The World's Sixth Mass Extinction: Who Cares?

[Netto Azure]

World's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway

A western lowland gorilla resting against tree. The gorilla, like many other animals today, is endangered.

THE GIST

• Over the past 540 million years, there have been five mega extinction events.
• Mankind may be causing a sixth due to habitat loss, over-hunting, over-fishing and the spread of germs.
• Until human populations expanded, mammal extinctions were very rare.

Mankind may have unleashed the sixth known mass extinction in Earth's history, according to a paper released on Wednesday by the science journal Nature.

Over the past 540 million years, five mega-wipeouts of species have occurred through naturally-induced events.

But the new threat is man-made, inflicted by habitation loss, over-hunting, over-fishing, the spread of germs and viruses and introduced species, and by climate change caused by fossil-fuel greenhouse gases, says the study.

Evidence from fossils suggests that in the "Big Five" extinctions, at least 75 percent of all animal species were destroyed.

Palaeobiologists at the University of California at Berkeley looked at the state of biodiversity today, using the world's mammal species as a barometer.

Until mankind's big expansion some 500 years ago, mammal extinctions were very rare: on average, just two species died out every million years.

But in the last five centuries, at least 80 out of 5,570 mammal species have bitten the dust, providing a clear warning of the peril to biodiversity.

"It looks like modern extinction rates resemble mass extinction rates, even after setting a high bar for defining 'mass extinction," said researcher Anthony Barnosky.

This picture is supported by the outlook for mammals in the "critically endangered" and "currently threatened" categories of the Red List of biodiversity compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

You know what really sucks? To like studying Economics and yet understand the urgency of what the heck you are studying in AP Environmental Science.

Yes, this news seems to have missed being posted here. But yeah my Env. Sci Teacher pointed out this issue due to our lesson topic 2 days ago and really, our lifestyles and habits really suck in terms of environmental impact.

Then, my teacher continued on by telling the a story about the Polar Bear with the melting ice we used for the Winter Door Decorating contest.

Everyone here knows that particular debate about putting it in the Endangered Species List which caused controversy right?

Well, she and her friend started talking about the Polar Bear decoration, then her friend said "Why should I care? What has the Polar Bear done for me lately?"

That is the crux of this entire debate, humanity as a whole has had a huge impact on our planet, and yet our view points are quite narrow and stick to our daily lives.

So yeah, any particular opinions on this issue?
​

 

[Serperior]

This seems to be too alarmist for my tastes.
Also, many people have suddenly started to care about veganism, alternative "whatevers" and the environment. I guess it's too late now, eh? Oh well.

 

[Legobricks]

Is an apartment building any less natural than a bee hive? Ultimately not, it seems. They are both enclosed living spaces constructed by the species that resides within them. We differ not by method, but merely by level of advancement.

I wonder, then, is a man-made extinction any less natural than otherwise? However we happened to exist, we are still mortal creatures materially bound to the universe we know, and suffer its whims as wholly as any other living beings. We are animals, at the end of consideration. Many humans admire the beauty of nature and its progression of events. Certainly, we are never totally offended by nature; it is not a moral entity, but we'd never have it as 'evil'. If, as animals, we are part of nature, part of the progression of events, should then the causing of extinction necessarily be stopped?

Certainly it'd be preventable in any case, if we are the cause, should our collective nature permit — which it doesn't; it seems normal for any species to look after its own welfare before that of others. It's ironic that this trait has helped us into the position from which we could minister the Earth. I doubt we will, as a whole, do what we could or should; we will do only what we must for ourselves.


Just my idionsyncratic contrarian thinking, don't take it too heavily.

 

[Melody]

The clock is ticking, we need to find another planet or two to inhabit.

We don't need more proof of this, we all know this to be the truth deep down, and it's not likely to severely impact us any more than it has now or before in our lifetimes.

 

[j2y8n2x]

The clock is ticking, we need to find another planet or two to inhabit.

We don't need more proof of this, we all know this to be the truth deep down, and it's not likely to severely impact us any more than it has now or before in our lifetimes.

But it's impossible to find another planet that's suitable.

 

[Melody]

No it's not. Go read more newspapers and such before you say things like that. We may not know of any suitable planets now, but our technology effectively triples every thousand years. We'll find one somehow.

 

[Livewire]

But it's impossible to find another planet that's suitable.

There are millions of Planets in our galaxy alone that are in the 'sweet zone' that exhibits atmospheric conditions capable of capable of supporting life. We just need to reach those places. And given enough funding and time, we can do just that.

Is an apartment building any less natural than a bee hive? Ultimately not, it seems. They are both enclosed living spaces constructed by the species that resides within them. We differ not by method, but merely by level of advancement.

I wonder, then, is a man-made extinction any less natural than otherwise? However we happened to exist, we are still mortal creatures materially bound to the universe we know, and suffer its whims as wholly as any other living beings. We are animals, at the end of consideration. Many humans admire the beauty of nature and its progression of events. Certainly, we are never totally offended by nature; it is not a moral entity, but we'd never have it as 'evil'. If, as animals, we are part of nature, part of the progression of events, should then the causing of extinction necessarily be stopped?

Certainly it'd be preventable in any case, if we are the cause, should our collective nature permit — which it doesn't; it seems normal for any species to look after its own welfare before that of others. It's ironic that this trait has helped us into the position from which we could minister the Earth. I doubt we will, as a whole, do what we could or should; we will do only what we must for ourselves.


Just my idionsyncratic contrarian thinking, don't take it too heavily.

But other extinctions originate from outside natural forces -volcanic/tectonic/galactic/atmospheric activity- as in they are not initiated by other biological life forms, and they are mostly beyond control. I think that's a pretty important distinction to make.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

To be honest, like your title says; who cares?

So we are to blame for the next mass extinction, does it matter? We adapted enough to survive this far and they didn't. You fall behind, you stay behind. That's life.
If nothing ever goes extinct or gets hunted or what have you then life will never evolve.

Even if we completely obliterated 90% of known species on Earth, then given time the survivors would adapt to fill those same niches.
Besides, the fact that this is the sixth proves in itself that it doesn't matter, it just so happens that it was caused by another species this time rather than an outside source.

The only reason people really care is that they look at the Gorilla and think "Awww, look it's so cute!". Now, think seriously to yourself, when have you ever seen anyone give a damn about say, the parasites that we have driven to the verge of extinction, or the fact that the human flea has been made extinct in the western world since the invention of the vacuum cleaner or even that the Wolf has been extinct in Britain for the last 500 years or so?

I know this was a little disjointed and ranty, but it's late and this topic really annoys me.

 

[Esper]

I wish more people cared. I know just one person caring doesn't amount to much, but strength in numbers can be motivating. Like just the other day I helped persuade someone to ride their bike more and keep from polluting as much as they would otherwise. Just sayin'.

And if this is another mass extinction in the making and it is caused by humans then it's different from the past 5 because it would mean that we could stop it or at least mitigate the effects through our actions. Given the choice between a natural extinction and an artificial one I'd choose the latter since it means more hope for stopping it. Of course no extinctions at all would be preferable. I know it's part of evolution and "the natural course of things" for species to die off, but we shouldn't be pushing these species off the cliff any faster than they're already going.

Even if you're someone who thinks humans are the only species that matter you still wouldn't want to loose the chance to exploit the plants and animals out there by pushing them to extinction.

 

[Livewire]

To be honest, like your title says; who cares?

So we are to blame for the next mass extinction, does it matter? We adapted enough to survive this far and they didn't. You fall behind, you stay behind. That's life.
If nothing ever goes extinct or gets hunted or what have you then life will never evolve.

Even if we completely obliterated 90% of known species on Earth, then given time the survivors would adapt to fill those same niches.
Besides, the fact that this is the sixth proves in itself that it doesn't matter, it just so happens that it was caused by another species this time rather than an outside source.

The only reason people really care is that they look at the Gorilla and think "Awww, look it's so cute!". Now, think seriously to yourself, when have you ever anyone give a damn about say, the parasites that we have driven to the verge of extinction, or the fact that the human flea has been made extinct in the western world since the invention of the vacuum cleaner or even that the Wolf has been extinct in Britain for the last 500 years or so?

I know this was a little disjointed and ranty, but it's late and this topic really annoys me.

I care because I'd hate to see amazing species of animals wiped off the face of the earth because we need more oil, or some other trivial reason.

 

[Legobricks]

But other extinctions originate from outside natural forces -volcanic/tectonic/galactic/atmospheric activity- as in they are not initiated by other biological life forms, and they are mostly beyond control. I think that's a pretty important distinction to make.

And what of that distinction? Why would we be wrong to do what we may, because of what we are?
We may 'know better', but we have apparently yet to sufficiently demonstrate 'being better'.

It's a question, really; I'm not a debating person.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

I care because I'd hate to see amazing species of animals wiped off the face of the earth because we need more oil, or some other trivial reason.

Again I point you to what I said about the Human Flea; it's no "amazing animal" and poses no real threat to Humanity, yet it has gone damn near extinction because they were a little annoying.
Now, look at, say the Tiger. While humans may not be their primary prey, they've certainly killed way more humans than our little friend the Flea ever did (The Plague was caused by rat fleas, not human fleas) and they are still alive and kicking. They may be endangered, but there are countless massive campaigns to save it, just because "it looks pretty".

No one gives a damn about the animals that are small and "insignificant" just because they aren't "beautiful".

Now excuse me, I'm off to set up "Save The Flea".

 

[Serperior]

Alternatively, the people who care could stop crying over this in a forum and actually DO something. because y'know, the world doesn't wait. But people are just useless like that 99% of the time. Just sayin'.

 

[Livewire]

Again I point you to what I said about the Human Flea; it's no "amazing animal" and poses no real threat to Humanity, yet it has gone damn near extinction because they were a little annoying.
Now, look at, say the Tiger. While humans may not be their primary prey, they've certainly killed way more humans than our little friend the Flea ever did (The Plague was caused by rat fleas, not human fleas) and they are still alive and kicking. They may be endangered, but there are countless massive campaigns to save it, just because "it looks pretty".

No one gives a damn about the animals that are small and "insignificant" just because they aren't "beautiful".

Now excuse me, I'm off to set up "Save The Flea".

I made no correlation to saving animals only because they're aesthetically pleasing to look at. Any and all biodiversity should be conserved if possible, and most learned conversationalists realize this, not Hollywood actors and misguided agencies who want to protect the pretty lions and tigers simply because of that.

 

[Netto Azure]

Alternatively, the people who care could stop crying over this in a forum and actually DO something. because y'know, the world doesn't wait. But people are just useless like that 99% of the time. Just sayin'.

"Doing something" individually in this magnitude a problem is really insignificant.

The best thing a person can do is start forming coalitions to put pressure in government to do more about this as we as private individuals do not have the resources to do so.

But to emphasize the daunting task this would entail, it would mean going against the Climate Change deniers, Oil and Gas companies, Chemical Industries, multi-billion $ companies, etc.

That's a lot of money to go against with.

And with people in this country deriding the Environmental movement as "pinko-liberal-communofacists" might as well wear a tinfoil hat while I'm at it.

And yeah, to be frank most scientists studying this would rather focus on protecting and sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem functioning as the best way to protect species to bypass your derision such as "save the fleas."

>.>

 

[Livewire]

"Doing something" individually in this magnitude a problem is really insignificant.

The best thing a person can do is start forming coalitions to put pressure in government to do more about this as we as private individuals do not have the resources to do so.

But to emphasize the daunting task this would entail, it would mean going against the Climate Change deniers, Oil and Gas companies, Chemical Industries, multi-billion $ companies, etc.

That's a lot of money to go against with.

And with people in this country deriding the Environmental movement as "pinko-liberal-communofacists" might as well wear a tinfoil hat while I'm at it.

And yeah, to be frank most scientists studying this would rather focus on protecting and sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem functioning as the best way to protect species to bypass your derision such as "save the fleas."

>.>

I agree Netto.

The only problem is, is that with the US government beinbg the way it is at the moment, I would expect conservation funds to be one of the things cut out of the budget. :/ So i wouldn't expect any major conservation happening on our end, at least.

 

[Lunacy Giat]

The western Lowland Gorilla population has been steadily increasing over the past 3-5 years. Although it still isn't a large population, it still is significant that it is increasing. The Homonid's that we should be worried about are the Bornean Orangutan's. Habitat destruction will get to them first, as they live on a rather small island...

 

[aruchan]

No it's not. Go read more newspapers and such before you say things like that. We may not know of any suitable planets now, but our technology effectively triples every thousand years. We'll find one somehow.

If you believe in transhumanism--and I hope this isn't true--apparently our technology will increase the equivalent of 20,000 years of progress in the next 100 years.
We'll probably destroy ourselves before that, though. xD

 

[WriteThemWrong]

I took AP Environmental Sci in high school and I found it very bias, and even more so compared to the intro environ sci and atmospheric sci classes i took in college last year. maybe it was just my teacher or something but excluding the hard science we learned, everything was one sided.

with that said, i've heard this argument about the 6th mass extinction be made before. but the fact that UC Berkeley used mammals to gauge the entire world's biodiversity is awkward to me. mammals reproduce slowly, mature slowly, and live longer, so just because there are less mammals species doesn't mean the earth is less diverse. the biggest threat to biodiversity are around all the major forests in the world, deforestation is running rampant in countries that have no policy on that. hopefully they come to their sense before its too late

 

[Kura]

I don't if that information is accurate.. unless they were accounting for- and had a database over 500 years ago for mammals and extinction then I seriously doubt it.

It comes down to the individual.. and the governments TBH