Thread: Thinning of the Herd?

First of all, I believe I've played a huge part in derailing this topic. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

That hardly sounded polite. Thanks.

It's all in love

That's a different kind of nature. It's spelled the same, has a different meaning... -_- We were not discussing anything in regards to behavior.



Nope, wrong kind of nature.

That's my point: there's a broader scope of "nature" then simply "everything but Humans.

Are we talking about God now? Regardless, that has nothing to do with the nature we're talking about.

I'm not. I see nature as the entirety of natural forces, physics, inter-species relationships, etc... Not a personal being pulling the strings.

That does not make men or women a part of nature. A human making machines stronger, for example, does not make humanity a part of machinery.

Well, yes it does! I suppose you're going to tell me that Humans are not animals too? ALL animals are - by virtue of existence - "part of nature".

Using the word in it's own deffinition is always looked down upon. It's like saying "What's the deffinition for narcissism? Um, someone who is narcissistic and... etc". BAD.

No, no, no. The usage of the word (which was copied and pasted from the page I linked to, by the way) was their usage example, not part of the definition, silly.

Um... Exactly.

You're conviently omitting the word "especially". Especially does not mean "only".

Can't change nature? Sorry, we can.

But you're still basing your argument on a false premise: that we are not part of nature. It's not possible to not be part of nature.

Letting people know that bees are dying out is something to be shameful about then?

No, not at all.

Last time I checked, things that affected the survival of our species were pretty important to stay tuned into.

Absolutely. As long as we don't try to place blame where it doesn't belong. Remember the who Gods topic. We (collectively) tend to assign cause to things we don't understand. And when that happens it's almost always proven to be incorrect in the long run.

The only people 'loathing' are those who don't know any better. Pointing the finger at others doesn't fix anything. Figure we can agree on that, no?

We absolutely do agree on that, yes.

No, I wasn't referring to global climate change, but instead to the air quality. It doesn't take scientific instruments to tell the air is bad when you live in the middle of LA, and that alone directly affects our health.

But the two are being tied together - for better or worse - by popular mentality, without sufficient backings.

Then the way we see it different. Perspective man.

It's really only a matter of semantics. So, no further argument there.

If you can't deny it, it looks like I did.

Not so much You can't take the most extreme, unlikely example to make your case. It doesn't hold up to realistic scrutiny. Sure, if I applied 1 million volts to my nipples I'd probably die. But that doesn't exactly prove that a 9 volt battery needs to be handled with gloves, tweezers, a rubber bra and a hazmat suit.

If I couldn't understand what I was talking about, I wouldn't have said it.

You'd think so...

Scare tactics about burning to cinders isn't laughable to you? I'd have thought you of all people would find it that rediculous.

YES!!! That's my point! It's a scare tactic used by the "extremists" on the topic. It's 100% ridiculous and 200% laughable.

Unless we gather enough evidence to conclude that the events are man made. Hunting a particular animal into extinction is a good example. The development of a chemical or viral strain that kills another species off is another good example. Global warming is not a good example, because there are too many variables.

But the dwindling of various species, for example, also involves far more variables than we generally acknowledge.

I'd call them extremists, but that's just me.

Agreed.

When you called them do-gooders, I was under the impression that you were referring to everyone who was environmentally conscious, including those who were not extremists.

Well, they are the most forceful and volcal of the do-gooder crowd. That said, yes, there are degrees. Not all people who care and who try to do the right thing are extremists. So to clarify, my usage of the term was referring to the extremists only, not all "do-gooders".

If I agree with you on this one too, and you say I'm wrong, it would make you wrong too.

If you agree with me you can never be wrong

Peace...

I think blaming the liberals, or worse; being an anti-semite is turning a simple ratings game into an unwarranted conspiracy theory. There are conservative news stations, after all; or have you never watched Fox? I think the real issue is, disaster commands attention. People don't want to turn on the news and have someone tell them a list of facts, but then say that there isn't enough data to draw any conclusions one way or the other. Anyone reporting the most dire interpretation of the facts is going to get the best ratings because its the most interesting thing to watch. Its not really the reporters fault at all, its the fault of the majority of viewers who only watch doomsday news.

Originally Posted by Naiya

lol, I got my information from the scientists studying this, and the figure I gave about a third of the food supply is the one they used.

You are correct that other thing besides bees can pollenate. However, the fact remains that bees are primarily what pollenate our crops. Many specific crops are 100% dependent upon bees to reproduce (See second link,) such as many types of fruit, berries and almonds.

Here, have some proof.

***

A Cornell University study has estimated that honeybees annually pollinate more than $14 billion worth of seeds and crops in the United States, mostly fruits, vegetables and nuts. “Every third bite we consume in our diet is dependent on a honeybee to pollinate that food,” said Zac Browning, vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation.

NY Times Article

An estimated 14 billion U.S. dollars in agricultural crops in the United States are dependent on bee pollination

National Geographic

Once again, your logic completely disregards the concept of niches in nature. Bees fill a certain niche, and in many places they dominate that niche so that other species are not able to fill it. If they were to disappear completely, the patterns in nature teach us that other species would move in to fill that niche very quickly. This of course still assumes a doomsday projection of all bees disappearing, which is hardly supported by the minuscule amount of data that has been collected on the subject.

You people act as though nothing adapts.

May I direct you to the Theory of Evolution?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Once again, your logic completely disregards the concept of niches in nature. Bees fill a certain niche, and in many places they dominate that niche so that other species are not able to fill it. If they were to disappear completely, the patterns in nature teach us that other species would move in to fill that niche very quickly. This of course still assumes a doomsday projection of all bees disappearing, which is hardly supported by the minuscule amount of data that has been collected on the subject.

You are completely right that nature will find another way, yes. The problem is, nature doesn't give a crap if the new way feeds us human beings or not. The kinds of food we eat may die out, while new species which don't require bees will move in--species which may or may not be edible, mostly not since it's not likely that 100% of the plants replacing our crops will be edible.

It is not likely that nature will take man's comfort and needs into account when adapting itself.

So basically, relying on nature to find a new way to feed us is a big gamble. And for someone who acts like they know so much about the facts, you've failed to produce any evidence from credible sources, as I have. I'm going to have to throw your own words back in your face: where did you get the scientific evidence that "there isn't enough data to assume anything"? Find me some decent proof of your analysis and maybe I'll consider arguing your point. But until then, it's just your opinion.

Also, national geographic is hardly comparable to Fox News.

So then humans adapt to their surroundings.

Again; you displace humans outside of evolution and nature.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

So then humans adapt to their surroundings.

Again; you displace humans outside of evolution and nature.

Yup, we adapt. And there's nothing wrong with considering how to help things before they get so bad that tons of people are dying. What's wrong with a few scientists studying this and trying to help it? Why is that so threatening to you?

What?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

What?

You said humans adapt. I responded with this:

Why should human beings have to wait until after a change is complete to adapt? Isn't it smarter to adapt during the process of change so we are more ready for it?

You can't adapt until you adapt.

That's like saying let's build a car, but why don't we finish halfway through?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You can't adapt until you adapt.

That's like saying let's build a car, but why don't we finish halfway through?

Okay, so your argument has now gone down to semantics and bad analogies.

This is nature. There are no rules. You can adapt as things change--in fact, nature is in a constant state of change, so waiting for it the be static before doing anything would mean you're not going to survive.

Adapting doesn't mean a quick fix after a change. Adapting is a complicated process.

This sort of thing has been going ever since humans appeared.

Quite simply we evolved too far. As soon as you're intelligent enough to start using tools and building things as opposed to having to evolve them over millions of years, it triggers off an exponential, and within an incredibly short time scale the species population has exploded to unsustainable levels. All these extinctions are due entirely to the processes which are needed to support the far too large population which our intelligence has allowed to developed; processes in particular including over hunting (dating back to the time of the mammoths), deforestation, and the chemical industry.

Lots of people seem surprised by even the small number of examples at the start of this thread, which kind of shows the general ignorance of the fact that there is currently a huge extinction event currently taking place, possibly the largest in the history of Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event

Something could well go very very wrong quite soon if we wipe out some kind of species crucial to our existence.

Originally Posted by Naiya

Okay, so your argument has now gone down to semantics and bad analogies.

This is nature. There are no rules. You can adapt as things change--in fact, nature is in a constant state of change, so waiting for it the be static before doing anything would mean you're not going to survive.

Adapting doesn't mean a quick fix after a change. Adapting is a complicated process.

Did I say that? No.

I said that you cannot adapt until you adapt. There is no inbetween, whatever happens, happens.

Originally Posted by Xei

This sort of thing has been going ever since humans appeared.

Quite simply we evolved too far. As soon as you're intelligent enough to start using tools and building things as opposed to having to evolve them over millions of years, it triggers off an exponential, and within an incredibly short time scale the species population has exploded to unsustainable levels. All these extinctions are due entirely to the processes which are needed to support the far too large population which our intelligence has allowed to developed; processes in particular including over hunting (dating back to the time of the mammoths), deforestation, and the chemical industry.

Lots of people seem surprised by even the small number of examples at the start of this thread, which kind of shows the general ignorance of the fact that there is currently a huge extinction event currently taking place, possibly the largest in the history of Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event

Something could well go very very wrong quite soon if we wipe out some kind of species crucial to our existence.

Exactly-- Human overpopulation.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Did I say that? No.

I said that you cannot adapt until you adapt. There is no inbetween, whatever happens, happens.

You cannot adapt until you adapt? Logistically your sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Let's replace it with different verbs so you can see how I'm reading it:

You cannot swim until you swim. WAIT don't jump in the water. You can't swim unless you're already in there. Don't START swimming unless you already are. In your logic, it is literally impossible to adapt unless one is already in the process of adapting.

And if you are right, you must remember that all species are continually adapting all the time--it is a complicated process, not a switch that flips after x event. Since we're already adapting all the time, there should be no problem adapting to the population fluctuations of other species.

But in your logic, when and how exactly do humans adapt? Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You people act as though nothing adapts.

May I direct you to the Theory of Evolution?

Seis... a big ol' pat on the back for you on this one. I may have to use it sometime myself... do I have to pay royalties!? Anyways, royalties aside, here's my 2 cents below, although a lot of this has been stated in this thread to some level of ad nauseum, but tis cool, tis cool.

What I think are facts:
1. Seis is way correct in this quote above.

2. The only way to view the term nature for this discussion to hold any true meaning is to include all living things (including humans) as part of its definition.

3. There is no denying that humans have "errupted" onto the scene of our dear planet. If one looks at the length of time we have been around as conscious beings, there is no doubt we flatter ourselves with way too much self-importance, and with our seemingly exponential population growth, we will soon have the ability (if we don't already) to affect which strange attractor the dynamic system of the earth circles.

What are just my feelings or thoughts:
4. It amazes me that some can think that because we don't have a lengthy record to analyze history, it must mean by default that we are cool with the earth, and the earth with us. Somehow, the day-to-day of our own lives seems to effect so many of us to be blind to how sadly predestined we think we are. We really don't own the earth. And the perceived generational stability of our 20th/21st century middle-class lives are really not the place to start debating the scientific knowledge of man.

5. It is my view that, while unfortunate, when parts of nature (as defined above) become conscious of their own existence (aka, humans) these parts of nature can create seemingly alarming amounts of what we ourselves would term the unnatural (aka, the synthetic -- everything from transfats to polyester!).

6. I think what all people should be able to at least wonder about (maybe not agree!) is that would we want any mass extinction of species within our ecosystem to have contributions from our synthetic manipulation of our environment? Even if one defines all human output as part of nature, is it really desired to place our technological growth higher than our own ecology? While youth possibly may be to blame for defining this type of extinction as just an extension of evolution, we will "evolve" ourself right off the planet at the rate we are going. Oh nothing we can conjure can "break" planet earth... it will happily keep on spewing lava and moving its crust for many millenia after we wipe ourselves clean.

Thanks for the forum boys and girls.
Good topic.

analyst

Originally Posted by ExoByte

No one denies that at all. But thats not the issue at hand.

We have already begun the world's sixth great extinction. Animal and insect species are dying off at a rapid rate and many other species are seriously threatened. This has been known about for a number of years among scientists, who pretty much all agree that we have entered a sixth Great Extinction, the largest since the dinosaurs went extinct. Many scientists and biologists think that this present extinction rate may well exceed what happened with the dinosaurs.

http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
There are more than 300 links on this page, all of them from reputable sources such as the Worldwatch, National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, etc. Even the United Nations agrees we are in a major extinction.

From this link, an article from the Washington Post, dated April 21, 1998:
(i.e., the info here has only worsened in the last 10 years since this was published)

"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."

You can also Google "current mass extinction" and get lots of results with many good articles on this subject.

Here is a table that summarizes which species are threatened, listed by type of species, from 1996 to 2007.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/2007..._Table%201.pdf

More tables here:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/stats

Here is another article, from June 2007:
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs...xtinction.html


The circle of life is just that, all things are interconnected. If other animals are seriously threatened, how long until humankind starts to die off?

The new variable "since the dinosaurs" is man's capacity for adaptation through rationalization. This I take as a time of great trial and tribulation for human kind. Something to be overcome for the good of the species and the planet, not the prophecy of death.

Originally Posted by Naiya

You cannot adapt until you adapt? Logistically your sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Let's replace it with different verbs so you can see how I'm reading it:

You cannot swim until you swim. WAIT don't jump in the water. You can't swim unless you're already in there. Don't START swimming unless you already are. In your logic, it is literally impossible to adapt unless one is already in the process of adapting.

And if you are right, you must remember that all species are continually adapting all the time--it is a complicated process, not a switch that flips after x event. Since we're already adapting all the time, there should be no problem adapting to the population fluctuations of other species.

But in your logic, when and how exactly do humans adapt? Please be specific.

No.

Adaptation is a constant process, there are no steps, it just happens, thus "You do not adapt until you adapt".

PS: Your argument failed.