im 100% done here.
"We are not dependent on licen".
omy god. where the fuck does soil originate from? fucking mosses and lichen are the builders of fucking soil. they are disapearing from the fucking planet. the smallest organismawe are the most dependent upon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.fucking acidic polluted air, water and soil will kill us. it is already. where the fuck does cancer originate from? Now you are going to say heavy metals are not a problem. God help us
David wrote: the total number of species on earth, which is estimated to be between 10 and 30 million.
bart wrote:For example, we take it as a matter of course that civilized people have indoor plumbing and sewage systems. We ignore the natural process of recycling wastes and consider the subject of composting toilets to be funny and quaint.
Note that the figure of 15,589 threatened species, as the Executive Summary says, is a vast understatement, since it is based on fully evaluating only 3% of species known to science (~1.5 million), and the 1.5 million species known to science are in turn only 10% (at most) of the total number of species on earth, which is estimated to be between 10 and 30 million.
So let's do the math (just a rough ballpark figure): the IUCN says 15,589 species are threatened, but it has evaluated only 3% of scientifically described species-- and scientifically described species are only about 10% of the total number of species on earth. So that means the IUCN has evaluated about .3% of the total number of species on earth, and has found that roughly 15,000 of those are threatened with extinction. So if we extrapolate to a ballpark figure, 15,000 X 300 = 4,500,000 species threatened with extinction.
Recent extinctions and declines of species have been phylogenetically selective (Bennett & Owens, 1997; Gaston & Blackburn, 1997; Russell et al., 1998; Purvis et al., 2000a). This suggests that, in addition to external factors such as the degree of habitat loss, there are intrinsic traits which render some species particularly extinction-prone. A growing body of evidence indicates that body size is one such trait: smaller-bodied species seem to be less vulnerable to decline and extinction than larger species (Gaston & Blackburn, 1995; Smith & Quin, 1996; Bennett & Owens, 1997; Jennings, Reynolds & Mills, 1998; Purviset al., 2000b; Cardillo & Bromham, 2001).
http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/apurvi ... AnCons.pdf
Has there even been one documented case of a bacteria extinction?
Soil ecologist Elaine Ingham spoke about a plant-killing GM bacteria that her Oregon State University research team prevented from being released into the environment. Dr Ingham said the alcohol-producing bacteria had been approved for field trials when her team discovered its lethal effects. She believed the widespread plant deaths caused by the bacteria would in turn affect all life on Earth. The GM klebsiella planticola produced alcohol [which is poison to plants] from post-harvest crop residue. The leftover organic sludge, containing the bacteria, would be returned to fields as fertiliser.
http://www.context.co.nz:8080/stories/storyReader$467
Also see:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/K ... icola.html
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/Ingham.htm
bart wrote:In your recent post, you seem to be saying that we don't need to worry about extinctions of microbes, since we aren't aware of any such extinctions. My question: how would we know?
I'm not sure I see the point of biodiversity-bashing. Do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just being contrary? My guess is about 80% contrariness! Nobody who is interested in muck can really be that opposed to biodiversity.
Are you are saying that the poor and small farmers in the Third World need to be able to degrade ecosystems in order to survive?
I think just the opposite is the case, since they depend on healthy ecosystems more directly than those in rich countries.
Even if you disagree with the high profile biodiversity advocates, what is the point of attacking them personally and impugning their integrity?
Which side are you on?
It's one thing to be independent minded and thoughtful; it's something else to throw in your lot with the attack dogs of the right.
JohnDenver wrote:I am opposed to biodiversity because it is one plank in the PR campaign to sell powerdown, which I am viscerally opposed to. My opposition is genuine.
The anti-growth environmentalists propose economic contraction and powerdown as the solution to this problem, but I would argue that powerdown will make it even worse. Powerdown will make everyone poorer, and they will try to compensate by attacking the environment. When fuel gets scarce, people will turn to the forests for wood etc. The environmentalists aren't thinking through the unintended consequences of their social engineering proposals.
I a pro-growth environmentalist. I believe we must grow beyond the planet. If we follow the anti-growth environmentalists, we will resign ourselves to the fate of the dinosaurs -- waiting until a big rock hits us.
bart wrote:In order to achieve abundance, one doesn't have to stay stuck in the high-energy, high-impact technologies of the past 200 years. We'll probably have to change our definition of "abundance" away from jet travel and throwaway plastic toys. Maybe abundance could be defined along the lines of: healthy, delicious food; beautiful, hand-crafted tools and homes; satisfying relationships and communities. Such a lifestyle can be achieved with a fraction of the energy and environmental impact of our current way of life.
So in my mind, true abundance = healthy ecosystems = biodiversity = envrionmentalism = powerdown. These concepts do not seem contradictory to me, as they seem to be to you.
johnmarkos wrote:...This reminds me of a jag I've been on lately about the difference between systems-level thinking and problem-level thinking. The next two paragraphs are conjecture in an attempt to articulate this thought.
Ecologists and those concerned with biodiversity tend to be systems-level thinkers who are good at articulating the big picture but not so good at coming up with working solutions to problems. Traditional Western scientific thinking tends to divide problems up into sub-problems, order them by severity, and solve them one by one. The traditional approach is actually quite effective in some ways.
If the Earth were a house, systems-level thinkers would be the only ones who were capable of articulating that the place was falling apart. On the other hand, they would be incapable of picking up a wrench or a mop and fixing the problem. Problem-level thinkers want to start fixing things, once they perceive there is a problem to solve.
Anyway, I think we need both kinds of thinkers.
Liamj wrote:Ecologists don't have problems finding solutions to problems, its making those solutions work/getting them implemented within 'growth' economics that is the undo-able.
-How do you slow landclearing (which causes salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss etc) when MORE land is reqd (for ag, housing, roads...) every year?
-How do you reduce pollution when its cheaper to pollute (& MAYBE pay occasional fines) than scrub your emisions?
-How do you reduce water use when ppl aren't charged by how much they use?
Do you blame doctors for ppl not quitting smoking?
johnmarkos wrote:Liamj wrote:Ecologists don't have problems finding solutions to problems, its making those solutions work/getting them implemented within 'growth' economics that is the undo-able.
-How do you slow landclearing (which causes salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss etc) when MORE land is reqd (for ag, housing, roads...) every year?
-How do you reduce pollution when its cheaper to pollute (& MAYBE pay occasional fines) than scrub your emisions?
-How do you reduce water use when ppl aren't charged by how much they use?
The problems you are describing are not caused by problem-level thinking but by no thinking at all. That is, by people simply doing what they want, without considering the consequences. Although solutions to these problems may originate in the minds of systems-level thinkers, they will never be implemented until they are translated into problem-level language. It's the only language people who have the power to make policy or stop polluting understand.Do you blame doctors for ppl not quitting smoking?
No. In fact, I would point out that the reduction in the number of (U.S.) smokers is a success of doctors' problem-level thinking. Measurement (problem-level thinking) of the illnesses (heart disease, cancer) caused by smoking translated into policy (Surgeon General's Warning, restriction of advertising), which resulted in changed behavior. Doctors and others knew for centuries that tobacco was bad for people's health. This gut knowledge was systems-level thinking. However, noone could change people's behavior from the instinctive, "I want to smoke, therefore I shall smoke," until doctors quantified the problem using allopathic medicine and scientific measurement.
Liamj wrote:Probs can be defined in whatever language you like, but economic & political power is real and substantial and will win every time. I'm a bit incredulous that you're suggesting these probs are just a matter of framing.
JohnDenver wrote:and a guy with a couple of teeth missing and a NASCAR jacket walks up, and says: "Man, this peak oil die-off thing is something else... How soon you reckon it's gonna happen? This society is all fucked up, and we need a die-off, specially of the gubmint. You got gold and a gun Julian?"
Biologists at the University of California, San Diego and the University of Bonn in Germany have produced a global map of estimated plant species richness. Covering several hundred thousand species, the scientists say their global map is the most extensive map of the distribution of biodiversity on Earth to date.
"Plants provide important services to humans—such as ornaments, structure, food and bio-molecules that can be used for the development of drugs or alternative fuels—that increase in value with their richness," says Jetz, an assistant professor of biology at UCSD and the senior author of the paper. "Tropical countries such as Ecuador or Colombia harbor by a factor 10 to 100 higher plant species richness than most parts of the United States or Europe. The question is, Why?"
While explorers to these tropical regions long ago recognized this increased diversity over more temperate regions, the general understanding among ecologists about this striking difference continues to be very limited.
However, technologies such as renewable energy, recycling and the provision of services can, if carried out appropriately, provide for growth in the economic sense, either without the use of limited resources, or by using a relatively small amount of resources with a small impact. In the latter case, even the use of small amounts of resources may be unsustainable if continued indefinitely without incorporation of more effective recycling.
Food and drink
Biodiversity provides food for humans. About 80 percent of our food supply comes from just 20 kinds of plant. Although many kinds of animal are utilised as food, again most consumption is focused on a few species.
There is vast untapped potential for increasing the range of food products suitable for human consumption, provided that the high present extinction rate can be halted.
Medicines
A significant proportion of drugs are derived, directly or indirectly, from biological sources; in most cases these medicines can not presently be synthesized in a laboratory setting. Moreover, only a small proportion of the total diversity of plants has been thoroughly investigated for potential sources of new drugs. Many Medicines and antibiotics are also derived from microorganisms.
Industrial materials
A wide range of industrial materials are derived directly from biological resources. These include building materials, fibres, dyes, resins, gums, adhesives, rubber and oil. There is enormous potential for further research into sustainably utilising materials from a wider diversity of organisms.
Other ecological services
Biodiversity provides many ecosystem services that are often not readily visible. It plays a part in regulating the chemistry of our atmosphere and water supply. Biodiversity is directly involved in recycling nutrients and providing fertile soils. Experiments with controlled environments have shown that humans cannot easily build ecosystems to support human needs; for example insect pollination cannot be mimicked by man-made construction, and that activity alone represents tens of billions of dollars in ecosystem services per annum to mankind.
Leisure, cultural and aesthetic value
Many people derive value from biodiversity through leisure activities such as enjoying a walk in the countryside, birdwatching or natural history programs on television.
Biodiversity has inspired musicians, painters, sculptors, writers and other artists. Many cultural groups view themselves as an integral part of the natural world and show respect for other living organisms.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests