How many Species Are Going Extinct?

[BPSCG]

Saw Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t last night on the Endangered Species Act, and it got me pondering a few questions.

We're all familiar with these kinds of claims:
According to various estimates by scientists, every day 35- 150 species of life become extinct.
http://forests.org/archive/general/coolfact.htm

An average of 35 species become extinct every day in the world's tropical rainforests.
http://www.savetherainforest.org/savetherainforest_005.htm

Put plainly, in order to maintain the biomass that is tied up in the six billion of us, we have to gobble up 200 species a day--in addition to all the food we produce in the ordinary way. We need the biomass of those 200 species to maintain this biomass, the biomass that is in us. And when we've gobbled up those species, they're gone--extinct. Vanished forever.

In other words, maintaining a population of six billion humans costs the world 200 species a day.
http://www.oraculartree.com/quinn_renaissance.html

Up to 100 species become extinct every day. Scientists estimate that the total number of species lost each year may climb to 40,000 by the year 2000, a rate far exceeding any in the last 65 million years.
http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/esreasons.htm

Biologists say that at least three animal and plant species become extinct every day, a rate much higher than anything in the past 65 million years.
http://greennature.com/article202.html

Scientists estimate an average of 137 species of life forms become extinct every day. . . 50,000 each year.
http://www.treasur.com/rain2.htm
Questions:

1) How do they determine these numbers?
2) Is there a list somewhere of the species that became extinct yesterday? Last month? Last year?
3) What's the net loss of species? In other words, if there are X extinctions per year, but Y new species evolve (or are "intelligently designed") per year, then Z, the net loss due to extinctions, is X-Y. How many new species are created every year? Is there a list somewhere? How do we know that Z is a negative number?

Maybe this should be in the Science forum, but since it's such a politically-charged issue, and since I do most of my browsing here...

[Orwell]

This will give you an idea:

Determining present extinction rates and even the status of most species is difficult for all but a few well-known species groups. For example, we know that 17 of the 22 crocodile and alligator species are threatened with extinction from habitat destruction and overhunting. But what about the world's plants or its insects? Peter Raven, perhaps the world's leading specialist on tropical botany, has stated that 25% of the world's plant species are seriously threatened.

What about beetles, which represent approximately a quarter of all known species? You may be wondering why we should be concerned about beetles at all. After all, a bird or mammal must be far more important than a species of insect! Not necessarily. Each species plays a unique role in the global ecosystem. The loss of any species has ripple effects across the fabric of creation. In recent studies of Central and South America, more than 90% of the beetles collected were from unknown, unstudied species.

A single tree may have as many as 1,200 species of beetles, of which 20% are specialist feeders that occur only on that species of tree. There are approximately 50,000 species of tropical trees—each with its specialist beetle population. If the tree becomes extinct, so will the other species associated with it. And there are many other types of specialists on tropical trees besides beetles!

How are scientists able to estimate the numbers of animals going extinct?

There is a direct relationship between the size of an area and the number of species that it contains. A square yard of temperate forest habitat may have 10 species of plants, while an acre will often have hundreds. The larger the area, the more species encountered-up to a point.

Of equal importance is the range of each species. Species that are restricted to small geographic areas are much more likely to go extinct than are those with widespread distributions. Also, the smaller the population, the higher the probability of extinction. And therein lies a disturbing fact. It is thought that tropical species commonly have smaller populations and much more restricted distributions. Thus, destroying an acre of tropical forest will likely have a much higher extinction impact than the loss of an acre of temperate forest.

Dr. Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University estimates that if 1% of the world's tropical rain forests are destroyed each year—a conservative estimate based on current rates of deforestation—then over 100 years there would be a loss of at least 20% of all species, assuming extinction rates remain constant. Based on a total of 10 million species, the current annual loss has been calculated to be 20,000 to 30,000 species.

Some studies indicate that the rate of species loss may be somewhat less, but there is no question that unless the escalating rate of habitat destruction is reversed, the extinction toll will continue to rise. And if recent evidence from studies on global climate change proves to be true, atmospheric modification may become the major threat to species in the future.
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/07-13-2x/endangered-species-conservation-article.htm

It's pretty similar to what my first year biology textbook says, so it must be ok...

As for new species: well, humans are destroying species rich habitats (like rain forests and wet lands) to turn them into species poor areas (like agricultural land, parking lots and suburbs). Also, a new species may take hundreds of thousands of years to develop, while destroying an already existing species can be done in a matter of minutes.

[Ed]

There was a very fine book entitled "The Hunt" by a guy named John Mitchell that was a very considered look at hunting in the US (anybody interested in this general area would really enjoy it).

A point that he makes is that the demise of creatures cannot be judged on an emotional basis and that nature is not a diaroma in a museum.

Species become extinct. OK, so? While I can accept the cited numbers, the question is "so what"? Unless there is some concrete problem this is a pure emotional pleading whose value is questionable.

[Orwell]

An analogy: one of my biology teachers used to compare an ecosystem to a bridge from which one rivet was removed, then two, etc. A bit like an ecosystem, a bridge is constructed of small pieces bolted together to form a complete, stable, working system. What difference does it make if one of the bolts was removed? Would we still be willing to travel across? How about two bolts? Three? How many bolts would have to be removed before we would begin to feel uneasy about traveling on it? As each bolt is removed, the bridge may shift imperceptibly to neutralize the stress but if you don't pay attention to this, you wouldn't know. If the bolts continue to be removed, the bridge will be unable to redistribute the stresses and it will eventually collapse. If we're on the bridge, we'll suffer the consequences of its collapse.

Know what I mean?

[Mojo]

Put plainly, in order to maintain the biomass that is tied up in the six billion of us, we have to gobble up 200 species a day--in addition to all the food we produce in the ordinary way. We need the biomass of those 200 species to maintain this biomass, the biomass that is in us. The eradication of these species is just an unintended (and, of course, undesirable) by-product of the destruction of their habitat. It's nothing to do with their biomass.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mojo
The eradication of these species is just an unintended (and, of course, undesirable) by-product of the destruction of their habitat. It's nothing to do with their biomass.

Biomass: all of the living material in a given area. What they mean is that we need the land were these species live to grow our food and build our homes and industries. Our agriculture + homes + industries ie. the stuff we need to live = our biomass.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by Ed
Species become extinct. OK, so? While I can accept the cited numbers, the question is "so what"? Unless there is some concrete problem this is a pure emotional pleading whose value is questionable.

It's more than merely emotional. Species and environment aren't separate. A species doesn't just adapt to an environment, it becomes in intregal part of that environment. The death of many species signals a shift in the nature of our environment that could be dangerous.

When a species of beetle goes, it might be the only beetle that pollinates a certain plant, then that plant goes, then animals that depend on that plant go... and the dominoes start falling and we may end up being one of the falling dominoes.

No one knows how dangerous this is because it's so complex in interrelationships, but it is certainly worrisome.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Orwell
Biomass: all of the living material in a given area. What they mean is that we need the land were these species live to grow our food and build our homes and industries. Our agriculture + homes + industries ie. the stuff we need to live = our biomass.

It still doesn't make any sense. The person who wrote that section seems to think that we actually need to eat a new species every day or something, like some kind of taxonomic vampire. We generally eat the same handful of species -- mostly farm crops and domesticated animals -- and we have a vested interest in making sure none of those go extinct. We don't go off into the rainforest looking for new species of beetles to eat into oblivion.

He wrote, "In other words, maintaining a population of six billion humans costs the world 200 species a day." Maintaining shouldn't cost anything -- the land is already cleared and being used. It's only the additional destruction of habitat land that would be a problem. In other words, it's population growth which is responsible. That I can agree with, but the world population shows signs of leveling off.

Jeremy

[Ed]

Originally posted by normdoering
It's more than merely emotional. Species and environment aren't separate. A species doesn't just adapt to an environment, it becomes in intregal part of that environment. The death of many species signals a shift in the nature of our environment that could be dangerous.

When a species of beetle goes, it might be the only beetle that pollinates a certain plant, then that plant goes, then animals that depend on that plant go... and the dominoes start falling and we may end up being one of the falling dominoes.

No one knows how dangerous this is because it's so complex in interrelationships, but it is certainly worrisome.

If you don't know how dangerous why worry?

Maybe it is good? Who knows.

How many species have gone extinct over the last 10,000,000 years? What was the impact?

[Jocko]

I want to know how many of them are delicious.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by toddjh


He wrote, "In other words, maintaining a population of six billion humans costs the world 200 species a day." Maintaining shouldn't cost anything -- the land is already cleared and being used. It's only the additional destruction of habitat land that would be a problem.

Not really. Many low-cost farming techniques rely on using new land instead of re-using old land (old land tends to be less fertile unless expensive petrochemicals are poured on it). Similarly, even "maintaining" an existing population will place demands on a forest for things like firewood and structural timber; if I need a new door for my house, I need it now, not twenty years from now when a new tree has had time to grow. If the demand for wood exceeds the rate at which new planting grows, then even a stable population will destroy the forests. (And much of the world's forests are in a part of the world where charcoal is still a major fuel source....)

[normdoering]

Originally posted by Ed
If you don't know how dangerous why worry?

Well, that lump growing on your arse may not be cancer, so why worry about strange things happening in your body's environment?

Maybe it is good? Who knows.

In a way, it is -- humans are taking over.


How many species have gone extinct over the last 10,000,000 years? What was the impact?

As far as life goes -- it will go on. So what if you're one of the species that goes extinct in this mass extinction?

In the grand scheme of things we all die any way.

Personally though, I'd like to live a comfortable life and think our species has a bright future.

[username]

I think asking "how many species are going extinct and what are the ramifications of that?" is worthy of being asked, but I think more importantly we need to ask "to what extent can we do anything about and what should we do?"

The problem with the endangered species legislation with P&T pointed out is that it is a ******** list. Many species have been put on it by mistake (incorrect estimating), it doesn't appear the actions taken have saved any actual species (debatable) etc.

The case P&T presented of the disabled woman unable to build a home on her purchased land while Walmart could presents the problem well. The specifics of this woman's case seem questionable to me so I won't argue her case here, but the point is that a private land owner can be told by government you may not do anything on this land and receive no compensation for the loss of land value. The opportunity for political mischief here should be obvious.

The spotted owl was another case P&T presented which is worthy of some thought. Logging was ended in old growth forests because the spotted owl was found there. Then the spotted owl was found in mid and new growth forests as well. The result should have been realizing the spotted owl wasn't in danger of losing habitat from rotational logging practices. Instead logging was stopped in all forests where the owl was and now we import the lumber from other countries.

I think what P&T have done best in this episode and some others is show that what passes for environmentalism is often nothing more than anti establishment political socialism masking it's agenda. Whether one should be anti establishment in some cases is a valid point to be discussed, but hiding one's actual agenda is weak.

Lastly, P&T did a good job of showing how the current legislation is harmful to endangered species because a private land owner who spots some protected species on his property knows if the government finds out about it he may face his land use being restricted and it's value diminished. So, the land owner kills the endangered species quickly and quietly and buries it.

The current legislation encourages destruction of endangered species by land owners. That alone should indicate the need to rethink the endangered species act.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by username
The current legislation encourages destruction of endangered species by land owners. That alone should indicate the need to rethink the endangered species act.

Sounds like P&T had a good show -- alas, I had to give up my Showtime subscription (I saw the first couple seasons though - great stuff). Problem was I took hit on my income and my Showtime and HBO was getting too expensive. I'm getting by on only basic cable these days.

So I can't speak to the show.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Ed
If you don't know how dangerous why worry?

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?

Is caution too complicated a concept for you?

[username]

Originally posted by fishbob
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?

Is caution too complicated a concept for you?

I don't think caution is too complicated a concept. I do think it is difficult to decide how cautious to be if we don't understand the threat though.

There is a risk in driving. How much risk? Is it enough risk to stay in our homes and never drive again? Enough risk to ban automobiles? Enough risk to pay close attention to conditions and other drivers when behind the wheel?

One of the problems with environmental policies is that they sometimes present an alarmist view of things and push for legislation. The problem is that the alarmist predictions are really difficult to prove and historically they usually turn out to be wildly inaccurate.

In regards to global warming I have seen all manner of proposals to curb it, but simple questions like "what impact will this particular legislation have on the problem?" go unanswered.

How can a proper cost/benefit calculation be performed if we don't know the cost of not implementing the legislation?

The stock answer I hear is "We can't wait to act, any action now is better than no action". Well, OK, but that doesn't excuse radical policies based upon a woefully inadequate understanding of the threat.

Currently environmental regulation concerning wetlands(among other things) strike me as being comparable to banning automobiles due to the risks inherent in using them. The legislation in other words, goes overboard and creates problems rather than solving them.

I think environmentalism is an area in dire need of some healthy skepticism. It is a woo filled area where assumptions too often go unchallenged.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by Jocko
I want to know how many of them are delicious.

More than you think... when appropriately prepared.

/end threadjack

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Orwell
This will give you an idea: Dr. Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University estimates that if 1% of the world's tropical rain forests are destroyed each year—a conservative estimate based on current rates of deforestation—then over 100 years there would be a loss of at least 20% of all species, assuming extinction rates remain constant. Based on a total of 10 million species, the current annual loss has been calculated to be 20,000 to 30,000 species.

Some studies indicate that the rate of species loss may be somewhat less, but there is no question that unless the escalating rate of habitat destruction is reversed, the extinction toll will continue to rise. And if recent evidence from studies on global climate change proves to be true, atmospheric modification may become the major threat to species in the future.So at the current rate, in in 500 years - maybe less - all life on Earth will be extinct (ten million divided by 20 or 30 thousand). Of course, we're all being told the current rate is accelerating, so we'll all be extinct in less than that (I expect to be extinct long before that, so I'm not directly involved...).

Now, that can't be right. At some point, some environmental Malthusian principle would come into play.

And again, where's the list of recently-extinct animals? If we know there are ten million species, then presumably we know which ones are gone. Don't we?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by BPSCG

And again, where's the list of recently-extinct animals? If we know there are ten million species, then presumably we know which ones are gone. Don't we?

Actually, no. That's part of the problem. Many of the animals going extinct are known only as mathematical extrapolations from existing samples.

For example, from upthread:

A single tree may have as many as 1,200 species of beetles, of which 20% are specialist feeders that occur only on that species of tree. There are approximately 50,000 species of tropical trees—each with its specialist beetle population.

Applying these numbers blindly (which I probably shouldn't; I should get firmer numbers first), this suggests that there are about 240 specialist beetle species per tree species -- and dependent upon that tree species.

Therefore, if that tree goes extinct (an event I can probably observe), I can also conclude that 240 specialist beetle species have inobservably gone extinct, before I even had a chance to catalogue them.

Similarly, from upthread:

How are scientists able to estimate the numbers of animals going extinct?

There is a direct relationship between the size of an area and the number of species that it contains. A square yard of temperate forest habitat may have 10 species of plants, while an acre will often have hundreds. The larger the area, the more species encountered-up to a point.

Of equal importance is the range of each species. Species that are restricted to small geographic areas are much more likely to go extinct than are those with widespread distributions. Also, the smaller the population, the higher the probability of extinction. And therein lies a disturbing fact. It is thought that tropical species commonly have smaller populations and much more restricted distributions. Thus, destroying an acre of tropical forest will likely have a much higher extinction impact than the loss of an acre of temperate forest.


I will pull some numbers out of thin air here, but presumably a good biologist could find real ones. If I discover that in a given one-acre swath of tropical forest, there is (at least) one unique species with a range (presumably) confined to that forest, then I can conjecture that each acre has at least one unique species.

Replicating that study 100 times and finding the same thing each time (presumably on 100 different acres), and I'm willing to believe that conjecture. And on that basis, I'd be willing to say that every acre of tropical forest lost causes the extinction of one species -- again, even without being able to catalogue it. A new 5,000 acre sugar plantation would cause the loss of 5,000 species that we don't even know about.

[Ed]

Originally posted by fishbob
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?

Is caution too complicated a concept for you?

OK, I'm now cautious. Now what? Which is my far too subtle point. Stay calm, you'll catch up.

[username]

Originally posted by new drkitten
A new 5,000 acre sugar plantation would cause the loss of 5,000 species that we don't even know about.

For the sake of discussion I won't argue the methodology used to come up with this statement, I will just accept it as fact.

The question that I think has to be asked is "so what?".

It isn't a sarcastic question or a flippant one, but a serious one.

So, what should we do differently as a result of this knowledge?

Does this knowledge mean government should have the power to tell a landowner they can't build a new home on their land and then turn around and tell walmart they can put in a parking lot on the lot next door?

Does this knowledge mean we should have legislation that perversely rewards land owners for killing off any endangered species that exists on their land so government won't find out about it and put heavy land use restrictions in place?

Does this mean that areas where mosquito populations known to be spreading west nile virus to animals including humans shouldn't have chemical controls used to reduce their population because we might kill of some rare bug unknowingly?

Even accepting a problem exists (extinction of one species per acre of developed land) doesn't indicate that any action at all taken to combat it is going to be a good one.

Sometimes there are problems best left unsolved because trying to solve them creates a worse problem.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by toddjh
It still doesn't make any sense. The person who wrote that section seems to think that we actually need to eat a new species every day or something, like some kind of taxonomic vampire. We generally eat the same handful of species -- mostly farm crops and domesticated animals -- and we have a vested interest in making sure none of those go extinct. We don't go off into the rainforest looking for new species of beetles to eat into oblivion.

He wrote, "In other words, maintaining a population of six billion humans costs the world 200 species a day." Maintaining shouldn't cost anything -- the land is already cleared and being used. It's only the additional destruction of habitat land that would be a problem. In other words, it's population growth which is responsible. That I can agree with, but the world population shows signs of leveling off.

Jeremy

You're reading too much on that. I get the gist of what he's trying to say, but I do admit that it's worded a bit sloppily.

By the way, it's not just population growth that causes habitat destruction. As you probably know, the amount of natural resources needed to have a north american type of lifestyle is much larger than, say, that which is needed to lead the life of an average Indian (like Indian from India).

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ed
If you don't know how dangerous why worry?

Maybe it is good? Who knows.

How many species have gone extinct over the last 10,000,000 years? What was the impact?

I've read several times in different articles that the average life time of a species is around 1 million years.
The background rate of extinction is the number of extinctions that would be occurring naturally in the absence of human influence. Estimates range from one to ten species per year for the past 600 million years. It is difficult to estimate this rate, in part because the number of species in existence is not known. The background rate of extinctions establishes a baseline from which the severity of the current extinctions crisis can be measured. The current rate of extinction appears to be hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of times higher than the background rate. It is difficult to be precise because most of the disappearing species today have never been identified by scientists.The background rate of extinction has been interrupted periodically in Earth's history by episodes of mass extinction, periods in which a large percentage of the existing species become extinct in a geologically short amount of time. Mass extinction episodes represent major collapses of biodiversity and ecosystems, and they lead to fundamental changes in the make-up and distribution of life on Earth. The species that are most likely to survive mass extinctions are widespread generalists such as cockroaches and weeds.There are five widely recognized major mass extinction episodes in the Earth's history, and many scientists believe that we have now entered the sixth. However, there is a fundamental difference. In the past, mass extinctions have been caused by climate change, extreme geological activity, huge meteors colliding with the Earth or other natural factors. These changes in the environment took tens of thousands or even millions of years to occur. The sixth great extinction episode has been precipitated by human activities, and it appears to be happening very quickly.

http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/ext_background.htm

[username]

In the past, mass extinctions have been caused by climate change, extreme geological activity, huge meteors colliding with the Earth or other natural factors. These changes in the environment took tens of thousands or even millions of years to occur. The sixth great extinction episode has been precipitated by human activities, and it appears to be happening very quickly.

Which still leaves the fundamental question unanswered. So what?

Humans exist. Short of another mass extinction event which wipes out humans, humans will continue to exist and to perform 'activities'. If our merely existing and going about our daily lives is driving a mass extinction event what can we possibly do about it and should we do it even if we could?

Should we ban cars? Should we ban roads and parking lots? Should we halt development to protect a single species of insect? A bird?

Does our existing legislation effectively resolve the problem? Does it make it worse? Should we have more legislation, less, different?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by username
For the sake of discussion I won't argue the methodology used to come up with this statement, I will just accept it as fact.

The question that I think has to be asked is "so what?".

It isn't a sarcastic question or a flippant one, but a serious one.

So, what should we do differently as a result of this knowledge?

Does this knowledge mean government should have the power to tell a landowner they can't build a new home on their land and then turn around and tell walmart they can put in a parking lot on the lot next door?

Does this knowledge mean we should have legislation that perversely rewards land owners for killing off any endangered species that exists on their land so government won't find out about it and put heavy land use restrictions in place?
Do you deny the need for environmental legislation? I don't think you do. If you accept the principle, what is needed now is fair environmental legislation. Something that actually works and that doesn't get changed because someone with deep pockets lobbies to get it changed.
Originally posted by username
Does this mean that areas where mosquito populations known to be spreading west nile virus to animals including humans shouldn't have chemical controls used to reduce their population because we might kill of some rare bug unknowingly?
You know, I read somewhere that one of the reasons why the West Nile virus is propagating into areas where it didn't exist before is that those areas have become slightly warmer due to global warming... And who knows, maybe the bug, or the bird, we kill eats mosquitos, and we end up making things worse... It should also be pointed out that many of the chemicals that kill bugs tend to eventually appear in our own food.
Originally posted by username
Even accepting a problem exists (extinction of one species per acre of developed land) doesn't indicate that any action at all taken to combat it is going to be a good one.

Sometimes there are problems best left unsolved because trying to solve them creates a worse problem.
Listen to the scientists, that's what I say. Let them try on practical solutions, and then see what works and what doesn't.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Orwell
I've read several times in different articles that the average life time of a species is around 1 million years.


http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/ext_background.htm

That number rings a bell with me too.

It seems to me that taking heroic measures to ensure the survival of a species (particularly those that are not cute and cuddly) is unnatural. So, hatching Condors and releasing them is cool, me doing without my front door for twenty years is not.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by username
Which still leaves the fundamental question unanswered. So what?
You wanna see what the consequences of environmental degradation? Just look at countries like Somalia, Haiti, Ethiopia, hell, even the Rwandan problem was directly connected to the environment. I suggest you read Jared Diamond's Collapse, if you can. It will give you a pretty reasonable idea of what environmental problems can lead to, without any of the usual "the sky is falling" rhetoric that many environmentalists adopt. Here's a review: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?050103crbo_books

Originally posted by username
Humans exist. Short of another mass extinction event which wipes out humans, humans will continue to exist and to perform 'activities'. If our merely existing and going about our daily lives is driving a mass extinction event what can we possibly do about it and should we do it even if we could?

Should we ban cars? Should we ban roads and parking lots? Should we halt development to protect a single species of insect? A bird?

Does our existing legislation effectively resolve the problem? Does it make it worse? Should we have more legislation, less, different?
Yeah, humans exist. But do we want to keep living reasonably comfortable lives? We are not independent from the environment. If our environment is degraded (and species extinction is directly related to environmental degradation), our lives will become much harder. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that we need to compromise, and act a bit more responsibly. Less people driving to work alone in their cars, more public transportation, more hybrid and electric cars, less paper waste, more recycling, less dependency on oil, more renewable energy, less urban sprawl, better and cleaner agricultural practices, etc. For the most part, the knowledge and technology that is needed to make our lives have less of an impact on our environment already exist. It's just that they're not yet extensively applied. I'm willing to bet you that acting responsibly not only will improve our environment, but in the long run, it will make our lives easier and more enjoyable.

[Orwell]

From the Book review of Collapse:
In the second half of “Collapse,� Diamond turns his attention to modern examples, and one of his case studies is the recent genocide in Rwanda. What happened in Rwanda is commonly described as an ethnic struggle between the majority Hutu and the historically dominant, wealthier Tutsi, and it is understood in those terms because that is how we have come to explain much of modern conflict: Serb and Croat, Jew and Arab, Muslim and Christian. The world is a cauldron of cultural antagonism. It’s an explanation that clearly exasperates Diamond. The Hutu didn’t just kill the Tutsi, he points out. The Hutu also killed other Hutu. Why? Look at the land: steep hills farmed right up to the crests, without any protective terracing; rivers thick with mud from erosion; extreme deforestation leading to irregular rainfall and famine; staggeringly high population densities; the exhaustion of the topsoil; falling per-capita food production. This was a society on the brink of ecological disaster, and if there is anything that is clear from the study of such societies it is that they inevitably descend into genocidal chaos. In “Collapse,� Diamond quite convincingly defends himself against the charge of environmental determinism. His discussions are always nuanced, and he gives political and ideological factors their due. The real issue is how, in coming to terms with the uncertainties and hostilities of the world, the rest of us have turned ourselves into cultural determinists.

[username]

Originally posted by Orwell
Do you deny the need for environmental legislation? I don't think you do. If you accept the principle, what is needed now is fair environmental legislation. Something that actually works and that doesn't get changed because someone with deep pockets lobbies to get it changed.

No, I don't deny the desirability of effective and reasonable environmental regulation. What I question is how we arrive at that kind of legislation given that the politicians are the ones who make the legislation and the politicians are inherently susceptible to lobbies with deep pockets or who control the votes of a significantly sized group. Kyoto was a terrific example of how the political process ends up with absurd legislation. It also underscores how well entrenched anti establishment, socialist politics is in the environmental movement. That treaty basically crippled 1st world nations while allowing 3rd world nations to pollute to their heart's content.

You know, I read somewhere that one of the reasons why the West Nile virus is propagating into areas where it didn't exist before is that those areas have become slightly warmer due to global warming... And who knows, maybe the bug, or the bird, we kill eats mosquitos, and we end up making things worse... It should also be pointed out that many of the chemicals that kill bugs tend to eventually appear in our own food.

I agree. I am an avid gardener. I have learned well how beneficial bugs are. Without bugs many plants wouldn't get pollinated. Even when the population of bad bugs starts damaging my plants using insecticides is usually the wrong answer because the insecticide kills the bad bugs and the good bugs leaving an empty space. The bad bugs reproduce much faster than the good bugs do so the problem comes back even worse than before.

What this rather simple example tells me is that we don't really know enough to make sound decisions regarding our environment. We just don't understand the interdependancies and balances well enough. This is one reason why I am very skeptical of federal regulations. In addition to the corruption potential federal legislation applies to a larger area than state, local and individual decisions. While it might be true that federal legislation can do more good because of it's expansive scope, it is just as true it can do more harm for the exact same reason. A more logical process, in my opinion, would be to implement various policies in smaller areas and in some areas have no legislation for a particular problem (which automatically happens in the absense of federal legislation) and then measure the results a decade later and see which worked best and why and then perform a cost/benefit analysis.

Listen to the scientists, that's what I say. Let them try on practical solutions, and then see what works and what doesn't.

The problem with this approach is who is paying these scientists and who is it that decides which report to pay attention to? Once that is decided who makes the legislative decision based upon an interpretation of that report?

In the case of the the endangered species act the case P&T made is that it lacks success stories. They showed the claimed success stories and demonstrated why they weren't due to the act in any way. So, what is the point of it if there aren't success stories?

They showed that hunting restrictions for species under population pressures works and that these regulations don't originate from the endangered species act. Just as one example. If the endangered species act isn't actually saving the species it lists as protected/endangered why have it?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by username
For the sake of discussion I won't argue the methodology used to come up with this statement, I will just accept it as fact.

The question that I think has to be asked is "so what?".

It isn't a sarcastic question or a flippant one, but a serious one.

So, what should we do differently as a result of this knowledge?


Acting with greater awareness of environmental consequences would be a good start. Not erecting straw men as an example of environmental awareness is probably a good start, as well.

For example, a private homeowner and the Wal-Mart corporation should be treated the same, or at least treated under the same set of rules, with regard to environmental impact. Depending upon what Wal-Mart wants to build, what the homeowner wants to build, the individual differences in their microenvironments, and perhaps the overall effect on the community at large, this might result in different answers about whether they can build something -- but the answers should be grounded in an intelligent and well-defined environmental policy. And the policy should not, in particular, support the notion, all too common among developers, that anything profitable (or even that will enhance the local tax revenues) should be built, regardless of the environmental cost.



Even accepting a problem exists (extinction of one species per acre of developed land) doesn't indicate that any action at all taken to combat it is going to be a good one.

Sometimes there are problems best left unsolved because trying to solve them creates a worse problem.

Yes. But more often, there are problems that are best solved, but because someone proposes a stupid solution, someone else proposes leaving the problem permanently unsolved. I'd take your examples much more seriously if they didn't all smell faintly of straw....

[Orwell]

Username:
Well then, we have an agreement of sorts. We both believe that there should be effective environmental legislation. I think it is possible to have it, but only if we mostly have honest debates informed by honest research. We need a variety of scientists from all kinds of places talking to each other, and politicians listening to them. It would be pointless to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

Let's not get into a debate over the validity of efforts like Kyoto. I've already done those (just do a search), and it would be thread drift.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Orwell
From the Book review of Collapse: The Hutu also killed other Hutu. Why? Look at the land: steep hills farmed right up to the crests, without any protective terracing; rivers thick with mud from erosion; extreme deforestation leading to irregular rainfall and famine; staggeringly high population densities; the exhaustion of the topsoil; falling per-capita food production. This was a society on the brink of ecological disaster, and if there is anything that is clear from the study of such societies it is that they inevitably descend into genocidal chaos.Okay, now you bring up something interesting.

Do any of these conditions exists in the U.S.? Quite the contrary. We learned from the Dust Bowl of the 1930's that you can't just farm the land until it gives out and then move on. Japan is a mountainous country, with a high population density and they figured out terraced farming decades (centuries?) ago. Why do third-world countries cut all the trees down, with no thought of tomorrow?

I read somewhere that Haiti is such a mess because they're well along the path to totally deforesting the country, while the Dominican Repuiblic, which shares the same tiny island, is doing much better, because they haven't.

Question: With all our genetic engineering, aren't we offsetting extinctions? The difference between us and Mother nature being that we create creatures with demonstrable benefits, and try to mitigate the risks of that new life form. Mother Nature, OTOH, mutates a gene in some organism and we get poison ivy, or lice, or anthrax.

Would the world be worse off if poison ivy or anthrax became extinct?

[username]

Originally posted by Orwell
Well then, we have an agreement of sorts. We both believe that there should be effective environmental legislation. I think it is possible to have it, but only if we have honest debates informed by honest research. We need a variety of scientists from all kinds of places talking to each other, and politicians listening to them.

Let's not get into a debate over the validity of efforts like Kyoto. I've already done those (just do a search), and it would be thread drift.

Ok, then how about this proposal: We get rid of the endangered species act and instead move toward a protected land act?

Let's establish that all species are to be considered of equal value unless a sound case can be made as to why one species is more important than another. Under such a scenario a cute animal wouldn't be of more or less value than an ugly bug.

Under such a scenario we wouldn't prevent land usage simply because somebody thinks they spotted some rare butterfly in the area. We would, however, protect areas like the Horicon marsh in SE Wisconsin due to the fact that it supports an immense diversity of species, many of which exist only there or in a few other areas. Dry up the marsh and put up walmarts and we significantly impact numerous species and permanently destroy a significant ecosystem.

Establish some baseline of number/importance of species affected before any land usage restriction can be imposed.

Under the endangered species act every inch of land is currently (potentially) subject to use restrictions on account of a single species' presence which seems silly since it adversely affects another species (humans). It provides an incentive for land owners to destroy any endangered species on their land, it provides for mischief by preventing development by finding some threatened or endangered species on the land and doesn't appear to actually protect the targeted species.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, now you bring up something interesting.

Do any of these conditions exists in the U.S.? Quite the contrary. We learned from the Dust Bowl of the 1930's that you can't just farm the land until it gives out and then move on. Japan is a mountainous country, with a high population density and they figured out terraced farming decades (centuries?) ago. Why do third-world countries cut all the trees down, with no thought of tomorrow?
Because they're poor, because they have kept practices that used to make sense when their population densities were much lower... Sometimes it is because many of the degradation is, directly or indirectly, done by people working for western companies, supplying western needs. There's a variety of answers.

This reminds me of something interesting: Japan is one of the places in the word that has the most pristine forest cover (the mountainous interior is covered with them) and they treat this forest with great care. They, however, keep themselves supplied with wood and paper by importing it. In other words, they export their environmental problems (this is another chapter on Jared Diamond's book). Similarly, right now, a lot of the environmental problems related to manufacturing have been exported to places like China and Mexico, along with the jobs. By the way, I'm not claiming that this "exports of industry" explains their environmental problems, but it is one of the factors why, for instance, Japan is covered with beautiful forests whereas Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and other places in the region are undergoing deforestation.

Originally posted by BPSCG
I read somewhere that Haiti is such a mess because they're well along the path to totally deforesting the country, while the Dominican Repuiblic, which shares the same tiny island, is doing much better, because they haven't. There's an entire chapter on this in the Jared book I mentioned.

Originally posted by BPSCG
Question: With all our genetic engineering, aren't we offsetting extinctions? The difference between us and Mother nature being that we create creatures with demonstrable benefits, and try to mitigate the risks of that new life form. Mother Nature, OTOH, mutates a gene in some organism and we get poison ivy, or lice, or anthrax.

Would the world be worse off if poison ivy or anthrax became extinct?
No: we are only interested in genetically altering things that are already useful to us i.e. they won't go extinct anytime soon.

Most of the time, we don't know what are the consequences of the extinction of an animal or a plant. For instance, it is possible that the presence of a particular poisonous species limits the population of another species. The disappearance of the poisonous species could cause the population of the other species to explode, causing a potential environmental problem that could eventually affect us.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by username
Ok, then how about this proposal: We get rid of the endangered species act and instead move toward a protected land act?

Let's establish that all species are to be considered of equal value unless a sound case can be made as to why one species is more important than another. Under such a scenario a cute animal wouldn't be of more or less value than an ugly bug.

Under such a scenario we wouldn't prevent land usage simply because somebody thinks they spotted some rare butterfly in the area. We would, however, protect areas like the Horicon marsh in SE Wisconsin due to the fact that it supports an immense diversity of species, many of which exist only there or in a few other areas. Dry up the marsh and put up walmarts and we significantly impact numerous species and permanently destroy a significant ecosystem.

Establish some baseline of number/importance of species affected before any land usage restriction can be imposed.

Under the endangered species act every inch of land is currently (potentially) subject to use restrictions on account of a single species' presence which seems silly since it adversely affects another species (humans). It provides an incentive for land owners to destroy any endangered species on their land, it provides for mischief by preventing development by finding some threatened or endangered species on the land and doesn't appear to actually protect the targeted species.
I'm canadian, you know? I don't know much about that particular piece of legislation. If that legislation isn't working, then it should be replaced with something that does. But I don't know enough to defend it or to agree with you. However, I do think that there should be more protected land i.e. places that exist to be left alone.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Orwell
Most of the time, we don't know what are the consequences of the extinction of an animal or a plant. For instance, it is possible that the presence of a particular poisonous species limits the population of another species. The disappearance of the poisonous species could cause the population of the other species to explode, causing a potential environmental problem that could eventually affect us. Good point.

...when Mao Zedong ordered the killing of what he called the country's biggest four evils - rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows?

The late Chinese leader's "four pests" campaign proved the Communist Party's power to mobilise China's millions of peasants but the results were often unfortunate.

Chinese leader Mao Zedong
Mao Zedong's mass extermination campaign went horribly wrong
The anti-sparrow campaign, for instance, was extremely effective but had tragic results.

Villagers were told to rush out to the fields, banging on pots and pans and screaming at the tops of their voices.

The sparrows took to the air, and as the pandemonium continued, stayed there, too terrified to land, until they dropped dead from exhaustion.

The only trouble was that sparrows are a vital link in the food chain and are particularly fond of locusts. With no sparrows left to eat them, there was a plague of locusts, the crops were ruined and millions of people died in the ensuing famine.

[ernon]

Originally posted by Ed
There was a very fine book entitled "The Hunt" by a guy named John Mitchell that was a very considered look at hunting in the US (anybody interested in this general area would really enjoy it).

A point that he makes is that the demise of creatures cannot be judged on an emotional basis and that nature is not a diaroma in a museum.

Species become extinct. OK, so? While I can accept the cited numbers, the question is "so what"? Unless there is some concrete problem this is a pure emotional pleading whose value is questionable.

Well said. The majority of creatures that have ever lived on the planet are now extinct. It seems like life rebounds in new ways when nitches open for them. Think of the several mass extenctions that have occured and the bounty of life that arose afterwards.

It seems for a lot of people change is scary and always negative. I don't feel the same way. I think change is the way of nature.

Ernon

[Orwell]

Originally posted by ernon
Well said. The majority of creatures that have ever lived on the planet are now extinct. It seems like life rebounds in new ways when nitches open for them. Think of the several mass extenctions that have occured and the bounty of life that arose afterwards.

It seems for a lot of people change is scary and always negative. I don't feel the same way. I think change is the way of nature.

Ernon

What if the change that you seem to be so much in favour causes us to go extinct, or, more likely, causes the environment where we live to become so degraded that we can't lead the comfortable lives we have become used to? It is true that change is the way of nature, but it is equally true that nature is blind. The changes happening in nature (and often caused by our actions) might have terrible consequences for us. You should read the rest of the thread.

[username]

Originally posted by Orwell
What if the change that you seem to be so much in favour causes us to go extinct, or, more likely, causes the environment where we live to become so degraded that we can't lead the comfortable lives we have become used to? You should read the rest of the thread.

Well, if we are doing something that can be shown will lead to our extinction then that something should be stopped or reduced to sustainable levels.

If we find something that meets that criteria we can discuss it at that time. Until then I think we should stick with the OP, namely the endangered species act and more broadly what are some successful and unsucessful means we have employed to protect the environment. What has been the cost of the various attempts and have they been worth it?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by username
Well, if we are doing something that can be shown will lead to our extinction then that something should be stopped or reduced to sustainable levels.

If we find something that meets that criteria we can discuss it at that time. Until then I think we should stick with the OP, namely the endangered species act and more broadly what are some successful and unsucessful means we have employed to protect the environment. What has been the cost of the various attempts and have they been worth it?

We are already doing quite a lot that is already leading to widespread environmental degradation. To tell you the truth, I'm not particularly worried about the human race going extinct. What I do worry about is continuous decrease of our living standards caused by environmental degradation. I worry about deforestation, overfishing, air pollution, global warming, destruction of habitats, desertification, water scarcities, all these gradual changes, these "little things" that may not kill us, but that can indubitably make our lives less enjoyable in the long run. These are all very concrete problems that have been observed all over the world, and in some cases, even in our own backyard.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by username
Well, if we are doing something that can be shown will lead to our extinction then that something should be stopped or reduced to sustainable levels.

That's an awfully stringent level of proof that you demand. "Can be shown will lead to our extinction"? How about "is likely to"? How about "is likely to lead to a substantial degradation in the local standard of living"?

But the other problem is what to do in cases of genuine ignorance. The Chinese example is a good one (from upthread) :


Villagers were told to rush out to the fields, banging on pots and pans and screaming at the tops of their voices.

The sparrows took to the air, and as the pandemonium continued, stayed there, too terrified to land, until they dropped dead from exhaustion.

The only trouble was that sparrows are a vital link in the food chain and are particularly fond of locusts. With no sparrows left to eat them, there was a plague of locusts, the crops were ruined and millions of people died in the ensuing famine.

As an obvious first point, I'd like to think that we could set up environmental laws that would in principle prevent the "mere" death of millions of people in a famine, even if the human species as a whole manages to survive.

But the second point is simply that if we don't know what the overall effects of a proposed course of action are, the precautionary principle -- as well as simple common sense -- should suggest that we should expect (and prepare for) negative consequences of the sort that has been seen elsewhere.

Let's be honest -- the status quo is pretty good all around, especially in industrialized areas like the United States. Preserving that status quo thus makes sense as an intelligent default strategy; if we don't know whether a new plan will be constructive or destructive, then we shouldn't do the new plan until we can figure that out. But by the status quo, I mean "life as it is today," not "life at the present rate of growth."

If a particular piece of forest hasn't been harvested in the past 200 years, there's no pressing need to harvest it now, until we know what's going on. There might be a reason that we don't know about not to harvest it. Just because I can't tell you that reason doesn't mean that it's not there -- and unless you can tell me why that bit of forest needs to be chopped down right now, what's the harm in leaving it for a while?

[username]

Originally posted by Orwell
[B]We are already doing quite a lot that is already leading to widespread environmental degradation. To tell you the truth, I'm not particularly worried about the human race going extinct. What I do worry about is continuous decrease of our living standards caused by environmental degradation.

Ok, but supporting policies to prevent these things often results in supporting policies that aren't effective and are sometimes harmful. Therein lies the problem.

I worry about deforestation

In the US we presently have more forested land than was here when the settlers arrived.

overfishing

If you are talking about ocean fishing then I agree with you, but largely it is poor nations that are the problem, not developed nations. In developed nations we simply started farm raising good tasting fish. Urban sprawl, often cited as an environmental problem reduces the stress on fish populations in water bodies. You want to see an overfished lake? Go look at a lake in the middle of a heavily populated area. Spreading the population out helps, not hurts this.

air pollution, global warming,

As time goes on and technology improves industrialized nations have reduced the amount of pollution per unit produced rather than increased it. I agree with you that air pollution is an issue to be concerned about, but it seems that hamstringing industry to prevent it (kyoto) is not beneficial, it is the economic development and innovation that produces means to reduce pollution affordably.

destruction of habitats, desertification, water scarcities, all these gradual changes, these "little things" that may not kill us, but that can indubitably make our lives less enjoyable in the long run. These are all very concrete problems that have been observed all over the world, and in some cases, even in our own backyard.

I agree with you that we are right to be concerned. But my point is that too often I see people's concern materialize in supporting legislation that is at best ineffective and sometimes counter productive. It is the 'let's just do something' approach. My point is that we need to start performing cost/benefit analysis on these policies and we need to start identifying those groups that call themselves environmentalists who are nothing more than anti capitalist shills making up nonsense and spreading alarmist rhetoric and excluding them from the discussions. Heck, just excluding the obvious anti capitalist shills masquerading as environmentalists would go a long way to developing sound policies.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by username

In the US we presently have more forested land than was here when the settlers arrived.


Just out of curiosity, how did whoever measured it, measure or compute the amount of forested land around the time the setllers arrived?

[username]

Originally posted by new drkitten
That's an awfully stringent level of proof that you demand. "Can be shown will lead to our extinction"? How about "is likely to"? How about "is likely to lead to a substantial degradation in the local standard of living"?

OK, demonstrate the harm in an action to a probability higher than a threshold and if the degree of harm is greater than a threshold amount we don't do it unless the benefit in doing it outweighs the cost by a threshold amount. I can agree with this in principle because it leads to a default policy of 'do whatever you want unless there is demonstrable harm of a significant enough amount to warrant not allowing that something to occur." I find this preferable to the policy of "you may do nothing unless you can prove no harm will result".

But the other problem is what to do in cases of genuine ignorance. The Chinese example is a good one (from upthread) :


In cases of ignorance we can do nothing except learn from our mistakes. First though we have to make the mistakes, I don't see any way around that.


As an obvious first point, I'd like to think that we could set up environmental laws that would in principle prevent the "mere" death of millions of people in a famine, even if the human species as a whole manages to survive.

I don't understand what you are trying to say well enough to comment.

But the second point is simply that if we don't know what the overall effects of a proposed course of action are, the precautionary principle -- as well as simple common sense -- should suggest that we should expect (and prepare for) negative consequences of the sort that has been seen elsewhere.

I agree. If we don't know what the consequences are, but we have seen similar things elsewhere and it appears there is a good probability the consequences of our proposed actions will be the same and those consequences were negative then that is a good reason to avoid taking those actions unless there is a strong enough benefit to take the risk.

Let's be honest -- the status quo is pretty good all around, especially in industrialized areas like the United States. Preserving that status quo thus makes sense as an intelligent default strategy; if we don't know whether a new plan will be constructive or destructive, then we shouldn't do the new plan until we can figure that out. But by the status quo, I mean "life as it is today," not "life at the present rate of growth."


Well other than immigration the growth rate in 1st world countries isn't growing. However I do think it is worthwhile to take a look at the existing policies and alter/eliminate those which aren't working or are being abused for political purposes.

If a particular piece of forest hasn't been harvested in the past 200 years, there's no pressing need to harvest it now, until we know what's going on. There might be a reason that we don't know about not to harvest it. Just because I can't tell you that reason doesn't mean that it's not there -- and unless you can tell me why that bit of forest needs to be chopped down right now, what's the harm in leaving it for a while?

Nobody is going to harvest lumber that isn't needed. One problem is that nutty environmentalism in developed nations has resulted in forests being declared off limits to logging (in the US much thanks for this is due to the endangered species act) .

Heck, if you are worried about forests, talk to Canada, the US gets 30% of it's lumber from Canada and lots of folks hate Canada for it because the Canucks practically give their forested land away. The result has been a lot of US lumber interests going out of business as Canada floods the US market .

[username]

Originally posted by Jorghnassen
Just out of curiosity, how did whoever measured it, measure or compute the amount of forested land around the time the setllers arrived?

No idea.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by username
Ok, but supporting policies to prevent these things often results in supporting policies that aren't effective and are sometimes harmful. Therein lies the problem.
So let's not support any policies at all? What exactly are you trying to say? Now it just sounds like you're weaselling out, that is, proposing to do nothing because doing something might not work out.
Originally posted by username
In the US we presently have more forested land than was here when the settlers arrived. Says who? And by the way, even if that,s true, that doesn't change the fact that deforestation is taking place elsewhere. And environmental problems happening elsewhere have this tendency to eventually appear at our door step in the most unexpected ways.
Originally posted by username
If you are talking about ocean fishing then I agree with you, but largely it is poor nations that are the problem, not developed nations. In developed nations we simply started farm raising good tasting fish. Urban sprawl, often cited as an environmental problem reduces the stress on fish populations in water bodies. You want to see an overfished lake? Go look at a lake in the middle of a heavily populated area. Spreading the population out helps, not hurts this. You are going backwards about overfishing: we are now raising good tasting fish because there is less and less good tasting fish left in the oceans. And industrial fishing fleets supplying developed nations are to blame, not the local, small scale fishing that goes on in most developing nations. And frankly, that thing on urban sprawl and fresh lake fishing sounds dubious. What I do know is that lakes in urban or suburban settings are usually stocked with fishes that are not native to the region. Also, it often happens that lakes in urban and suburban settings suffer either from acid runoff problems and eutrophication i.e. water pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients.
Originally posted by username
As time goes on and technology improves industrialized nations have reduced the amount of pollution per unit produced rather than increased it. I agree with you that air pollution is an issue to be concerned about, but it seems that hamstringing industry to prevent it (kyoto) is not beneficial, it is the economic development and innovation that produces means to reduce pollution affordably. I'm not willing to wait for industry to clean up on their own. That's not their job: their job is to maximise profits. There's no doubt in my mind that there won't be any long term pollution reduction if there's no legislation pushing for it.
Originally posted by username
I agree with you that we are right to be concerned. But my point is that too often I see people's concern materialize in supporting legislation that is at best ineffective and sometimes counter productive. It is the 'let's just do something' approach. My point is that we need to start performing cost/benefit analysis on these policies and we need to start identifying those groups that call themselves environmentalists who are nothing more than anti capitalist shills making up nonsense and spreading alarmist rhetoric and excluding them from the discussions. Heck, just excluding the obvious anti capitalist shills masquerading as environmentalists would go a long way to developing sound policies.
Then lets do something that works. The fact that sometimes there is legislation that doesn't work is no reason not to try to adopt legislation that does work. Oh, and by the way, would you be in favour of excluding from the discussion the people who systematically distort scientific knowledge in favour of industry, even going so far as to claim that pollution controls will cause the collapse of the economy? I don't think that the extremists on both sides should be taken out of the equation. Sometimes, even they say things that make sense. But their arguments should be put in the correct perspective.

[Orwell]

There are ways to log forests that are sensible and sustainable. I wish this was the rule in Canada... It still isn't, but there's quite a lot of pressure to make it so, and a lot of the pressure is coming from the "nutty environmentalists". Username, you sound like you are trying to discredit the entire movement by focusing your attention on this "hypothetical" wild eyed anti-capitalist tree hugger... Not all environmentalists are like that.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by username
OK, demonstrate the harm in an action to a probability higher than a threshold and if the degree of harm is greater than a threshold amount we don't do it unless the benefit in doing it outweighs the cost by a threshold amount. I can agree with this in principle because it leads to a default policy of 'do whatever you want unless there is demonstrable harm of a significant enough amount to warrant not allowing that something to occur." I find this preferable to the policy of "you may do nothing unless you can prove no harm will result".

That's where we differ, then. I see no reason to use ignorance as a reason to do harm.









Well other than immigration the growth rate in 1st world countries isn't growing. However I do think it is worthwhile to take a look at the existing policies and alter/eliminate those which aren't working or are being abused for political purposes.


The population in 1st world countries isn't growing. On the other hand, consumption of almost all kinds of goods is growing; on a local scale, even in areas where the local population (and economy) is shrinking, developers are still asking for permission to create new housing developments, expanding into farmland, forests, wetlands, you name it. And the rate of new housing development is increasing.

As housing moves farther and farther away from the cities where the work is, per capita gasoline consumption is climbing, as is the size of the road network, et cetera. I could cite many additional examples of areas where people expect "growth," without necessarily meaning growth in population.

I think part of the problem is in your final clause -- "or are being abused for political purposes." I don't see any reason why politically motivated abuse should be treated any differently than economic, religious, or socially motivated abuse -- abuse is abuse, and abuse should be stopped.





Nobody is going to harvest lumber that isn't needed.


No. No one is going to harvest lumber that they don't think they can sell. There's a big difference there.

One problem is that nutty environmentalism in developed nations has resulted in forests being declared off limits to logging (in the US much thanks for this is due to the endangered species act).

And I consider that a good thing, in general; there's no reason that sustainable lumber can't be obtained from tree plantations. Much of the US lumber comes now comes from such plantations, in part because of the laws that you mention.

But the laws were created for a reason -- if you've ever seen the results of the 1960's era forest clear-cutting, they were (and are) appalling. Not just esthetically, but environmentally as well -- for example, the clearcut lands couldn't retain water and were extremely subject to erosion. As a result, rivers and lakes all over the United States were getting seriously polluted at the same time, while underground watersheds (which rely on water absorption through the soil for replenishment) were being depleted. Finally, the effects of logging, even discounting the burning techniques that are often used in conjunction with clear-cutting, have a substantial impact on the nutrient balance of the soil; for example, the soil temperature will rise (because it's less shaded), adjusting the soil bacteria that nitrogenate the soil. As a result, a whole lot of nutrients get out of whack, which reduces the ability of the forest to regrow (or indeed, anything to regrow -- I've seen the term "green desert" used to describe the newly de-fertilized soil).


These are obvious negative consequences of clear-cutting, and as long as the land being clear-cut is public forest land, the logging companies have essentially no incentive to mitigate these effects. Essentially, they are given a de facto subsidy by the government, which in turn will either have to deal with the environmental costs itself, or pass the costs down to other entities like the local water commissions that will have to increase their expenditures to deal with the polluted water.

I see no reason that logging companies, or indeed, any person or entity whatsoever, should not be responsible for paying the indirect costs of their activities. Part of the problem with the way the current situation is set up is that much of the true costs of a way of doing business are hidden in a way that only an environmental impact statement will discover.

But the way to fix this particular problem is fairly simple. Don't allow logging companies to clearcut public land. If they want to buy land and clearcut it, they'll quickly discover how much it costs to rebuild the land to the point where they can reuse it for forests. And, in fact, they have, and modern logging practices have improved substantially as a result. So if you're really complaining about "wacky environmentalism" putting most of the forested land in the country off-limits -- more power to it, says I. In this case, all the EPA really did was make loggers responsible for fixing what they themselves were breaking.

[username]

Originally posted by Orwell
So let's not support any policies at all? What exactly are you trying to say? Now it just sounds like you're weaselling out, that is, proposing to do nothing because doing something might not work out.

No, I am not saying support no policies. I got involved with this thread because it was about the endagered species act. That is what I wanted to discuss. It is an example of a policy that I think may be doing more harm than good. It might be a great policy and some discussion of it would reveal that. Who knows. The topic has broadened into a discussion of environmental regulation in general. I am not against environmental regulation, but I have issues with it that I have identified. It would be more profitable if we stuck to a particular policy and discussed it than continue in such a generalized direction where one gets perceived as being either pro or anti environment.

Says who? And by the way, even if that,s true, that doesn't change the fact that deforestation is taking place elsewhere.

Eighty years ago, the rate of timber harvest was twice the rate of forest growth. The imbalance was reversed in the 1950’s, thanks in part to sustainable forestry practices pioneered by the Forest Service. By 1997, net growth exceeded removals by 48 percent. source=US forest service. In the US we are in no danger of running out of forested land, we are moving in the opposite direction which would seem to argue we should be harvesting more of our own lumber rather than importing it. Instead we keep getting regulations to 'protect the forest' and whackos climbing up in trees trying to stop logging.

And environmental problems happening elsewhere have this tendency to eventually appear at our door step in the most unexpected ways.

I agree. The reason developed nations are indirectly responsible for the destruction of the rainforest is that our environmental regulations here make it more cost effective to go elsewhere rather than utilize our overabundance. That is insane.

You are going backwards about overfishing: we are now raising good tasting fish because there is less and less good tasting fish left in the oceans.

I agree, but don't think I am going backwards. At one time we harvested the oceans with no regard to the future. This created a problem. The fish became harder to catch and prices went up. So, more efficient ways to supply the market with fish were developed. Enter fish farming. Same with the forests. We were cutting down trees with no appreciation for the eventual consequences. We then began seeing the consequences and developed sustainable practices. Regulations that address unsustainable practices and replace them with sustainable practices are good. Regulations which prevent using resources to the point we import what we have in abundance are bad.

And industrial fishing fleets supplying developed nations are to blame, not the local, small scale fishing that goes on in most developing nations.

I totally support catch limits on fish and hunting regulations on animals. I support enforcing sustainable practices.

And frankly, that thing on urban sprawl and fresh lake fishing sounds dubious. What I do know is that lakes in urban or suburban settings are usually stocked with fishes that are not native to the region. Also, it often happens that lakes in urban and suburban settings suffer either from acid runoff problems and eutrophication i.e. water pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients.


Yes, the lakes were fished out so now they are stocked. Yes, the dense population results in more pollution run off. That kind of makes my point, doesn't it? Urban sprawl isn't all bad, the cities tend to be the areas with the most pollution(and crime). Pollution which increases to the point that noticable harm results.

I'm not willing to wait for industry to clean up on their own. That's not their job: their job is to maximise profits. There's no doubt in my mind that there won't be any pollution reduction if there's no legislation pushing for it.

I am not saying we shouldn't regulate pollution. I am saying we should consider the cost of the regulation and do a cost/benefit analysis. As time goes on and technology improves pollution reduction becomes less expensive. If we can reduce pollution by 10% for $10 and we can reduce it by 20% for $1000 should we spend the $10 or the $1000? Kyoto seemed to say we should spend the $1000. I say spend the $10 today and in a decade or two the better, $1000 solution may not cost $1000, but only $40.

Then lets do something that works. The fact that sometimes there is legislation that doesn't work is no reason not to try to adopt legislation that does work.

I agree, but there are 2 types of legislation to consider. Existing and proposed. Existing legislation has a track record and should be modified or removed if it has been ineffective, harmful or the subject of corruption/misuse.

Proposed legislation should be viewed skepticly considering the source of the information the legislation is based upon(has the source proven accurate or inaccurate previously), the results of past, similar legislation and a cost benefit analysis. Proposed legislation should not be accepted or rejected according to how well it sits with one's political ideology or whether or not Greenpeace approves of it.


Oh, and by the way, would you be in favour of excluding the people who systematically distort scientific knowledge in favour of industry, even claiming that pollution controls will cause the collapse of the economy, from the discussion... I don't think that the extremists on both sides should be taken out of the equation.

I do. The extremists aren't making environmental decisions, they are making political or private economical decisions and distorting the facts to suit them. Why would anyone want them included?


Sometiems, even they say things that make sense. But their arguments should be put in the correct perspective.

What is the correct perspective in which to take the arguments of anti capitalists who decry the 'evil corporations' and ignorantly support banning dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/) ? Are they to be taken seriously just because a group of monkeys with typewriters will eventually type an actual word instead of gibberish?

[Tmy]

Bullflop!! name me 2 species that have become exstinct in the last month.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by username

I am not saying we shouldn't regulate pollution. I am saying we should consider the cost of the regulation and do a cost/benefit analysis. As time goes on and technology improves pollution reduction becomes less expensive. If we can reduce pollution by 10% for $10 and we can reduce it by 20% for $1000 should we spend the $10 or the $1000? Kyoto seemed to say we should spend the $1000. I say spend the $10 today and in a decade or two the better, $1000 solution may not cost $1000, but only $40.


And this is exactly the problem with the anti-environmental and pro-corporate movements with which you seem to sympathize. What is presented as a cost/benefit analysis usually isn't.

The cheapest solution is not always the best.

There's not enough information in the situation you describe to make an informed decision. Corporations are always quick to trumpet the costs (in real dollars or their currency equivalents) of proposed solutions to pollution (and they usually overstate them), but they usually understate the dollar value of the benefits, when they state them at all.

What's the benefit of reducing pollution by 20%? And when I ask for the benefit, I want it in cold, hard, dollars, and I want the calculations to include "squishy" aspects like "improved quality of life." (This isn't unreasonable -- insurance companies, for example, assess quality of life so often they even have relevant acronyms, such as QALY.)

If the benefit is more than $1000, then you should spend the $1000.

And if you don't know what the benefit is, then you should find out.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bullflop!! name me 2 species that have become exstinct in the last month.

Obscure extremelly rare species number 1.
Obscure extremelly rare species number 2.

Most extinctions aren't so evident as the dodo's, great auk's and passenger pigeon's. You shouldn't expect to see well-known and monitored species disappear easily.

[RandFan]

I'm dying to see the P&T episode. I always order the CD's after the season and watch them with my family 3 or 4 shows at a time.

I think humans have an incredible ability to adapt and overcome many obstacles so I'm not too woried. However the possibility of harm is real however unlikely. The case of Mao's sparrows demonstrates that but then Mao had his head up his... I don't think it is likely such a drastic change will be caused by humans.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bullflop!! name me 2 species that have become exstinct in the last month.

The thing is, the rate of species extinction is often a proxy measure of environmental degradation.

[username]

Originally posted by new drkitten
[B]And this is exactly the problem with the anti-environmental and pro-corporate movements with which you seem to sympathize. What is presented as a cost/benefit analysis usually isn't.

I haven't sympathized with pro-corporate 'movements' at all. I don't even know what one is.

The cheapest solution is not always the best.

did I say it was?

There's not enough information in the situation you describe to make an informed decision.

Then why support the decision to regulate if there isn't enough information to make an informed decision?

Corporations are always quick to trumpet the costs (in real dollars or their currency equivalents) of proposed solutions to pollution (and they usually overstate them), but they usually understate the dollar value of the benefits, when they state them at all.

I think you are expecting me to disagree?

What's the benefit of reducing pollution by 20%? And when I ask for the benefit, I want it in cold, hard, dollars, and I want the calculations to include "squishy" aspects like "improved quality of life." (This isn't unreasonable -- insurance companies, for example, assess quality of life so often they even have relevant acronyms, such as QALY.)

I agree, like I said, a cost benefit analysis needs to be done. The figures used in the computation need to be as reasonable as we can make them. There will always be some guesses and assumptions in the process, we simply have to do the best we can with what we know.

If the benefit is more than $1000, then you should spend the $1000.

I agree.

And if you don't know what the benefit is, then you should find out.

Again, I agree. However, until the costs/benefits are known as accurately as we reasonably can know them we should not support legislation we don't understand the impact/cost of. This leads to sloppy, politically motivated nonsense legislation rife with 'unintended' consequences.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by username
No, I am not saying support no policies. I got involved with this thread because it was about the endagered species act. That is what I wanted to discuss. It is an example of a policy that I think may be doing more harm than good. It might be a great policy and some discussion of it would reveal that. Who knows. The topic has broadened into a discussion of environmental regulation in general. I am not against environmental regulation, but I have issues with it that I have identified. It would be more profitable if we stuck to a particular policy and discussed it than continue in such a generalized direction where one gets perceived as being either pro or anti environment. Ok, but that will be a problem: I don't know much about US environmental regulation. If we don't talk in general terms, I'm out of the discussion.
Originally posted by username
Eighty years ago, the rate of timber harvest was twice the rate of forest growth. The imbalance was reversed in the 1950’s, thanks in part to sustainable forestry practices pioneered by the Forest Service. By 1997, net growth exceeded removals by 48 percent. source=US forest service. In the US we are in no danger of running out of forested land, we are moving in the opposite direction which would seem to argue we should be harvesting more of our own lumber rather than importing it. Instead we keep getting regulations to 'protect the forest' and whackos climbing up in trees trying to stop logging. That makes a bit more sense, but that wasn't what you were claiming. And there you go again, with this caricature of environmental activism... :rolleyes:
Originally posted by username
I agree. The reason developed nations are indirectly responsible for the destruction of the rainforest is that our environmental regulations here make it more cost effective to go elsewhere rather than utilize our overabundance. That is insane.No disagreement from me. But we must make sure that logging is done is a responsible sustainable way.
Originally posted by username
I agree, but don't think I am going backwards. At one time we harvested the oceans with no regard to the future. This created a problem. The fish became harder to catch and prices went up. So, more efficient ways to supply the market with fish were developed. Enter fish farming. Same with the forests. We were cutting down trees with no appreciation for the eventual consequences. We then began seeing the consequences and developed sustainable practices. Regulations that address unsustainable practices and replace them with sustainable practices are good. Regulations which prevent using resources to the point we import what we have in abundance are bad.Yes, but once again, we must make sure that we don't repeat past mistakes. Oh, and by the way, fish farming comes with it's own environmental problems: fish droppings, water quality, the fact that very often the fish being farmed have to be fed with captured smaller fish (which contributes to overfishing). Shrimp farming in the tropics has been directly responsible for mangrove destruction... It's far from being a perfect solution.

Originally posted by username
Yes, the lakes were fished out so now they are stocked. Yes, the dense population results in more pollution run off. That kind of makes my point, doesn't it? Urban sprawl isn't all bad, the cities tend to be the areas with the most pollution(and crime). Pollution which increases to the point that noticable harm results..This is not what I'm saying at all. One of the reasons why cities are the most polluted and have the most crime (as opposed to the 'burbs) is because urban sprawl has contributed to their impoverishment. And the suburban lifestyle causes it's own pollution. Just consider the huge amounts of fuel that are burned everyday by people commuting! Suburban living is no solution to environmental problems, far from it!
Originally posted by username
I am not saying we shouldn't regulate pollution. I am saying we should consider the cost of the regulation and do a cost/benefit analysis. As time goes on and technology improves pollution reduction becomes less expensive. If we can reduce pollution by 10% for $10 and we can reduce it by 20% for $1000 should we spend the $10 or the $1000? Kyoto seemed to say we should spend the $1000. I say spend the $10 today and in a decade or two the better, $1000 solution may not cost $1000, but only $40.

I agree, but there are 2 types of legislation to consider. Existing and proposed. Existing legislation has a track record and should be modified or removed if it has been ineffective, harmful or the subject of corruption/misuse.

Proposed legislation should be viewed skepticly considering the source of the information the legislation is based upon(has the source proven accurate or inaccurate previously), the results of past, similar legislation and a cost benefit analysis. Proposed legislation should not be accepted or rejected according to how well it sits with one's political ideology or whether or not Greenpeace approves of it. But you are pushing one type of ideology too, you know? Why should economical considerations trump ecological considerations? You talk as if the economical sciences were some kind of "hard science" on the same level of, say, physics. They are not. If there's one science that is greatly dependent upon ideological frameworks, that's economics. I mean, I remember reading that some economists claimed that the Exxon Valdez disaster had been good for the Alaskan economy! I'd rather listen to the scientists first.
Originally posted by username
I do. The extremists aren't making environmental decisions, they are making political or private economical decisions and distorting the facts to suit them. Why would anyone want them included? Because it's a free country and they are entitled to an opinion. You can't just exclude them. Besides, who the hell gets to decide who is an extremist and who isn't? It's something pretty subjective. And this goes both ways: there are "extremists" on the left and on the right.
Originally posted by username
What is the correct perspective in which to take the arguments of anti capitalists who decry the 'evil corporations' and ignorantly support banning dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/) ? Are they to be taken seriously just because a group of monkeys with typewriters will eventually type an actual word instead of gibberish? That's not an argument, that's caricature.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by username
Well, if we are doing something that can be shown will lead to our extinction then that something should be stopped or reduced to sustainable levels.

If we find something that meets that criteria we can discuss it at that time. Until then I think we should stick with the OP, namely the endangered species act and more broadly what are some successful and unsucessful means we have employed to protect the environment. What has been the cost of the various attempts and have they been worth it? Keep in mind that the lag time between some action and our understanding the effects of that action can be many years. Then, all we can do is say 'oops'.

[Earthborn]

What this rather simple example tells me is that we don't really know enough to make sound decisions regarding our environment. We just don't understand the interdependancies and balances well enough.I don't think we will ever know enough. It is just way to complex.If you are talking about ocean fishing then I agree with you, but largely it is poor nations that are the problem, not developed nations. In developed nations we simply started farm raising good tasting fish.I think you are wrong. Most of the fish that is farmed are predatory fish. That means they eat fish. The fish they eat is fished from the sea. The more fish is farmed, the more is fished from the sea. It's a bit like farming tigers by feeding them deer caught in the wild and claiming that it is a solution to overhunting. Until people start farming entire marine food chains, fish farms are part of the problem, not the solution.

Lots of developed nations use huge fishing boats that take the fish from the sea at an industrial scale and they often do this in front of the coasts of poor nations to avoid the quotas set by the rich ones.As time goes on and technology improves industrialized nations have reduced the amount of pollution per unit produced rather than increased it.When considering the global impact, the pollution per unit is less relevant than the total pollution produced. If you cars that produce 50% less pollutants, but you have 3 times as many of them, you're not reducing pollution.it is the economic development and innovation that produces means to reduce pollution affordably.Economic development and innovation may reduce pollution per unit, but don't necessarily reduce total pollution.

[username]

Originally posted by Earthborn
atory fish. That means they eat fish. The fish they eat is fished from the sea. The more fish is farmed, the more is fished from the sea. It's a bit like farming tigers by feeding them deer caught in the wild and claiming that it is a solution to overhunting. Until people start farming entire marine food chains, fish farms are part of the problem, not the solution.


This is true of farmed salmon, but work is being done to find vegetable based substitutes.

For catfish those are fed grain products and tilapia are often farmed in bodies of water that have invasive weeds and are used as a control measure.

I don't claim farming of fish is perfect, but it seems to be improving and it certainly reduces the pressure upon an overfished species.

[robinson]

China's white dolphin called extinct after 20 million years
POSTED: 9:25 p.m. EST, December 13, 2006

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/13/china.dolphin.ap/index.html) :pigsfly

[a_unique_person]

Why the pig?

[BPSCG]

BTW, did we ever get an authoritative answer to the question in the OP - how many species become extinct each day? The numbers bandied about were all over the place:


...every day 35- 150 species of life become extinct...

...An average of 35 species become extinct every day in the world's tropical rainforests...

...maintaining a population of six billion humans costs the world 200 species a day...

...Up to 100 species become extinct every day...

...at least three animal and plant species become extinct every day...

...an average of 137 species of life forms become extinct every day. . .
When I see stuff like this, I wonder if anyone really knows the actual answer. They sure talk like they know, but it strikes me that some of these estimates are wrong. Maybe even all of them.

Or, as Earthborn might put it, "Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!"

[daredelvis]

And again, where's the list of recently-extinct animals? If we know there are ten million species, then presumably we know which ones are gone. Don't we?

I do have to ask if you are really that obtuse? Think about it for just a minute. If, after doing so you really can't arrive at a reasonable explanation, I will point you in the right direction. Think about how other areas of science deal with questions about large populations. Also think about really small creatures.

Daredelvis

[BPSCG]

I do have to ask if you are really that obtuse? Think about it for just a minute. If, after doing so you really can't arrive at a reasonable explanation, I will point you in the right direction. Think about how other areas of science deal with questions about large populations. Also think about really small creatures.

DaredelvisYou could have simply provided a link, rather than a suggestion and an insult. Less typing.

[Marquis de Carabas]

All of them.

[daredelvis]

You could have simply provided a link, rather than a suggestion and an insult. Less typing.

The thing is that your post suggest that in order for there to be 10 million, or even 1 million then someone has gone out and counted and catalogued them individually. That is plain ridiculous on the face of it, and I would hope any educated adult would realize that. My compliment to you (to offset my previous insult) is that you strike me as an intelligent educated person who should understand. It leaves me with the opinion that you are either horribly scientifically illiterate, or you are being deliberately obtuse in order to hold some partisan "value"? I really can think of no other explanation.

Daredelvis

[drkitten]

BTW, did we ever get an authoritative answer to the question in the OP - how many species become extinct each day? The numbers bandied about were all over the place:


All over the place?

The estimates were all within the same order of magnitude! Given the difficulties discussed in this thread about estimating the loss rate when we haven't even been able to identify all of the species that currently exist, I think that's a remarkably stable and consistent estimate.

Why do you expect our estimate of "rate of loss of species we haven't yet fully identified" to be more accurate/stable/conssitent than our estimate of "amount of oil left on the planet that we haven't discovered"? And more to the point -- why is it so much more stable, then?

[robinson]

http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/stats

Extensive list, by country.

http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/wildlife.html#Species

US Federal list.

[BPSCG]

The thing is that your post suggest that in order for there to be 10 million, or even 1 million then someone has gone out and counted and catalogued them individually. That is plain ridiculous on the face of it, and I would hope any educated adult would realize that. Then how do we know how many species have become extinct?
My compliment to you (to offset my previous insult) I don't want your compliment either; ad hominem arguments are a form of logical fallacy, whether they are couched as insults or as compliments.

It leaves me with the opinion that you are either horribly scientifically illiterate, or you are being deliberately obtuse in order to hold some partisan "value"? I really can think of no other explanation.Let's assume the former. Educate me. How do we know how many species have become extinct?

[robinson]

Why the pig?

A tribute to one of the most interesting extinct species. Few remember the flying pig, Margarito-Vola Porcine , and some refuse to believe it ever existed.

[drkitten]

Educate me. How do we know how many species have become extinct?

I believe that question was answered quite succinctly in post #2 of this thread.

If you have a problem with the logic or methodology outlined in that post, I'm sure you can express yourself equally succinctly.

[BPSCG]

http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/stats

Extensive list, by country.

http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/wildlife.html#Species

US Federal list.Thanks. This is a useful starting point.

I did some math. Assuming the high-end estimate of 200 species becoming extinct every day is accurate, that means about 73,000 species become extinct every year.

The number of threatened species is 1,562,663. (And of that number, close to 2/3 are insects, which you couldn't prove in my backyard in July... And which 950,000 species of insects are endangered? And how do they know this? It looks like they did an actual count of the vertebrates, apart from the fishes, but how on Earth do you arrive at 950,000 endangered insect species?*)

That means that 100 * (73,000 / 1,562,663) percent of endangered species become extinct every year, or about 4.7%.

Anyone know how many new species arise every year?

Look, y'all may think I have some kind of political agenda here, but that's not my point. Sometimes when I see some fascinating statistic, I want to know how they arrived at it. When I read that ten percent of all women get beaten by their men on Super Bowl Sunday, I want to know more.

Isn't that what being a skeptic is about?

I read something a few weeks ago in a Washington Post magazine article, where the author, who is actually a pretty good science writer, alleged that each gallon of gasoline burned puts nineteen pounds of carbon monoxide into the air. I emailed him to ask how a gallon of gasoline - which weighs, what, maybe five to eight pounds? - could create nineteen pounds of CO. I thought it was a good question, but I never got an answer.

* I know, "Read the goddam link, BPSCG..."

[BPSCG]

I believe that question was answered quite succinctly in post #2 of this thread.If it's so simple, then whence the wide range of estimates, from three a day to 200 a day? Who should I, an acknowledged ignoramus on the subject, believe? And why?

[daredelvis]

Thanks. This is a useful starting point.

I did some math. Assuming the high-end estimate of 200 species becoming extinct every day is accurate, that means about 73,000 species become extinct every year.

The number of threatened species is 1,562,663. (And of that number, close to 2/3 are insects, which you couldn't prove in my backyard in July... And which 950,000 species of insects are endangered? And how do they know this? It looks like they did an actual count of the vertebrates, apart from the fishes, but how on Earth do you arrive at 950,000 endangered insect species?*)

That means that 100 * (73,000 / 1,562,663) percent of endangered species become extinct every year, or about 4.7%.

Anyone know how many new species arise every year?

Look, y'all may think I have some kind of political agenda here, but that's not my point. Sometimes when I see some fascinating statistic, I want to know how they arrived at it. When I read that ten percent of all women get beaten by their men on Super Bowl Sunday, I want to know more.

Isn't that what being a skeptic is about?

I read something a few weeks ago in a Washington Post magazine article, where the author, who is actually a pretty good science writer, alleged that each gallon of gasoline burned puts nineteen pounds of carbon monoxide into the air. I emailed him to ask how a gallon of gasoline - which weighs, what, maybe five to eight pounds? - could create nineteen pounds of CO. I thought it was a good question, but I never got an answer.

* I know, "Read the goddam link, BPSCG..."

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
(via google)

Daredelvis

[drkitten]

I read something a few weeks ago in a Washington Post magazine article, where the author, who is actually a pretty good science writer, alleged that each gallon of gasoline burned puts nineteen pounds of carbon monoxide into the air. I emailed him to ask how a gallon of gasoline - which weighs, what, maybe five to eight pounds? - could create nineteen pounds of CO. I thought it was a good question, but I never got an answer.


The same way that burning a pound of hydrogen gas can produce nearly ten pounds of water. The combustion process takes oxygen from the air, which has to be factored into the weight of the final products.

To a first approximation, gasoline is an endless stream of CH_2 polymers, and, of course, these combine with oxygen to make carbon dioxide and water. Each mole of carbon (weight 12g) combines with two moles of oxygen [atoms] (weight 32g) to make a total of 44g of product -- basically, you get four times as much CO_2 (by weight) as you had carbon, or about three times as much CO2 (by weight) as you had CH_2. So six pounds of gasolline (my God, I'm doing chemistry in "pounds." I feel unclean....) turns into nineteen pounds of carbon dioxide.

Happy?

[robinson]

Anyone know how many new species arise every year?


Don't know, but certainly how many new species are discovered each year is known.


Look, y'all may think I have some kind of political agenda here, but that's not my point. Sometimes when I see some fascinating statistic, I want to know how they arrived at it. When I read that ten percent of all women get beaten by their men on Super Bowl Sunday, I want to know more.

Isn't that what being a skeptic is about?

I agree. I question statistics, stories and even research that seems hard to believe.

I read something a few weeks ago in a Washington Post magazine article, where the author, who is actually a pretty good science writer, alleged that each gallon of gasoline burned puts nineteen pounds of carbon monoxide into the air. I emailed him to ask how a gallon of gasoline - which weighs, what, maybe five to eight pounds? - could create nineteen pounds of CO. I thought it was a good question, but I never got an answer.

Oxygen is a heavy molecule. The extra weight comes from it.

[robinson]

Oops. Previous post slipped in. Still, validation is cool.

[drkitten]

If it's so simple, then whence the wide range of estimates, from three a day to 200 a day?

Given the difficulties in estimating the amount of habitat loss on a daily basis on the planet, I don't consider that to be a "wide range."

Who should I, an acknowledged ignoramus on the subject, believe? And why?

The one with the best evidence behind her arguments, of course. But you're not only not looking at the evidence, you're demonstrably not even looking at the arguments.

[daredelvis]

If it's so simple, then whence the wide range of estimates, from three a day to 200 a day? Who should I, an acknowledged ignoramus on the subject, believe? And why?

Does the three a day number include insects and other invertebrates? That would explain the difference.

Daredelvis

[BPSCG]

The same way that burning a pound of hydrogen gas can produce nearly ten pounds of water. The combustion process takes oxygen from the air, which has to be factored into the weight of the final products.Does that mean when we all have hydrogen-fueled cars, we're going to suck all the oxygen out of the air, and we'll be breathing pure nitrogen after a few decades?

Sorry, I didn't take chemistry in high school.

[robinson]

http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=11&article=newspecies

Scientists estimate the total number of species on Earth to be around 9 to 20 million, although the oft-cited broader range of 3 to 112 million better illustrates the uncertainty. Present knowledge of these species is meager. Humans have named 1.5-1.8 million species to date, but only 1 percent of those have been studied in any detail beyond basic characterization of habitat and anatomical features.

[daredelvis]

Does that mean when we all have hydrogen-fueled cars, we're going to suck all the oxygen out of the air, and we'll be breathing pure nitrogen after a few decades?

Sorry, I didn't take chemistry in high school.

No. I would worry more about all of the excess O2 created when the water is split to get the hydrogen in the first place. We are all doomed to horrid levels of free radical damage if this technology moves forward.

Daredelvis

[robinson]

Does that mean when we all have hydrogen-fueled cars, we're going to suck all the oxygen out of the air, and we'll be breathing pure nitrogen after a few decades?

No. We could burn all the fossil fuel on the planet, and all the trees and grass, and it wouldn't suck all the oxygen out of the air.

[drkitten]

Does that mean when we all have hydrogen-fueled cars, we're going to suck all the oxygen out of the air, and we'll be breathing pure nitrogen after a few decades?

If we could get enough hydrogen, yes. But it will take more than "a few decades" for that to happen.

But, yes, if we could somehow move Jupiter's atmosphere over here and set fire to it, we'd run out of oxygen from the Earth before we ran out of hyrogen from Jupiter.

[robinson]

Hydrogen is made from CO2 or water, both methods release the same amount of oxygen that is consumed later, so there is no chance of hydrogen fuel cells depleting oxygen.

[Merko]

Hydrogen isn't an energy source though. It's just a medium for transportation/storage. It cannot solve the 'energy crisis' any more than, say, batteries can.

Maybe if we find a way to make hydrogen-producing bacteria efficient enough. Or we could build loads of wind mills and store excess power from stormy days in huge hydrogen tanks. That would actually work even with present technology. So personally I'm not so worried about running out of energy. I am worried about carbon dioxide emissions, though.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I can't believe no one mentioned the fact that when we lose species we also lose their DNA. Their distinct DNA is lost forever. DNA that could hold the keys to curing many widely known diseases or ailments much like Penicillin did. With only about 1% of the known species on our planet having been studied imagine the among of potential cures to many diseases out there that many plant species might hold that are currently going extinct on a daily basis.

Someone already argued the fact that a single species is a 'link' in an ecosystem and an ecosystem is only as strong as it's weakest link.

I also want to point out that there is nothing wrong with using emotion to argue for the preservation of species. The beauty of species, The opportunity for future generations to see them, The moral bankruptcy of killing off species are all emotional pleas and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. We could burn all the fossil fuel on the planet, and all the trees and grass, and it wouldn't suck all the oxygen out of the air.


Without anything to provide further oxygen it would eventually dissappear due to animals using it.

But if you burn all of the trees and grass on the planet you won't have anymore animals anyway so I guess you're right.

[Beerina]

An analogy: one of my biology teachers used to compare an ecosystem to a bridge from which one rivet was removed, then two, etc. A bit like an ecosystem, a bridge is constructed of small pieces bolted together to form a complete, stable, working system.

Except we know now they are not stable. Predator/prey relationships drive their populations upward and downward in a chaotic oscillation, and over time they are constantly trying to out-evolve each other.

What difference does it make if one of the bolts was removed? Would we still be willing to travel across? How about two bolts? Three? How many bolts would have to be removed before we would begin to feel uneasy about traveling on it? As each bolt is removed, the bridge may shift imperceptibly to neutralize the stress but if you don't pay attention to this, you wouldn't know. If the bolts continue to be removed, the bridge will be unable to redistribute the stresses and it will eventually collapse. If we're on the bridge, we'll suffer the consequences of its collapse.

Know what I mean?

Yes, but humans mucking around with laws and legislation and dominance over each other has lead to far more misery and death for humanity than environmental problems have, or will. That's the 800 lb. gorilla in this discussion that's rarely mentioned (http://juliansimon.com).

[Beerina]

I want to know how many of them are delicious.

As a kid in the '70's, I read of some people who found some frozen mammoth and cooked and ate it, and then got sick.

Quite frankly, it's probably no different from any other elephant running around.

Speaking of mammoths and mastadons, why can't I go see one in a zoo, yet? What's the hold up, cellular molecular biologists? :mad: Clone the m-fer, shove it into a female, and let's get the show on the road.

[drkitten]

Yes, but humans mucking around with laws and legislation and dominance over each other has lead to far more misery and death for humanity than environmental problems have, or will.

... which is why the Easter Island civilization has flourished without interruption for the past two thousand years.....

[Darth Rotor]

That's an awfully stringent level of proof that you demand. "Can be shown will lead to our extinction"? How about "is likely to"? How about "is likely to lead to a substantial degradation in the local standard of living"?

But the other problem is what to do in cases of genuine ignorance. The Chinese example is a good one (from upthread) :

The discussion strikes me as a variation on a very old theme:

Don't eat your seed corn. A farmer knows that if he wants to have a harvest each year, he must be a good steward of the land. The cod fisherman didn't need to know this off of the Grand Banks until a few generations of industrial methods of fish harvesting put the cod population at risk. (Kurlansky's Cod is a nice coverage of that.) Recovery rates seem to have been learned only by trial and error.

Orwell's comment on the Japanese exporting their timber problem got a lot of coverage when Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, opened the flood gates for harvesting timber and selling it, unprocessed, to Japan in the 1980's.

DR

[BPSCG]

Someone already argued the fact that a single species is a 'link' in an ecosystem and an ecosystem is only as strong as it's weakest link.That's a poor metaphor. It suggests that if even one species becomes extinct, we are all doomed. Or something.

We are all interconnected. A more appropriate analogy would be not a chain, but a suit of chain mail. If one link breaks, that doesn't destroy the suit. And, to carry the analogy further, if one link breaks, but is replaced by another... well, you get the idea.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, but humans mucking around with laws and legislation and dominance over each other has lead to far more misery and death for humanity than environmental problems have, or will. That's the 800 lb. gorilla in this discussion that's rarely mentioned (http://juliansimon.com).
Which of Simon's articles were you referring to? The link took us to an appreciation, now that he has passed away. His body of work is impressive.

DR

[drkitten]

We are all interconnected. A more appropriate analogy would be not a chain, but a suit of chain mail. If one link breaks, that doesn't destroy the suit. And, to carry the analogy further, if one link breaks, but is replaced by another... well, you get the idea.

Yes, that's a better analogy. However, unless we've got some assurance that links are being replaced at a rate faster than they're beingn broken, it would seem that observing links breaking would be cause for concern. If nothing else, the precautionary principle should suggest that if we shoudn't simply assume that the biodiversity fairy will bring back species fast enough.

Similarly, merely putting links in at random will not necessarily help. If a link broken here is "replaced[/i] by a new link there, the chainmail suit will eventually become useless and unwearable. So even if the rate of replacement can be shown to be identical, that doesn't put us off the hook.

Now, let's drop the analogy and look at the biodiversity situation. What's the single biggest cause of loss of biodiversity? Habitat replacement. People burn down virgin forests to plant crops, for example, or pave wetlands to build lawns. In this case, we've got pretty good evidence that the species are not being replaced as fast as they're lost, because the biomass moving in to replace the old stuff are all old and well-established species. Instead of an obscure tropical tree, we now have a field of rice, our old friend Oryza sativa, the same species grown all over the world. Instead of five different tropical trees in five different fields, we have five fields of Oryza sativa.

It's hard to make that sound like "replacement."

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's a poor metaphor. It suggests that if even one species becomes extinct, we are all doomed. Or something.

We are all interconnected. A more appropriate analogy would be not a chain, but a suit of chain mail. If one link breaks, that doesn't destroy the suit. And, to carry the analogy further, if one link breaks, but is replaced by another... well, you get the idea.



I think the chain mail is a good metaphor but I don't know about broken lines binding. Many species are evolutionary set to fit a specific niche in an ecosystem and if that species goes then many species that rely on it have no other food etc. A good example. What if Bamboo went extinct? Many species out there like Panda's feed on only 1 single thing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, that's a better analogy. However, unless we've got some assurance that links are being replaced at a rate faster than they're beingn broken, it would seem that observing links breaking would be cause for concern. If nothing else, the precautionary principle should suggest that if we shoudn't simply assume that the biodiversity fairy will bring back species fast enough.

Similarly, merely putting links in at random will not necessarily help. If a link broken here is "replaced[/i] by a new link there, the chainmail suit will eventually become useless and unwearable. So even if the rate of replacement can be shown to be identical, that doesn't put us off the hook.

Now, let's drop the analogy and look at the biodiversity situation. What's the single biggest cause of loss of biodiversity? Habitat replacement. People burn down virgin forests to plant crops, for example, or pave wetlands to build lawns. In this case, we've got pretty good evidence that the species are not being replaced as fast as they're lost, because the biomass moving in to replace the old stuff are all old and well-established species. Instead of an obscure tropical tree, we now have a field of rice, our old friend Oryza sativa, the same species grown all over the world. Instead of five different tropical trees in five different fields, we have five fields of Oryza sativa.

It's hard to make that sound like "replacement."



I hope BP was arguing for niche's being filled in an ecosystem once a species that exists in that niche goes extinct and not literally a new species forming.

[drkitten]

I hope BP was arguing for niche's being filled in an ecosystem once a species that exists in that niche goes extinct and not literally a new species forming.

I hope he wasn't, since that sounds even sillier. "Oh, we've killed off all the tigers in the area, so now we can expect pandas to start eating meat?"

[BPSCG]

I hope BP was arguing for niche's being filled in an ecosystem once a species that exists in that niche goes extinct and not literally a new species forming.

I hope he wasn't, since that sounds even sillier. "Oh, we've killed off all the tigers in the area, so now we can expect pandas to start eating meat?"Put it that way, and yes, it does sound silly.

But new species do get formed all the time; it happened for a billion or so years before homo sapiens showed up, unless you believe in intelligent design.

Seems a lot of effort has gone into estimating the number of species that become extinct every day, but has anyone figured out how many new species evolve every day?

Why is extinction bad? In principle, it really isn't; it's been going on for billions of years, and yet the planet is still here. In practice, it isn't necessarily bad; I think I speak for most of us when I say I'm glad that I won't run into a tyrannosaurus on my way home, and I have yet to hear the argument that eradication of smallpox was a bad idea.

In the final analysis, we worry about extinctions because biodiversity is good for us - it can help us live longer or better lives. Drkitten, you mourn the extinction of an obscure tropical tree so that we can grow Oryza sativa. Yes, that tree might lead to a cure for the common cold or AIDS, someday, but meanwhile, that Oryza sativa is leading to a cure for mass starvation due to famine, now.

This isn't an argument that we should just shrug our shoulders and burn or clearcut every woody thing that grows more than six inches high so we can have lovely dining room furniture. But I am suggesting that extinction is only a bad thing if it happens to you (humanity, that is), or if it happens to someone else and you (humanity, again) suffer for it. Else we'd be in nonstop mourning for the trilobite and ankylosaurus.

I don't pretend to know which species should be protected from extinction and which ones should not, though I suppose the AIDS virus would be a good candidate for the latter category. What I do know is that it's a terribly complex issue, perhaps an issue that can never be completely understood, and that just throwing suspect numbers of daily extinctions, devoid of any context, only confuses the issue even more, instead of shedding more light on it.

[drkitten]

Put it that way, and yes, it does sound silly.

But new species do get formed all the time; it happened for a billion or so years before homo sapiens showed up, unless you believe in intelligent design.

Seems a lot of effort has gone into estimating the number of species that become extinct every day, but has anyone figured out how many new species evolve every day?

Some, but it's a much harder problem to estimate, in part because "speciation" is rather hard to identify or observe. in a clear-cut manner. ("Extinction" is much easier.)

But the estimates that do exist -- even estimates you can make up yourself at home -- suggest that the rate of extinction greatly outstrips the rate of speciation. Her (http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html)e's an example:


The numbers are grim: Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the past century. On average, one extinction happens somewhere on earth every 20 minutes. Ecologists estimate that half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years. Although crude and occasionally controversial, such statistics illustrate the extent of the current upheaval, which spans the globe and affects a broad array of plants and animals.

[...]

The current losses are, however, exceptional. Rates of extinction appear now to be 100 to 1,000 times greater than background levels, qualifying the present as an era of �mass extinction.� The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past. Devastating as they were, after each of these mass extinctions, biological diversity ultimately recovered. The time it took varied among taxonomic groups and also depended on just where the organisms lived. General recovery probably required a few million years in each case. Taking an optimistic view and assuming people will be around for a few million years yet, we wanted to explore what our descendants� world might be like.

Let's look at that first highlighted section for a moment. "half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within ... 300 years." Do you seriously believe, for an instant, that natural processes would be sufficient to replace half of the bird and mammal species within 300 years?



Further, you wrote:


In the final analysis, we worry about extinctions because biodiversity is good for us - it can help us live longer or better lives. Drkitten, you mourn the extinction of an obscure tropical tree so that we can grow Oryza sativa. Yes, that tree might lead to a cure for the common cold or AIDS, someday, but meanwhile, that Oryza sativa is leading to a cure for mass starvation due to famine, now.

Except that it isn't. More accurately, the rice-paddy that replaced the tropical tree didn't need to be there. With better (read : more efficient and more sustainable) farming practices, we could grow just as much rice and not need to clear more fields. With better (read : more efficient and more sustainable) dietary practices, we could grow more food on fewer fields.

What I do know is that it's a terribly complex issue, perhaps an issue that can never be completely understood, and that just throwing suspect numbers of daily extinctions, devoid of any context, only confuses the issue even more, instead of shedding more light on it.

On the contrary, the numbers are a direct response to years of what I can only characterize as "lies" by anti-environmental forces. As a result, the lies have changed, which is good. Educating the public for the win....

A hundred years ago, the argument was made that there was so much "nature" around that overexploitation would never be a problem. Trees grow back, so what if we cut them down. We now know that they don't grow back as fast as we cut them down. FIfty years ago, the argument was made that there were no benefits to keeping, for example, virgin tropical forest around. Biomass, they said, was biomass -- it didn't matter if it was rice or an unnamed species of tropical moss. Today we know that that isn't true, in part because of analyses and estimates like this. We now know -- more or less beyond a reasonable doubt -- that every acre of virgin forest that is clearcut will result in the irrevocable loss of a quantifiable number of unique species before we even have a chance to catalogue them.

Now the argument has shifted; you say that the loss of species represents uncertain risk, while the lloss of food production represents a certain one. That's also a lie; there are other ways to increase food production. I suspect the next lie will be that better agricultural practices cost too much.....

[BPSCG]

Except that it isn't. More accurately, the rice-paddy that replaced the tropical tree didn't need to be there. With better (read : more efficient and more sustainable) farming practices, we could grow just as much rice and not need to clear more fields. With better (read : more efficient and more sustainable) dietary practices, we could grow more food on fewer fields. We're already growing five or ten times as much food on the same amount of land as we did half a century ago. Today's wheat, rice, and corn varieties all yield far more than their ancestors. Bring back those ancestors and you'd need far more arable land to grow the same amount of food. In which case, you'd better get the chainsaws and bulldozers out.

Now the argument has shifted; you say that the loss of species represents uncertain risk, while the lloss of food production represents a certain one. That's also a lie; there are other ways to increase food production. Fine. Bring back your dozens or hundreds of legacy rice varieties from fifty years ago. See if you can produce the same amount of food as today's varieties, on the same or less land, using your "other ways to increase food production." When that day arrives, I'll put all my savings into John Deere and Caterpillar stock.

ETA: BTW, there are ways of disagreeing with someone's point without calling him a liar. Thank you.

[drkitten]

We're already growing five or ten times as much food on the same amount of land as we did half a century ago. Today's wheat, rice, and corn varieties all yield far more than their ancestors.

Which is actually an argument for my point, not against it. We've done more to increase the global food capacity of the world through the development of "modern" strains of cereals than by simply increasing the amount of land in cultivation -- but most of the land that's being cleared is not being replanted with the modern hybrids, but with the "traditional" varieties, because that's what's more commonly and cheaply available.

Even when the more modern hybrids are available, theyr'e usually unaffordable, not just in terms of the price of the crop itself, but in the demands they place on the soil. The hybrids that yield ten times as much grain also deplete the soil ten times faster, and so they more or less require that you have an expensive system of fertilization to re-enrich the soil.

There are also relatively few "modern" hybrids -- most of the yield enhancements have focused (for rather obvious reasons) on temperate crops such as wheat and corn. Other crops -- millet, sorghum, cassava, yams, and sweet potatoes, to name a few -- have not increased nearly as much if any. Being able to grow ten times as much winter wheat on an acre of land doesn't really help a family in the Amazon basin or central Africa.

See if you can produce the same amount of food as today's varieties, on the same or less land, using your "other ways to increase food production."

Certainly. Develop a high-yielding variety of cassava and a cheap and widely distributed system of soil replenishment that is within the financial capacity of the average central African farmer.

[a_unique_person]

We're already growing five or ten times as much food on the same amount of land as we did half a century ago. Today's wheat, rice, and corn varieties all yield far more than their ancestors. Bring back those ancestors and you'd need far more arable land to grow the same amount of food. In which case, you'd better get the chainsaws and bulldozers out.

Fine. Bring back your dozens or hundreds of legacy rice varieties from fifty years ago. See if you can produce the same amount of food as today's varieties, on the same or less land, using your "other ways to increase food production." When that day arrives, I'll put all my savings into John Deere and Caterpillar stock.

ETA: BTW, there are ways of disagreeing with someone's point without calling him a liar. Thank you.

We are, and using a lot more water to do so. Australia has been a big exporter of wheat, but this year the crop has failed pretty badly. Climate change seems to be drying out the country. Many areas of the world are using irrigation or underground water at unsustainable rates.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Hydrogen is made from CO2 or water, both methods release the same amount of oxygen that is consumed later, so there is no chance of hydrogen fuel cells depleting oxygen.
CO2 has no hydrogen in it. Did you mean CH4? It's a common source of hydrogen. And oxygen isn't released when extracting hydrogen from CH4.

(It would still be a long time before we threatened our oxygen supply even if we used that mechanism exclusively).

[RecoveringYuppy]

Hydrogen isn't an energy source though. It's just a medium for transportation/storage. It cannot solve the 'energy crisis' any more than, say, batteries can.
Not by itself it can't. But IMO the most problematic aspects of our energy use are the portable uses of energy and gasoline is pretty effective in that role. All renewable replacements for gasoline are going to have the same problem as hydrogen: They will "just" be a storage medium, manufactured in some way from some other primary energy source. There are really only three sources of renewable or long term energy: solar, geothermal and some nuclear processes. Multiple ways to harness those three options, but ultimately any renewable energy has to trace back to them. Storage and transportation are certainly major obstacles in applying any of those three to cars and trucks.

[robinson]

CO2 has no hydrogen in it. Did you mean CH4? It's a common source of hydrogen. And oxygen isn't released when extracting hydrogen from CH4.

(It would still be a long time before we threatened our oxygen supply even if we used that mechanism exclusively).

Yes, CH4. I have no excuse for why I said that. Dumb mistake. And not only does this produce no oxygen, natural gas is used to create the hydrogen, and this process also produces CO.

[Gurdur]

I do have to ask if you are really that obtuse?
He both is and he also likes to play at it. BPSCG simply likes trying to get a rise out of people, and any point be damned.

[robinson]

Is there a topic about food production here?

[The Painter]

All of them.

You guys skipped right over this. It is the correct answer.