h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

According to World Conservation Monitoring Centre figures there are currently 1960 species of mammals, birds and reptiles facing extinction. So that's not including the largest groups of species: insects, plants, fish, crustaceans, etc etc.

Regarding Hawaii in particular, Ornithologists who collect and catalog bird remains have found that Hawaii was once home to more than 100 species never seen today. Historical records show that those birds, like most Hawaiian birds, were unique--such as the honey eaters, which early settlers easily identified by their beautiful songs and specialized beaks and tongues. But, what about them hogs!! Over 2000 species of birds have belome extinct in the pacific islands since people moved in.

"Ecologists estimate that we have lost hundreds of thousands of species in the past 50 years. The experts predict that if present trends continue, we are likely to lose one-half of all living species within the next century."

There have been 5 periods of mass extinction since "records" began, the last (but not the biggest) when the dinosaurs made their graceful departure. They however took place over periods of millions of years, rather than 2 centuries.

"Ecologists believe that the "bounce-back" period--the time it would take Earth to recover its present degree of biological diversity--could be as long as 25 million years. Furthermore, scientists say that many evolutionary processes that have persisted for millions of years could be suspended--if not completely ended--if vital habitats such as tropical forests are destroyed. In that case, the unique features of many extinct plants and animals may never have a chance to develop again.

"Death is one thing, an end to birth is something else," say biologists Michael Soule and Bruce Wilcox of Stanford University in California. Such experts predict that evolution may be likely to experience profound "hiccups," as life on Earth repeatedly attempts to recover its diversity but fails because of the environmental damage."

About 30,000,000 gallons

Aves + Reptilia + Mammalia = 11945 new/changed since 1978

http://www.york.biosis.org/triton/taxstats/groups.htm

So "naturalness" is a function of volume?

Leonard L. Saari
Chairman
DuPont Agricultural Products

Interesting choice of chairman

As you say 11945 since 1978, 21 years. While I don't imagine that all 2000 odd will become extinct in the next year, the rate of extinctions is increasing exponentially, while I would imagine that the rate of new species is not. The total is dropping, and it's going to drop faster and faster. According to my sciency articles anyway.

Maybe we should phone up an eminent (that doesn't look right) ecologist and ask them exactly what's going up and what's coming down?

"Ecologists estimate that we have lost hundreds of thousands of
species in the past 50 years.

How many of those were a result of human action?
How many new species have we gained in that time?

> The experts predict that if present
> trends continue, we are likely to lose one-half of all living species
> within the next century."

Not until they've answered the above questions.

> There have been 5 periods of mass extinction since "records"
> began, the last (but not the biggest) when the dinosaurs made their
> graceful departure. They however took place over periods of millions
> of years, rather than 2 centuries.

This is not a linear system. It just doesn't follow that if you remove X species from the biosphere per year, you will eventually have none. It doesn't work like that. Species extinction creates niches into which new and existing species move, deforming the fitness landscapes of *all* co-evolutionary partners. This is the essence of "nature abhors a vacuum".

The extinction event that took the dinosaurs, deleted about two thirds of life on Earth that is why it took millions of years to recover. Here, we're talking about a *notional* fraction of a percent.

We have a responsibility to the future of humanity to preserve a pleasant, habitable environment - an environment that we are *part of* - an environment that we understand and can work *with*. This is not served by bleating about every f****g time we lose a butterfly.

> As you say 11945 since 1978, 21 years. While I don't imagine that all 2000 odd will become extinct in the next year,
> the rate of extinctions is increasing exponentially, while I would imagine that the rate of new species is not.

Why?

> Maybe we should phone up an eminent (that doesn't look right) ecologist and ask them exactly what's going up and
> what's coming down?

Maybe we should, though it ought to be a biologist for an unbiased view

>How many of those were a result of human action?
>How many new species have we gained in that time?

As I say, we'd best ask an ecologist.

>we are likely to lose one-half of all living species within the next
>century."
>Not until they've answered the above questions

half of all living species is half of all living species

>The extinction event that took the dinosaurs, deleted about two
>thirds of life on Earth that is why it took millions of years to
>recover. Here, we're talking about a *notional* fraction of a
>percent.

Which is why they're saying it'll take 25 million years? I think what is being said is while we lost .1% between 1900 and 1970 (agreed not a great deal), we lost 1% between 1970 and 1999, and we'll lose 10% between 2000 and 2010.

>We have a responsibility to the future of humanity to preserve a
>pleasant, habitable environment - an environment that we are *part
>of* - an environment that we understand and can work *with*. This is
>not served by bleating about every f*****g time we lose a butterfly.

Yes, we have a responsibility, but no-one's taking any responsibility, because everyone would rather have hypermarkets than some tiresome butterfly. Is trying to save an entire rainforest full of biodiversity considered bleating?

So what's your cut off point? What percentage drop in biodiversity would you consider acceptable? 5%, 10%, 50%?

As long as the biologist isn't wearing a Du Pont company tie!

I concur with you and the concept of this process of modification and manipulation being inherently a condition of humanity and part of our evolution...I do look forward to the day when it is realised that we are just children in the Universal Kitchen and will have to clean up the causal-effect mess we have made...I just don't know where to begin!

You could begin by telling us if you know of any eminent Biologists.

Au contraire. I never said the man made one was unnatural. Just bigger. Well, I found it funny, even if no-one else did...hrumph.

It looks like Si has a whole other view point about the rate of evolution.
To some extent it will depend if minibugs are included. For those we
could probably reach agreement about the evolution of disease organisms
and even about the rate of "assisted evolution" inherent in GM.
But I doubt that we will see a new DoDo of Passenger Pigeon by
natural selection on the same time scale as we lost them.

In an earlier post Si apeared to miss the difference between the actual
number of existing species and our rate of counting them.

Fraid I can't point out a particular scientist but perhaps the above point
will be solid enough to move this discussion on from "Oh yes it is"
"Oh no it's not level".

PS
You got my meaning on the "who doing without who". My garden does
not need watering.

> In an earlier post Si apeared to miss the difference between the actual
> number of existing species and our rate of counting them.

Well spotted I wish I had, let me tell you!

Although I included "named species" in my fag packet calculation, there's no way of knowing how quickly the biosphere is speciating. All I was doing was calculating how quickly they were being discovered. Guilty.

By that same token though, there is no way of knowing that nett biodiversity is decreasing. To point at the extinctions of known species and say that species biodiversity is decreasing, is like standing outside Boots the chemist, watching people leave with bottles of Optrex, and saying that they are running out of stock without taking into account stock levels and deliveries.

What do you mean by rate of evolution? If you mean the rate at which a new species is generated, then I suspect we're in trouble.

From a practical point of view, a new specie is generated when an existing specie is split and the subsets become genetically incompatible. How quickly can that happen? Is it relevant?

>All I was doing was calculating how quickly they were being
>discovered

Cheeky minx!

>By that same token though, there is no way of knowing that nett
>biodiversity is decreasing

If the species we know about can be taken as a general cross section of all species (I assume there are very few new species of elephant / gnu / albatross among the millions of unknowns, and that most of these species are bacteria / mushrooms / viri and the like), then we are quite well able to make reasonable predictions about the state of biodiversity as a whole. We're well able to make predictions about the laws of gravity without travelling to every corner of the galaxy.

Also, another confoundment, is that the diversity of biodiversity is reducing. What I mean is' 100 extra species of cockroach do not match the diversity of the bengal tiger, mountain gorilla, spiny ptarmigan, loofah backed Tapir etc. (And I'm not talking about their fluffiness as creatures, but about the genuine diversity of the species on this lump.)

>All I was doing was calculating how quickly they were being
>discovered

Cheeky minx!

>By that same token though, there is no way of knowing that nett
>biodiversity is decreasing

If the species we know about can be taken as a general cross section of all species (I assume there are very few new species of elephant / gnu / albatross among the millions of unknowns, and that most of these species are bacteria / mushrooms / viri and the like), then we are quite well able to make reasonable predictions about the state of biodiversity as a whole. We're well able to make predictions about the laws of gravity without travelling to every corner of the galaxy.

Also, another confoundment, is that the diversity of biodiversity is reducing. What I mean is' 100 extra species of cockroach do not match the diversity of the bengal tiger, mountain gorilla, spiny ptarmigan, loofah backed Tapir etc. (And I'm not talking about their fluffiness as creatures, but about the genuine diversity of the species on this lump.)

>All I was doing was calculating how quickly they were being
>discovered

Cheeky minx!

>By that same token though, there is no way of knowing that nett
>biodiversity is decreasing

If the species we know about can be taken as a general cross section of all species (I assume there are very few new species of elephant / gnu / albatross among the millions of unknowns, and that most of these species are bacteria / mushrooms / viri and the like), then we are quite well able to make reasonable predictions about the state of biodiversity as a whole. We're well able to make predictions about the laws of gravity without travelling to every corner of the galaxy.

Also, another confoundment, is that the diversity of biodiversity is reducing. What I mean is' 100 extra species of cockroach do not match the diversity of the bengal tiger, mountain gorilla, spiny ptarmigan, loofah backed Tapir etc. (And I'm not talking about their fluffiness as creatures, but about the genuine diversity of the species on this lump.)

ooops!

> Cheeky minx!

I wish! Thankfully these pages' purple hue masks my blushes.

> Also, another confoundment, is that the diversity of biodiversity is
reducing.

Oh don't start that. The only honest measure of biodiversity is at the level of the genome...

I think we need a new argument

Surely you can look at the diversity of higher structures (I'm afraid I don't know all the names), but of your order, family and the like?