind too, Tuda. Japan is currently going through a negative growth period, and while many of the cities in Japan are thought of as some of the most crowded in the world, the Japanese government still sees this negative growth as a problem.Highly developed countries have semi-stable birth rates. It's the underdeveloped countries that are breeding like rabbits, and that are going to cause the looming overpopulation crisis.The problem with the world today is not with overpopulation, but rather with an under utilization of the current population.No, it's the humans themselves that are the problem. They consume the world's limited resources at a much faster rate than they are put back in, pollute the environment, and destroy ecosystems.

If our population were 6 million, not 6 billion, we wouldn't have these problems, because the planet's resources would be sufficient for all of us even if we were as wasteful as we are today. In the past few centuries, our population has spiraled out of control, and we need to act now to slow it down before it's too late.If the United States, the UK or even China or India began to follow Japan in a trend of negative growth, I would bet money that the governments of each of those countries would have serious concerns and have many meetings on how to reverse the trend.China's government is so worried about overpopulation, they prevent women from having more than one child. They'd probably be thrilled at a natural birth rate reduction.

A small, very rich country like Japan or the U.K. is a special case: they <i>need</i> the population to maintain their vast resources and to prevent being overwhelmed by massive poorer countries. The populations of these countries are also tiny compared to the world.

The U.S. is somewhere in between. We're very rich, but also pretty big, and we really don't need more people. We're also the most wasteful humans on this planet and have the greatest adverse impact on it, so we're not exactly helping things along.

Highly developed countries have semi-stable birth rates. It's the underdeveloped countries that are breeding like rabbits, and that are going to cause the looming overpopulation crisis.
Aye, when they hit the peak of their industrial revolutions the planet is going to be seriously hurtin'.

Highly developed countries have semi-stable birth rates. It's the underdeveloped countries that are breeding like rabbits, and that are going to cause the looming overpopulation crisis.No, it's the humans themselves that are the problem. They consume the world's limited resources at a much faster rate than they are put back in, pollute the environment, and destroy ecosystems.
You're sort of contradicting yourself here.

The industrialized nations are the ones that are the most significant cause of pollution and resource reduction. The underdeveloped nations are actually usually more "down to earth" because they lack the money or other resources required to industrialize. The mid-industrialized nations which are experiencing the massive commercial growth are actually the biggest cause of concern right now because it benefits both their government and their people to encourage massive growth without the normal environmental restrictions you see in the older developed nations such as the US/Europe. China is expected to take over the dubious mantle of "most polluting country" from the United States within the next few years because of this mindset. China is all about "growth, growth, growth," while the United States has started slamming down eco-friendly restrictions which actually slow growth due to initial cost. However, I can't really think of too many countries, economists or ecologists that would refer to China as "underdeveloped".

eanwhile in Africa which is set to start seeing massive population growth over the next 40 or so years, is very under industrialized. Again, saying this as a cold, hard fact, these populations will not affect the world's resources in any fashion unless the resources are committed voluntarily by other nations. In other words, if the population of Nigeria triples again within the next few decades like the UN predicts, unless they become a major industrial player, really the world will see no impact on its resources simply because they will not be able to afford them.

If our population were 6 million, not 6 billion, we wouldn't have these problems, because the planet's resources would be sufficient for all of us even if we were as wasteful as we are today. In the past few centuries, our population has spiraled out of control, and we need to act now to slow it down before it's too late.China's government is so worried about overpopulation, they prevent women from having more than one child. They'd probably be thrilled at a natural birth rate reduction.

Cut down to the core, insufficient resources would mean that we do not have enough right now. One could argue that as soon as the wooly mammoth of North America became extinct and caused the eradication of several tribes of North American Natives who were wholly dependant on that food source; the world's resources were insufficient.

The thing about humans is that we adapt the environment around us to produce what we need, it doesn't always have to do with not having enough, it's about getting more out of what you have now.

I think everyone can agree that 20 to 50 thousand years ago, the planet was much more pristine than it is now and had a much larger "stockpile" of natural resources. However, if you suddenly increased the Stone Age human populations from a few scattered tribes of thousands to 6 billion, chances are those humans wouldn't even be able to produce enough to fulfill their basic needs. Yet we are now able to produce enough food and basic necessities with fewer raw materials.

If you look back at human history, population growth hasn't "spiraled out of control" for just the past few centuries, our entire history has been based on this growth - it is arguably what makes us go forward in our development. In fact, it's generally during massive population reductions that humanity pauses or takes a step backwards (think the Dark Ages, the Plague, etc).

ore stuff from Tuda!

Umm... honestly I had more to write, but RL butted in and I lost all momentum. So posting what I had typed up to that point.

Stupid real life.

If you look back at human history, population growth hasn't "spiraled out of control" for just the past few centuries, our entire history has been based on this growth - it is arguably what makes us go forward in our development.Quoting from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates), around 10000 BCE there were 5 million humans. Around 1000 BCE, 50 million. Around 1600 CE, 500 million. Around 1800, 1 billion. Around 1988, 5 billion. Around 2000, 6 billion. And estimates predict 7 billion by 2015, 8 billion by 2030, and 9 billion by 2050.

Human population increased more from 1988 to 2000 (12 years) than it increased from 10000 BCE to 1800 CE (almost 12 <i>thousand</i> years), and is increasing by 1 billion every 15 years or so, and you're telling me that human populations <i>aren't</i> spiraling out of control? We're making rabbits look prudish.The industrialized nations are the ones that are the most significant cause of pollution and resource reduction.I think I mentioned that: Americans are the most wasteful, and another billion Americans would be an environmental disaster. But another billion Africans, Indians, or Central Americans will also have a drastic effect on the environment, as ecosystems are destroyed for more and more agriculture and resources.Meanwhile in Africa which is set to start seeing massive population growth over the next 40 or so years, is very under industrialized. Again, saying this as a cold, hard fact, these populations will not affect the world's resources in any fashion unless the resources are committed voluntarily by other nations.What about <i>Africa's</i> resources? Its wide diversity of plant and animal species that exist nowhere else on the planet? Once this life becomes extinct <i>en masse</i> it will be impossible to restore it.The thing about humans is that we adapt the environment around us to produce what we need, it doesn't always have to do with not having enough, it's about getting more out of what you have now.I see, so you suggest we just keep polluting the planet, killing off all other forms of life (except our beloved genetically modified plants, of course), and hope we get better and better at surviving in the face of disaster.

That sounds like a dismal proposition to me, and a poor long-term survival strategy for humans, not to mention life on the planet as a whole. For, just like the inhabitants of Easter Island (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/easterisland.shtml) who used the same strategy, we will eventually exhaust our resources, fight amongst ourselves for the remaining tidbits, and ultimately die out, leaving a barren wasteland.

Quoting from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates), around 10000 BCE there were 5 million humans. Around 1000 BCE, 50 million. Around 1600 CE, 500 million. Around 1800, 1 billion. Around 1988, 5 billion. Around 2000, 6 billion. And estimates predict 7 billion by 2015, 8 billion by 2030, and 9 billion by 2050.

Human population increased more from 1988 to 2000 (12 years) than it increased from 10000 BCE to 1800 CE (almost 12 <i>thousand</i> years), and is increasing by 1 billion every 15 years or so, and you're telling me that human populations <i>aren't</i> spiraling out of control? We're making rabbits look prudish.
Well of course the population's growing faster than before, you've got a larger herd to create from. Having two humans create a population of 100 is much harder than having a population of 100 create 1000. However, the percentage increase of the 2 to 100 is much greater than the 100 to 1000. The one increased fifty times while the other only increased ten times. Even if the population doubles in one hundred years, you're still only increasing the overall population by 2x - this does <b>not</b> mean that population growth percentage has increased by any amount. In other words there are more people making babies, but not necessarily more babies per human.

I think I mentioned that: Americans are the most wasteful, and another billion Americans would be an environmental disaster. But another billion Africans, Indians, or Central Americans will also have a drastic effect on the environment, as ecosystems are destroyed for more and more agriculture and resources.
---
What about <i>Africa's</i> resources? Its wide diversity of plant and animal species that exist nowhere else on the planet? Once this life becomes extinct <i>en masse</i> it will be impossible to restore it.
First off, the population explosions of Africa will most likely be unable to capitalize on their resources simply because they lack the funds to properly remove them from the earth (the only exceptions being mass conglomerates or privately owned industries pouring their money into an area to exploit the goods). The lions, hippos, elephants and other majestic wildlife of the savannahs are being kept alive in government sponsored lands not because the governments felt they needed to protect their wildlife, but rather because they get kickbacks from private foundations and richer governments to keep those parks functioning (not to mention tourism dollars). Have no doubt that if oil or diamonds or something similar were suddenly found in vast amounts in the middle of the Serengeti, the wildlife would be cast aside without a second glance. So even if a billion new Africans entered the world tomorrow, the fences of the Kenyan National Wildlife Park would still remain closed to human inhabitants until the day that those inhabitants began to become worth more than the money the park generates.

I see, so you suggest we just keep polluting the planet, killing off all other forms of life (except our beloved genetically modified plants, of course), and hope we get better and better at surviving in the face of disaster.

That sounds like a dismal proposition to me, and a poor long-term survival strategy for humans, not to mention life on the planet as a whole. For, just like the inhabitants of Easter Island (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/easterisland.shtml) who used the same strategy, we will eventually exhaust our resources, fight amongst ourselves for the remaining tidbits, and ultimately die out, leaving a barren wasteland.
That’s a rather obtuse viewpoint. The biggest concern for population growth will not be food resources but living space. Food production, including genetic modification among many, many others, has allowed humans to increase the amount of food production per acre many thousand times over since the dawn of agriculture. Between genetics, hydroponics, artificial sunlight and other technologies, we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the sciences behind mass food production.

I like to believe that our ultimate goal is to get off this rock of ours. Not only for the spread of humanity into the stars, but also as a viable source for resources. There’s a giant flaming ball of nuclear fission in our sky throwing away more energy as a byproduct in a single nanosecond than the entire human population of earth has used up to this point in our history. Imagine what would happen if we finally figured out how to harness that? Imagine how much space we could reclaim, how much pollution generation would drop, and how many more people would be able to do something simple like turn on a light when it gets dark. There’s an entire planet full of mineral and other elemental resources right on our neighbor planet Mars, ready for use – think of how much land we would get back on Earth if all of our raw materials started coming to us from off-planet sources. Take it a step further – imagine what would happen if suddenly all manufacturing was moved off-planet into zero-g “factories” in orbit. Yeah, it sounds very “Star Trekish” to us now, but imagine what someone in the 1850’s would have thought about plasma TVs or the Human Genome Project, or heck, even consumer trans-Atlantic air travel.

Assuming that the only thing that we can do is use up a planet and die like a locust swarm is a very shortsighted viewpoint. Throughout our history, humans have shown a tenacious ability to figure out how to get the most out of what we’re given. Yes, we’ve screwed a lot of things up; pissed in our own drinking water as it were, but we’ve managed to survive thus far - not only survive, but flourish. There is no other life on our planet that’s managed to spread as far and wide as we have, support the massive population that we have, and shown the ability to adapt to adverse conditions and changes like we have (no, not even the cockroaches, smartasses :-P).

Cutting off our legs at the knees by forcibly limiting population growth would not and is not the answer to any of our ecological or sociological problems.

In other words there are more people making babies, but not necessarily more babies per human.Well, there are doubtless far more surviving offspring per human female today than ever in history. But that's not the point. The point is the <b>total</b> population is out of control.The lions, hippos, elephants and other majestic wildlife of the savannahs are being kept alive in government sponsored lands not because the governments felt they needed to protect their wildlife, but rather because they get kickbacks from private foundations and richer governments to keep those parks functioning (not to mention tourism dollars).Yes, they're being bribed to artificially maintain a small percentage of life there. What about the wildlife (plant and animal) that's not in those parks? The "majestic" large mammals are not necessarily the most important ones, from an environmental perspective. And everything is cleared for more agriculture, to feed more humans.I like to believe that our ultimate goal is to get off this rock of ours. Not only for the spread of humanity into the stars, but also as a viable source for resources.Even if our society keeps progressing and there are no major world disasters, I doubt we will colonize planets in the next millennium (if ever).

It costs us about $10,000 just to hurl one pound of matter out of our atmosphere and into space, and since the space race is over, spending in space technology is lackluster and therefore we can't expect the figure to go down dramatically.

And who would live on Mars, with no breathable atmosphere? Look at how many humans live at the poles or in the depths of the Earth's oceans, and compared to Mars, those environments are the garden of eden.There is no other life on our planet that’s managed to spread as far and wide as we have, support the massive population that we have, and shown the ability to adapt to adverse conditions and changes like we have (no, not even the cockroaches, smartasses :-P).Totally wrong. Bacteria are the undisputed kings of population and adaptation, having survived world disasters that would have wiped humans out instantly, technology notwithstanding. Bacteria can live in both freezing and above boiling temperatures; in ecosystems with zero sunlight or oxygen; under radiation that would fry us; and miles beneath the earth.

Though I'm not immediately aware of a study, there are also many other super-populous species on earth that dwarf humans, such as the plankton that supports all life in the oceans, and probably many types of successful insects. The numbers of organisms and their total size (i.e., if you stuffed them all into one beaker, and all humans into another, and compared) is staggering.Cutting off our legs at the knees by forcibly limiting population growth would not and is not the answer to any of our ecological or sociological problems.Just about any expert would disagree with you. It's undoubtedly true that fewer humans would be far easier to support and would cause less damage to the planet. The only problem is that some still have a romantic notion that breeding is fundamentally a good thing, and should never be curtailed. Don't worry, they'll come around too, once there's no choice.

Bacteria have spread because he have spread.

They have hitched a ride with us, for the most part.

At least the ones which count.

Bacteria have spread because he have spread.
They have hitched a ride with us, for the most part.
At least the ones which count.WTF are you talking about? Bacteria populated this entire planet billions of years before the first human set foot on it. Without bacteria, humans (or any other life form) wouldn't even be here today.

Bacteria are so numerous and widespread, they make human population look like a joke. Everywhere on land, in the oceans, even far beneath the earth. Places where humans have never been, and could never survive. The bacteria we carry in our bodies (which outnumber our own cells, on the order of 10 to 1) are an insignificant portion of the world population of bacteria.

Just about any expert would disagree with you. It's undoubtedly true that fewer humans would be far easier to support and would cause less damage to the planet. The only problem is that some still have a romantic notion that breeding is fundamentally a good thing, and should never be curtailed. Don't worry, they'll come around too, once there's no choice.
Like pretty much any so-called bulletproof study done these days, there will be an equal amount of people who can and will prove that the study is bunk. There is absolutely no way to prove that the number of humans on the earth today would impact the future of the planet at all. If you want to get nitty gritty, Earth as a planet could care less if there were 1 or 1 trillion humans on its surface. Even if we manage to make the Earth a desolate ball of dust, the planet itself will go on. Those bacteria and other single-celled organisms you mentioned will also probably go on (depending on exactly what this rock is reduced to). Whether or not the fuzzy koala will be on the planet in the next 160 years may be suspect, but the planet itself will go on.

And despite all of the doomsday predictions of the green-team ecologists, this planet has done more by itself to destroy life than humans have since their entire existence. A massive volcanic eruption which spews ash and poisonous gases into the air for thousands of miles makes our current air pollution look about as significant as a fart in the wind. Droughts, gravitational shifts in the planet's magnetic alignment, continental drift, ice ages - these are all things that our planet has done to itself - and several of them have come pretty close to wiping out all intelligent life on the surface - many of them have reset the evolutionary clock back to zero numerous times in the past. Heck, even paleontologists will tell you that somewhere between the last two ice ages; Homo sapiens’s ancestors were reduced to just a few thousand in total number on the entire surface of the planet - humans evolved to where we are now by the skin of our teeth. Nor was this the only time – there has been numerous examples by where humanity survived only by having enough people to lose. Whether it’s the latest super bacteria that wipes out a third of the population or if another super-volcano erupts blotting out the sun for an entire hemisphere.

Why have humans survived? Very simply put, because of our ability to procreate and our ability to adapt to our environment.

The Earth will continue to change; our environment will continue to change, both due to circumstances in and out of our control. Assuming that by simply curtailing our birthrate will suddenly stop our planet from changing is silly, and dangerous. There are things out there that are evolving right along side us, and dangers that we can’t even imagine brewing just beneath our feet.

And by the way, bacteria are not the kings of adaptation. You cannot take a single bacteria and expose it to as many different environments as a human. The closest thing I can think of to what you're describing would probably be a Tardigrade. However, neither Tardigrades or bacteria can really be thought of as a civilized lifeform.

Why have humans survived? Very simply put, because of our ability to procreate and our ability to adapt to our environment.Or, because it just hasn't been that long; 130,000 years is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Also, humans have not suffered a world disaster, such as those the dinosaurs and the planet's original bacteria did.And despite all of the doomsday predictions of the green-team ecologists, this planet has done more by itself to destroy life than humans have since their entire existence.Except for a handful of world disasters in 4 billion years, all those changes occurred very slowly, and life had a chance to adapt. For example, of course there were episodes of global warming in the Earth's history, but they happened over thousands of years, not over a period of decades, as is happening today. Your argument that "the Earth changes, therefore our changes are natural and no different from the Earth's changes" is flawed, because it ignores the rate and extent of the changes.You cannot take a single bacteria and expose it to as many different environments as a human.The average bacterium is more resilient than the average human, unless your environment is a bucket of penicillin. A single human would starve, freeze to death, or suffocate in an environment that would just peachy for the bacterium. And of course, all bacteria on Earth, collectively, are infinitely more resilient than all the humans on Earth.

Last time I checked, a volcano erupting didn't take billions of years. In fact, I think the former residents (current?) of Pompeii can pretty much attest to the swiftness of a big mountain going boom.

Oh, and again your bacterium argument makes no sense. While a bacterium can survive in 120 degree weather in the middle of Utah, and a bacterium can survive in -30 degree cold somewhere in the Arctic, no single bacterium can do both, while a human can. Yes, a single species of bacterium can survive in a specific harsh environment like the thermal vents a few dozen miles beneath the ocean's surface, where, yes, a human would die instantly, that species of bacterium could not survive anywhere else - in fact, if they scootched ten feet to their left, many would die in the cold of the ocean waters. Attempting to group all bacterium into a single cohesive "being" of some sort is like saying that an Maple can survive anywhere a Cactus can because they're both types of trees.

Again, the only single form of life that I can think of that's really more robust than humans is the tardigrade, and again, I don't think they'll be building the next sky scraper any time soon.

Take away the oxygen... we're dead. But quite a few bacteria will survive.

In fact, on Nova they explained how one of the mass extinctions (Permian) happened. Massive volcanoes, like a good portion of the area of russia, started spewing. The gases caused global warming, the ocean became anoxic (no oxygen) and a certain type of bacteria proliferated that creates hydrogen sulfide. Apparently enough of this hydrogen sufide formed that it came on-shore and wiped up something like 90% of all life. Plant, animal, insect, whatever.

You're so positive that humans can overcome everything? How can we when our brain is so fallible that we're regularily fooled by stage magicians? And the pathetic part is, we are so stupid we can't even recognize how fallible our brains are. A few clever technological achievements and people think the entire human race is infallible.

You know, the gods have ways of dealing with such hubris. :p

Debating Tuda is interesting because he at least present arguments which are relevant to the current discussion.

No where in my posts did I imply that humans would survive anything/everything; what I said was that in the past humans have shown the ability to adapt to adverse situations and this is why the species has survived and evolved. However, I also said that there were several given examples in "recent" (give or take a few thousand years) history that the only reason humanity survived was due to our population size and far-flung wanderlust nature.

Last time I checked, a volcano erupting didn't take billions of years. In fact, I think the former residents (current?) of Pompeii can pretty much attest to the swiftness of a big mountain going boom.Volcano eruptions are <i>local</i> disasters, not world disasters. They happen all the time, and life recedes, only to return a few years later. They do not affect the long-term health of the ecosystem.

There are only five (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html) known disasters that caused mass extinctions in the entire history of the Earth. We're on the verge of the sixth, right now, thanks to humans.Oh, and again your bacterium argument makes no sense. While a bacterium can survive in 120 degree weather in the middle of Utah, and a bacterium can survive in -30 degree cold somewhere in the Arctic, no single bacterium can do both, while a human can.Even if I assume that's true (I can't say for sure, as it's possible many species could survive in those temperature extremes), there are extremes a bacterium could easily survive in that a human couldn't, e.g., radiation and lack of oxygen. Most humans would also freeze to death at -30 C without clothing and/or technology. Not to mention, if temperature extremes are your only criterion for adaptability, you might as well hand the trophy to an Emporer penguin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emporer_penguin).

Bacteria can also form spores to protect themselves in harsh environments; a few years ago, a group of 250 million-year-old bacteria (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/978774.stm) were found in salt crystals 600 meters below ground, alive. They began moving once they were fed nutrients. These individual organisms are older than the age of dinosaurs.

Bacteria are also far more adaptable as a colony; their ability to evolve at warp speed and swap genes means that their long-term adaptability is much better than a human's.

That's why I don't buy your "humans are the most adaptable" argument. Humans are decent generalist primates, but they are heavily dependent on technology for that adaptability. As a species, humans are pretty fragile.

Volcano eruptions are local disasters, not world disasters. They happen all the time, and life recedes, only to return a few years later. They do not affect the long-term health of the ecosystem.
Depends on how big they are, how long they erupt. But if they caused the Permian extinction then it very nearly killed off all life on earth.

Although we don't need no stinkin' volcanoes to start our own mass extinction any more.

Although we don't need no stinkin' volcanoes to start our own mass extinction any more.Yep, we have SUVs.

Ok Tuda, I think we’re having two different debates here – not totally unrelated to each other, but in strange parallel tangents at best. I will absolutely agree with you that bacterium are hardier as a whole than a human and that they can survive in many different circumstances that would render a human into a sticky puddle of goop. However, whereas humans are generally lumped into a single species which is filtered through 28ish different scientific classifications, Bacteria is an entire Kingdom. Really, the only way you can try and compare bacteria to humans is to say Kingdom Bacteria versus Kingdom Animalia (which I’m sure is another discussion that can be argued till the cows come home).

And just to make things clear, I’m not saying that I’m opposed to any type of environmental action against industry or for a biological wake-up call to the rest of humanity, what I am saying is that resolving population growth will not be a magic solution to the problems, nor should overpopulation be targeted as some sort of Patsy to take blame for the Earth’s current or future ecological state.

I read the article you linked, Tuda, and while Eldridge’s point about humans being the next possible cause of a major extinction event is relative, his point about us being the first biotic cause is disputed at best. Nature has come up with its own super predators during the course of evolution which may have also contributed to the mass loss of life diversity (see: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060718_big_animals.html">this article</a> for more information - skip down towards the Super Predator subtitle, it also addresses humans as a possible new SP).

I think that while we disagree on the urgency or direct cause of what might cause human extinction, ideologically we both agree that humans are the first life form on Earth which has the intelligence to possibly manipulate its environment to affect the eventual outcome.

Oh, and just a little bit of reading on <a href="http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050308_super_volcano.html">Super Volcanos</a> if you get bored.

what I am saying is that resolving population growth will not be a magic solution to the problems,I didn't say it would be a magic solution. I said that, given that humans are, generally speaking, wasteful, environment-destroying slobs, the fewer of them there are, the better off the environment is.

Take away half the Americans, and you take away half the SUVs, half the electricity created by pollution-belching plants, half the landfill space, half the toxic chemicals dumped (because half the amount of industrial materials are necessary), half the natural ecosystem destroyed for agriculture, and so on.

Of course, the best solution is to stop being wasteful slobs <i>and</i> simultaneously maintain a reasonable population, but given human nature, I doubt that will happen any time soon, particularly in underdeveloped countries.Nature has come up with its own super predators during the course of evolution which may have also contributed to the mass loss of life diversity (see: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060718_big_animals.html">this article</a> for more information - skip down towards the Super Predator subtitle, it also addresses humans as a possible new SP).A "super predator" -- that becomes so good, it hunts its prey to extinction, and then dies off itself -- is quite different from a human, which is more of a "super glutton".

A super predator will just kill off a small number of species (including itself), but the ecosystem as a whole will remain intact. A human threatens the entire world's ecosystem, and for reasons that largely have nothing to do with using that ecosystem for food.

This DVD (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/state_planet/) (summarized in the link) does a good job of introducing the main ways humans destroy the world's ecosystem, if you're interested.I think that while we disagree on the urgency or direct cause of what might cause human extinction, ideologically we both agree that humans are the first life form on Earth which has the intelligence to possibly manipulate its environment to affect the eventual outcome.Well, never underestimate Nature, which has a way of kicking you in the ass when you think you've overcome it.

We have two natural predators left: ourselves and microorganisms. The greater our population, the greater the threat from both.