Extinctions 1,000 x faster than before humans

[Omnitheo]

We can name new species that have been discovered all the time, most of these species have existed for a long time, but were simply undiscovered or unidentified by humanity until recently (The olingueto in South America for instance). As far as speciation goes, most of the "new" species we've discovered are bacteria and viruses which have emerged in the world of antibiotics.

Even with the rate of speciation, the fact is that human related animal extinctions are occurring at 1000 times the background extinction rate, and this loss of species is occurring far faster than the rate of new speciation.

[Glacier]

We can name new species that have been discovered all the time, most of these species have existed for a long time, but were simply undiscovered or unidentified by humanity until recently (The olingueto in South America for instance). As far as speciation goes, most of the "new" species we've discovered are bacteria and viruses which have emerged in the world of antibiotics.

Even with the rate of speciation, the fact is that human related animal extinctions are occurring at 1000 times the background extinction rate, and this loss of species is occurring far faster than the rate of new speciation.

Let's calculate some things.

1) 200 species are going extinct every single day. This is 73,000 species per year.
2) This is nearly 1000 times the natural rate. The natural rate is somewhere around 70 per year.
3) At the natural rate, the number of species upon the earth greatly increases over time, therefore, we see at least 70 new species appear on the earth every year.
4) Biodiversity reached an all time high 30,000 years ago.

[Omnitheo]

ok, you're not understanding. As quoted numerous times here, the rate of extinction is currently far greater than the rate of new speciation.

The "natural" rate of new species does increase over time, but there is nothing natural about how humans are currently impacting this. You're argument is like saying "well yeah a meteorite hit the planet, but new species are being created faster than they are being incinerated by a fireball or starved from lack of sunlight". It's not true.

If 70 new species emerge in a year, but several thousand disappear, then how can you claim that biodiversity is increasing, or that a mass extinction is not occurring?

[Glacier]

Huh? what are you talking about? I looked up the rate since you wouldn't provide it, and showed that biodiversity is not increasing. Please re-read my post. It peaked 30,000 years ago.

[Omnitheo]

Ok, I don't know what we're arguing about then. Your earlier posts in the thread seemed to indicate that you believed that biodiversity was still increasing. I wasn't exactly sure what the point you were trying to make in your math post was in regards to, as it seemed to contradict your earlier posts. Either way, looks like we're in agreement that more species are going extinct than new ones are emerging.

Glad we settled this out on the forum here, now governments and agencies around the world can double their efforts in addressing this. Right?

[Glacier]

Glad we settled this out on the forum here, now governments and agencies around the world can double their efforts in addressing this. Right?

Absolutely!

I find the claim that 73,000/year are disappearing a bit a stretch though. Where is the list from last year? This gives me an idea for a new topic...

[Poindexter]

The next topic can be to discuss whether humans are a plague, a cataclysm or unknowing agent planted to terraform the planet.

Last one is a bit of a stretch so we can toss that.

When you consider we've started a mass extinction, were right up there with polar shifts and asteroid strikes. So cataclysm fits.

But we also appear to be a plague. We spread across the skin of the planet like a rampant case of crabs and even when wiped out by typhoons or earthquakes we immediately spread back to the previously infected area. So plague fits.

How about a cataclysmic plague? Covers all the bases.

[ForestfortheTrees]

Sorry, dude, but science agrees with me. We are at an almost all time low for extinctions. I agree with you that the science could be wrong though.

extinctionrate.png

https://www.boundless.com/biology/conse ... h47_01_04/

You cant use a graph which has major divisions of 25 million years to make a conclusion about something that has really been peaking in the last 100 years (or 500 years for that matter). Also, the website that you pulled the chart from disagrees with you conclusion.

[ForestfortheTrees]

Scientists have been writing about a human caused sixth mass extinction for some time. Richard Leakey wrote a book called the Sixth Extinction on the topic in 1995. It is not a new idea amongst biologists and paleontologists. I would say that it is a well-established fact that habitat loss and the over-exploitation of resources has created a reduction in planetary biodiversity that continues to this day and is accelerating.

For those of you who think this will have little effect on us humans, you need to update your thinking. Over the last decade there has been a lot of work done understanding the role of ecosystems as providers of goods and services. Check out the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment for some details. Also, an organization called TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) has a mandate to quantify the values of ecosystems in economic terms. You might be surprised by the findings.

A lot of this research is in Journals that are not directly accessible to the public, but there are some resources that are available. Try some of these:

Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity
Putting a Price on Nature: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can Transform Our Approach to Growth

[Glacier]

You cant use a graph which has major divisions of 25 million years to make a conclusion about something that has really been peaking in the last 100 years (or 500 years for that matter). Also, the website that you pulled the chart from disagrees with you conclusion.

If you would keep reading, I came to the conclusion that diversity is indeed coming down. 200 species went extinct yesterday. There is no list of the 73,000 that went extinct last year because most are not even classified or discovered. Classifying and identifying species at risk is the first step in preventing extinctions. I agree that more needs to be done on this front.

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-ice-age-ex ... inked.html

[normaM]

Anyone want to come by and ride my unicorn?
But stupid people.. they seem to be increasing 2,000 x faster than last year
Or I'm just grumpy

[Poindexter]

Probably a bit of both.

But I do agree with you and would be suprised if there isn't a study to quantify that. I think we're getting dumber but with technical assistance we're getting smarter to offset the decline. Lol

No idea - just google it.

But if you were to do a study based on actual brain activity you'll probably find lead and offer heavy metals have slowed us down a tad. My generation does not seem as keen as my parent's. But I do think humans instinctual urge to prove our parents wrong actually in the long run does move us ahead. Despite us getting dumber.

So with technological help and the need to prove our parents wrong, we have a chance. Makes me hopeful, but only theoretically.:):(

[JagXKR]

No truth at all. Lopsided left wing eco terrorist propaganda. Only the real stupid fall for this bunk. But I guess here there are a lot of stupid here in BC.

[maryjane48]

No truth at all. Lopsided left wing eco terrorist propaganda. Only the real stupid fall for this bunk. But I guess here there are a lot of stupid here in BC.

say the person proving darwins theory right

[Omnitheo]

No truth at all. Lopsided left wing eco terrorist propaganda. Only the real stupid fall for this bunk. But I guess here there are a lot of stupid here in BC.

please cite your sources. We've cited numerous sources full of Facts, (not opinions) which show that this is occuring.

Also, please explain how this is left wing, or propoganda, or what this has to do with terrorism.