The enlightened virtuous primate guided by infinite reason

Negator · March 12, 2009, 5:24pm

A majority of the nation’s biologists are convinced that a “mass extinction” of plants and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are only dimly aware of the problem, a poll says.

The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet’s gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer, according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York’s American Museum of Natural History.

The poll’s release yesterday comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study of plant diversity that concluded than at least one in eight known plant species is threatened with extinction. Although scientists are divided over the specific numbers, many believe that the rate of loss is greater now than at any time in history.

“The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we’ve seen in the past – including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions,” said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and prominent expert in biological diversity who participated in the museum’s survey. [Note: the last mass extinction caused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.]

Most of his peers apparently agree. Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a “mass extinction” was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats.

Among the dissenters, some argue that there is not yet enough data to support the view that a mass extinction is occurring. Many of the estimates of species loss are extrapolations based on the global destruction of rain forests and other rich habitats.

Among non-scientists, meanwhile, the subject appears to have made relatively little impression. Sixty percent of the laymen polled professed little or no familiarity with the concept of biological diversity, and barely half ranked species loss as a “major threat.”

The scientists interviewed in the Louis Harris poll were members of the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences, a professional society of more than 5,000 scientists.

well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

Negator · March 12, 2009, 5:28pm

Deep-sea Species’ Loss Could Lead To Oceans’ Collapse, Study Suggests

The loss of deep-sea species poses a severe threat to the future of the oceans, suggests a new report publishing early online on December 27th and in the January 8th issue of Current Biology, a publication of Cell Press. In a global-scale study, the researchers found some of the first evidence that the health of the deep sea, as measured by the rate of critical ecosystem processes, increases exponentially with the diversity of species living there.

“For the first time, we have demonstrated that deep-sea ecosystem functioning is closely dependent upon the number of species inhabiting the ocean floor,” said Roberto Danovaro of the Polytechnic University of Marche, in Italy. “This shows that we need to preserve biodiversity, and especially deep-sea biodiversity, because otherwise the negative consequences could be unprecedented. We must care about species that are far from us and [essentially] invisible.”

Ecosystem functioning involves several processes, which can be summarized as the production, consumption, and transfer of organic matter to higher levels of the food chain, the decomposition of organic matter, and the regeneration of nutrients, he explained.

Recent investigations on land have suggested that biodiversity loss might impair the functioning and sustainability of ecosystems, Danovaro said. However, the data needed to evaluate the consequences of biodiversity loss on the ocean floor had been completely lacking, despite the fact that the deep sea covers 65% of the Earth and is “by far the most important ecosystem for the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus of the biosphere.” The deep sea also supports the largest “biomass” of living things, including a large proportion of undiscovered species.

In the new study, Danovaro’s team examined the biodiversity of nematode worms and several independent indicators of ecosystem functioning and efficiency at 116 deep-sea sites. Nematodes are the most abundant animals on earth and account for more than 90% of all life at the bottom of the sea. Earlier studies have also suggested that nematode diversity is a good proxy for the diversity of other deep-sea species.

They found that sites with a higher diversity of nematodes support exponentially higher rates of ecosystem processes and an increased efficiency with which those processes are performed. Efficiency reflects the ability of an ecosystem to exploit the available energy in the form of food sources, the researchers said. Overall, they added, “our results suggest that a higher biodiversity can enhance the ability of deep-sea benthic systems to perform the key biological and biogeochemical processes that are crucial for their sustainable functioning.”

The sharp increase in ecosystem functioning as species numbers rise further suggests that individual species in the deep sea make way for more species or facilitate one another, Danovaro said. That’s in contrast to terrestrial-system findings, which have generally shown a linear relationship between diversity and ecosystem functioning, he noted, suggesting complementary relationships among species.

“Deep-sea ecosystems provide goods (including biomass, bioactive molecules, oil, gas, and minerals) and services (climate regulation, nutrient regeneration and supply to the [upper ocean], and food) and, for their profound involvement in global biogeochemical and ecological processes, are essential for the sustainable functioning of our biosphere and for human wellbeing,” the researchers concluded. “Our results suggest that the conservation of deep-sea biodiversity can be crucial for the sustainability of the functions of the largest ecosystem” on the planet.

The researchers include Roberto Danovaro, Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science, Polytechnic University of Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, Ancona, Italy; Cristina Gambi, Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science, Polytechnic University of Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, Ancona, Italy; Antonio Dell’Anno, Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science, Polytechnic University of Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, Ancona, Italy; Cinzia Corinaldesi, Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science, Polytechnic University of Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, Ancona, Italy; Simonetta Fraschetti, Ann Vanreusel, Marine Biology Section, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; Magda Vincx, Marine Biology Section, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; and Andrew J. Gooday, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK.

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 184100.htm

anon · March 12, 2009, 5:34pm

Have you read anything by John Gray? You’d like him.

moresillystuff · March 12, 2009, 5:43pm

It should be noted that some human beings are vastly more active in this ‘infinite reason’ and its consequences. Also that some people simply do not care, whatever they say in PR meetings with the press.

In a way this is all rather closely tied to your other thread dealing with tyranny and oppression. A certain group of addicts is on a binge and the rest of us - including other species - are simply in the way or tools for achieving their next fix.

Negator · March 13, 2009, 3:16pm

How is that relevant to our current conversation?

Negator · March 13, 2009, 3:18pm

I seriously doubt that. If you read the title of this thread please note it was sarcasm.

There is no such thing as enlightened virtuous primates guided by infinite reason in my world.

There is however selfish egotistical megalomaniacal primates guided by absurd desires, hopes, and aspirations in my world who destroy in order to achieve their ends.

As far as I’m concerned there is no hope of the situation being reversed.

Humanity will most likely destroy most if not all bio-diversity on the planet where human beings will become the only animal left.

( Then like parasites will turn on each other through cannibalism when there is nothing left beyond themselves.)

That much I can believe.

There is no specific group of people over the other. It is all of us. It involves all of our species. Nobody is innocent.

Dan1 · March 13, 2009, 5:44pm

Of all things in life, pain and hunger multiplies most.
Satisfaction ends life, ends Will, need, desire, and ends anything like survival.
Humans will evolve into demons and exist in the sphere of the dead.
That’s just how life is…

moresillystuff · March 13, 2009, 11:21pm

REally? You think all people on earth have similar levels of impact on other species?

Of course.

Agreed.

So you are just howling as we go down.

Nobody is perfectly innocent. But there are clearly people who would and do change their lifestyles to reduce their impact. There are those who notice and care about the destruction and those who do not give a shit. There were cultures that did not destroy species, and these cultures were absorbed/destroyed by cultures that did not see themselves as part of nature but rather distinct from it.

Negator · March 14, 2009, 6:54pm

Yup. What, do you really believe recycling helps save the world all the while you exist in a society with every other individual living by similar means?

Basically,yes.

Stuff like that is just illusional.

I don’t care if you recycle everyday or drive a hybrid car all smug like.

You live in society surviving by similar means just like everybody else and somewhere down the road in your daily events of living your contributing to the destruction of bio-diversity intentionally or unintentionally across the world by your participation and interaction amongst post-modern civilization.

( Shit, Al Gore flys on private jets even.)

If enviromentalists were serious at all about the natural enviroment they would make hunter gatherer communes all over the place instead of living in their exotic self indulgent post-modern industrial middle class and upper class lifestyles.

Contrary to popular belief ancient hunter gatherers were responsible for wiping out a wide range of species into extinction however I’ll give you that they had less of a impact on the wide range of the natural enviroment and bio-diversity in comparison to ourselves today.

moresillystuff · March 14, 2009, 10:43pm

That is not the issue. There are people off the grid. Compare the impact of the average US citizen with many amazonian tribal members. There are enormous differences in both the impact individuals and groups have and also in people’s intentions and reactions regarding other species.

Fair enough.

Well, no. there are people, right now, who have vastly less impact then the people you seem to be thinking of as everyone on earth.

Precisely the confusion I think you have in the people you imagine as everyone.

Al Gore’s impact is much, much more than even the average american. His impact equals, just an off the top of my head guess, dozens of americans. And americans impact is vastly more than the citizens of many other places.

Clearly you must consider yourself simply another not virtuous ape and one who has given up.

[/quote]
Some hunter gatherer groups contributed to the extinctions of some species but your generalization is exagerated. Also there was a degree of stability over time. Once they moved into an area a small range of species were affected very much, no doubt on occasion to local extinction, but after that there was relative stability.

There was nothing close to the order of today’s ongoing, continuous eradication of species.

alllowercasejoe · March 14, 2009, 11:26pm

Is this self-loathing? To what degree do you and I benefit from past and present human cruelty?

It’s responsible for the existence of this discussion forum. It’s responsible for your ability to use a computer. You have the luxury of thoughts and actions focused beyond mere survival. Indeed you and I owe our very existence to the cruelty and selfishness of our ancestors.

So I ask this - Do you value the existence of other species above your own? Would you wish yourself away to save a species of butterfly? How about two different animal species? 20? 100? 1000 plant species?

moresillystuff · March 14, 2009, 11:47pm

This all presumes that we have to choose. It also presumes that there is nothing wrong with not caring. Even if it were inevitable, which I do not believe, there are those who grieve or are concerned and there are those who do not and are not.

alllowercasejoe · March 15, 2009, 12:13am

Past choices have already been made and I’m truthfully not trying to presume anything. There is something wrong with not caring. If I had to slaughter a pet to feed my family in a time of need, I would certainly greive the loss but could understand it’s necessity. Someone who was indifferent or took joy in that action would be psychotic. So perhaps if humanity grows to love the presence of other species (which is a growth I think is happening) then the decision to snuff out another life will not be made so carelessly.

Negator · March 15, 2009, 6:43pm

Self loathing? No. This is just me laughing and basking in the sweet irony of humanity’s hypocrisy not to mention inability to change it’s own bumbling self destruction.

This is me entertaining myself through my daily observations of the world around me.

Quite differently I would imagine considering that we can’t generalize all individuals as to be benefiting from the same exact things.

Not really. They’re dead. I’m alive. I could care less about them.

My only interest in them is to succeed where they had failed.

My only interest in them is to avoid the traps and pitfalls they allowed themselves to be caught in.

I value little beyond myself.

What is it exactly that you are trying to do in this thread? What are your intentions?

moresillystuff · March 15, 2009, 10:33pm

Oh, you are back. I thought I recognized you.