Our Dissapearing Wildlife.

[peter]

I think this short article is worth quoting in it's entierity just to see what people make of it. On the face of it the content is frightening in the extreme - but am I missing something here......

Climate change and rarampant human consumption have led to massive habitat loss in the past 40 years - as a result of which the worlds wildlife population is less than half the size it was in the 1970's. The number of vertibrates is down 52% according to new research, and biodiversity loss has reached "critical levels".
Freshwater fish have been particularly hard hit, down 76% since 1974, says the 'Living Planet Report' by the conservation group WWF. "The scale of the destuction should act as a wake-up call to all of us," warned David Nussbaum, chief-executive of WWF-UK.
Humans, he added, are cutting down trees faster than they can re-grow, over-fishing the worlds oceans, pumping rivers and aquifers dry and emmiting more carbon than can be absorbed. Wildlife decline in the UK has not been as steep as in other developed countries, but only because so much damage had already been done by the 1970's. The report notes, for instance, that of our chalk-streams, only 26% can support a vibrant ecosystem.

[The Week magazine, issue 992, 11-10-14]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Alarmist article is alarmist.

What if wildlife decline in the UK wasn't as steep because the wildlife there aren't in the middle of a mass extinction? The article claims that the not-so-steep decline is because too much damage was done in the 1970s but where is the proof of that? It could be equally true that the wildlife are doing just fine and there is no reason to be concerned.

If the conservation group WWF is concerned about humans cutting down trees faster than they can regrow then they should be in Brazil, where slash-and-burn agriculture has been going on for quite some time.

Truthfully, I am more concerned about people still killing each other in mass numbers over stupid things like "this is our town" or "they shot at us first" rather than animals dying off. Any area which becomes devoid of human activity sees the return of wildlife very quickly--they'll be fine.

[Zarathustra]

The earth is a sinking ship. We have to find and reach more "earths."

I think it's foolish to think we'll be able to preserve the earth the way it is. Sure, we'll reach an equilibrium eventually, but only with much more advanced technology. Until then, we could easily suffer global disasters from super volcanoes, asteroids, pandemics, nuclear war, etc. that will make anything happening today look like Utopia. We've got to go as fast as possible developing our economies and our science/technology, because we're racing against a much graver clock than disappearing wildlife or climate or whatever.

It might be smart to archive as much genetic biodiversity as possible, so that we replicate it later elsewhere, or even here after we pass this tumultuous stage of transitioning to a global civilization. But the worst disasters humans (or any life on earth) can face will only be solved by wealth and knowledge. We should not act like we have the luxury of another century. Billions of years of evolution could end tomorrow, and as far as we know, something unique could pass from the universe. This is our greatest calling--there can be none greater--to extend what began here to other worlds where it cannot be wiped out in a single stroke.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

On the one hand you sound a little like Ozymandias. On the other hand you are absolutely correct. If Yellowstone were to erupt the United States as we know it would cease to exist. A 5-km asteroid impact would cause the entire world as we know it to cease to exist.

[Avatar]

Yeah, I actually agree with Z at least mostly about it. Almost every animal that has ever lived on earth since life began is now extinct. So it happens.

Don't much like the thought of losing what we have. But he's still right.

--A

[peter]

The idea of a 'species bank' where DNA of defunct types is retained for future regeneration projects has a sort of Jurrasic park appeal to it, but one wonders if the preservation of 'failed' species today isn't just saving them up for failure again tomorrow. Our current atempts at species reintroduction tend [by the Law of Uninteded Consequenses] to have illustrated singally how little we really understand about the nuances and fine-tuning of ecological balance [even on a small scale], so I'm thinking that the saving of such species would be unlikely to be of true use, exept for their preservation as 'circus exhibits' in some future theme park. [This is however, not to say that I believe the attempt should not be made.]

As a 'country-boy' at heart, and a pentagenarian, I remember the word of the seventies [with no little affection] and the idea of a world without the mighty Bengal Tiger [not to mention the Golden Toad of Monteverde] fills me with sadness. Still, what will be will be and as Z, says - we have challenges of our own to meet [and who knows what wonders we will be capable off when push comes to shove!]

[Ananda]

On the one hand you sound a little like Ozymandias.

I thought that, too. Or describing a virus.

I think we will be more like Ozy, though, and five million years from now, the emerging hive mind will be finding ancient ruins of plastics and steel under the soil and using it as nesting material.

The idea of impermanence doesn't bother me at all. However, we should probably make a strong effort to not destroy all other lifeforms before we also die.