If they tasted any good... we'd be making sure that they stuck around.

THIS JUST IN! Over 99% of all species that EVER LIVED are extinct! EVERYBODY PANIC!

If only the mosquito were on the list.

headline made me lol. thank you subby


/needed that

Are human's still ok? If so, I'm ok with this news.

Next to these guys:



There is some room....




Saturday is going to be awesome

4th of july:


and a few racks of ribs.

Bacon-wrapped shrimp GOOD!

fifthhorseman: Bacon-wrapped shrimp GOOD!

Actually they are bacon wrapped meatballs and bacon wrapped jalapenos (with cream cheese)

UNC_Samurai: If only the mosquito were on the list.

Mosquitos are actually quite important to the ecosystem

So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?

MAKE THAT 17,000 + 1

benlonghair: THIS JUST IN! Over 99% of all species that EVER LIVED are extinct! EVERYBODY PANIC!


This argument has always puzzled me. It's like trying to justify mass murder since 90% of people that have EVER LIVED have died.

The circumstances, causes, and effects of the current mass extinction (not to mention the unprecedented rate) differentiate it from previous events.

Damnhippyfreak: This argument has always puzzled me. It's like trying to justify mass murder since 90% of people that have EVER LIVED have died.

IT always reminds me of the smokers who say "we're all gonna die anyway!"

That's 17K fewer ways for Chinese men to try to make their little rice-dicks bigger.

EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?

NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?


It's a good question. I would say no for a couple of reasons. The most obvious one is that such selection pressures are very difficult to call 'natural'. Bulldozing a forest and paving it over, for example, is fundamentally different in scope, severity, and effect than any non-anthropogenic disturbance.

Second, the reason for much of the biodiversity loss, as well as pushing species toward threatened or endangered status, is habitat loss. What we're replacing it with is fundamentally different, in terms of severely reduced heterogeneity on a landscape and structural level, as well as severely reduced or eliminated processes, from reduced material and energy flows to disturbance regimes. In short, we're not talking about clearing and opening new niches here, but essentially curtailing much of the process of natural selection entirely by degrading the quality and availability of habitat. While a few weedy, tolerant species can and do thrive, it still represents a severe reduction in not just interspecies but intraspecies biodiversity. The number as well as ecological function of new species that would arise from our more destructive actions would pale in comparison to what we would have destroyed (not to mention you would have to wait a heck of a long time). In short, by degrading or destroying habitat, we are removing or at best severely limiting the potential for natural selection.

A second point that is somewhat related to the first is that selection is 'fueled' by variation. Severe reductions in population also curtail 'natural' selection in the short term by reducing this available variation for selection to work upon (sometimes called a "bottleneck effect"). In addition, it would enhance the effect of stochastic processes (i.e. genetic drift). In short, not only do we limit the rate of future adaptation, but also run the risk of an outright maladaptive trait becoming fixed in the remaining population.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other arguments to be made. Just to keep in mind, because something works through the process of 'natural' selection does not mean it's a good thing.

Jon Snow: EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?

NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!


Yeah, what he said. Could have saved myself some typing.

CrankMyBlueSax: That's 17K fewer ways for Chinese men to try to make their little rice-dicks bigger.


That's not racist at all.

schattenteufel: That's not racist at all.

My troll-fu is weak.

Jon Snow: EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?

NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

That always assumes that we aren't a part of nature, a stance so many people seem to take for some reason. Why is it that if a human hunts something to extinction it's a bad thing, but if some other animal does it it's natural?

mmmmmm chicken-fried spotted owl with a side of foi panda

Tasty, tasty extinction.

Fragarach: Jon Snow: EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?

NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

That always assumes that we aren't a part of nature, a stance so many people seem to take for some reason. Why is it that if a human hunts something to extinction it's a bad thing, but if some other animal does it it's natural?


Good question. The most obvious difference is because we're talking about us and our own actions. We have a choice as to how we interact with the environment. We have the capability to observe what we're doing and make choices that are for the most part not just motivated by survival. Other species, not so much.

Second is that the scope and extent of what we can do at what time scale is very different from other species. We alone can choose whether we cause the extinction of not just one, but thousands of species, and we can choose whether we cause changes on a global level.

There are of course constraints and established patterns in our choices, but to call our own actions purely natural is to discount that we have any choices in the way we interact with the environment.

pass the bald eagle nuggets and whale gravy

Damnhippyfreak: EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?


It's a good question. I would say no for a couple of reasons. The most obvious one is that such selection pressures are very difficult to call 'natural'. Bulldozing a forest and paving it over, for example, is fundamentally different in scope, severity, and effect than any non-anthropogenic disturbance.

Second, the reason for much of the biodiversity loss, as well as pushing species toward threatened or endangered status, is habitat loss. What we're replacing it with is fundamentally different, in terms of severely reduced heterogeneity on a landscape and structural level, as well as severely reduced or eliminated processes, from reduced material and energy flows to disturbance regimes. In short, we're not talking about clearing and opening new niches here, but essentially curtailing much of the process of natural selection entirely by degrading the quality and availability of habitat. While a few weedy, tolerant species can and do thrive, it still represents a severe reduction in not just interspecies but intraspecies biodiversity. The number as well as ecological function of new species that would arise from our more destructive actions would pale in comparison to what we would have destroyed (not to mention you would have to wait a heck of a long time). In short, by degrading or destroying habitat, we are removing or at best severely limiting the potential for natural selection.

A second point that is somewhat related to the first is that selection is 'fueled' by variation. Severe reductions in population also curtail 'natural' selection in the short term by reducing this available variation for selection to work upon (sometimes called a "bottleneck effect"). In addition, it would enhance the effect of stochastic processes (i.e. genetic drift). In short, not only do we limit the rate of future adaptation, but also run the risk of an outright maladaptive trait becoming fixed in the remaining population.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other arguments to be made. Just to keep in mind, because something works through the process of 'natural' selection does not mean it's a good thing.

To paraphrase, Polio is natural and organic. Nothing more natural than crippled kids. Vaccine? That's unnatural. Natural is not a value judgment.

TopoGigo: To paraphrase, Polio is natural and organic. Nothing more natural than crippled kids. Vaccine? That's unnatural. Natural is not a value judgment.


Well said.

Fragarach: That always assumes that we aren't a part of nature, a stance so many people seem to take for some reason. Why is it that if a human hunts something to extinction it's a bad thing, but if some other animal does it it's natural?

No, it's acknowledging that the scales and rates of change for some environmental perturbations are so vast as to exceed the "natural" aspect of natural selection. It has nothing to do with people per se- meteor strikes of sufficient scale also fall into this category.

Damnhippyfreak: Good question. The most obvious difference is because we're talking about us and our own actions. We have a choice as to how we interact with the environment. We have the capability to observe what we're doing and make choices that are for the most part not just motivated by survival. Other species, not so much.

As an 'environmentalist'-hating evil conservative, I completely agree with this statement. The word 'nature' is not really that relevant in this context.

I agree that we have multiple choices on the way we can impact the environment, and very little of it has to do with our actual survival. However, these choices are very important in our quality of life and standard of living. Everything you see and use has been ether mined, logged, or otherwise harvested and all of these extractive activities impact the environment, rarely in a positive manner. The choices we make concerning these activities should have a healthy debate on what benefit is garnered from the resource against what impact on the environment it will cause.

In the U.S., we have a huge advantage over most other countries since we have the technology and the wealth to greatly mitigate many of these environmental impacts. However, I belive that this seldom happens in reality. Many 'environmental' groups would rather use their money to abolish the practice of extracting these resources domestically rather than to put their money into mitigate their impacts. I believe that this is the wrong way to be an environmentalist because it just shifts the extraction of these resources to China, Peru or some other country that has a fraction of the environmental safeguards in place.

There are those in the environmental community that do a good job and try to tackle these issues by pouring money and time into extractive technology R&D, recycling/reuse programs and technology, education and awareness programs, habitat restoration programs and the like. However, they seem to be far outnumbered by the 'litigate first and ask questions later' or 'issue misguided and inaccurate fearmongering PSA' crowd.

/of course the issues of suburban/urban sprawl and population growth are another facet of this issue which have a slightly different flavor than the arguments provided above.

TopoGigo: Damnhippyfreak: EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!

Isn't that what natural selection is all about?


It's a good question. I would say no for a couple of reasons. The most obvious one is that such selection pressures are very difficult to call 'natural'. Bulldozing a forest and paving it over, for example, is fundamentally different in scope, severity, and effect than any non-anthropogenic disturbance.

Second, the reason for much of the biodiversity loss, as well as pushing species toward threatened or endangered status, is habitat loss. What we're replacing it with is fundamentally different, in terms of severely reduced heterogeneity on a landscape and structural level, as well as severely reduced or eliminated processes, from reduced material and energy flows to disturbance regimes. In short, we're not talking about clearing and opening new niches here, but essentially curtailing much of the process of natural selection entirely by degrading the quality and availability of habitat. While a few weedy, tolerant species can and do thrive, it still represents a severe reduction in not just interspecies but intraspecies biodiversity. The number as well as ecological function of new species that would arise from our more destructive actions would pale in comparison to what we would have destroyed (not to mention you would have to wait a heck of a long time). In short, by degrading or destroying habitat, we are removing or at best severely limiting the potential for natural selection.

A second point that is somewhat related to the first is that selection is 'fueled' by variation. Severe reductions in population also curtail 'natural' selection in the short term by reducing this available variation for selection to work upon (sometimes called a "bottleneck effect"). In addition, it would enhance the effect of stochastic processes (i.e. genetic drift). In short, not only do we limit the rate of future adaptation, but also run the risk of an outright maladaptive trait becoming fixed in the remaining population.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other arguments to be made. Just to keep in mind, because something works through the process of 'natural' selection does not mean it's a good thing.

To paraphrase, Polio is natural and organic. Nothing more natural than crippled kids. Vaccine? That's unnatural. Natural is not a value judgment.

Humans > unwanted virus, therefore we stomp it out with vaccine. Still natural because as previously stated humans, for better or worse, are part of nature.

Jon Snow: No, it's acknowledging that the scales and rates of change for some environmental perturbations are so vast as to exceed the "natural" aspect of natural selection.

I don't know if I agree with that (if I am understanding correctly). Mother Nature has a way of showing off every once in a while and the amount of habitiat destruction and environmental pertubation can be huge. I do agree that this should not be license to give us free reign to do what ever we want.

Yes, it can be argued that we are a part of nature, just like everything else, but yet we need to ensure that our decisions do take into account the impacts we impart on the environment. Being good stewards can be natural, too. Most people can easily agree on that. Sadly when you start debating the best way to accomplish this goal, things start to come apart. Generally, there are no easy answers.

17,000 species threatened with extinction.

All right, you species. Straighten up and fly right, or else!

the strong must kill the weak so the weak don't carry their pussy traits on to the next generation.

that is why the republicans, for example, got their chicken choked last nov. 4.

benlonghair: THIS JUST IN! Over 99% of all species that EVER LIVED are extinct! EVERYBODY PANIC!

that is a fact. hopefully, we can make it 99.9 with the elimination of the Republicans and their GOP.

HeadLever: I don't know if I agree with that (if I am understanding correctly). Mother Nature has a way of showing off every once in a while and the amount of habitiat destruction and environmental pertubation can be huge. I do agree that this should not be license to give us free reign to do what ever we want.

My point was that, in terms of evolutionary adaptability to an environment, natural selection works on multigenerational timescales. There exist sufficient environmental perturbations which occur so fast and on such vast spatial scales as to render the normal concept of natural selection moot, resulting in indiscriminant or nearly indiscriminant extinctions.

It's a common misunderstanding to confuse natural selection with general species survivability/mortality, but they are not always, and indeed often are not, the same thing.

HeadLever: Sadly when you start debating the best way to accomplish this goal, things start to come apart. Generally, there are no easy answers.

That's because there is no 'best way' answer. The concept of 'good steward' and what is 'natural' is all perspective. Humans try to follow some arbitrary line that isn't there. Just because we have the ability to think we are somehow outside the natural system doesn't mean we are.

EdVenture: So let them go extinct. If they can't hack it, out they go!
Isn't that what natural selection is all about?

The downside is that reduction in biodiversity increases humanity's chance of extinction; and, in evolutionary terms, if our species is damnfool enough to keep wanting more bullets in the cosmic game of Russian Roulette, then in short order out we go.

My money is on the ants getting the next turn at the plate.

Linux_Yes: the strong well-socialized must band together and kill the weak xenophobic individualists so the weak xenophobic individualists don't carry their pussy traits on to the next generation.

FTFY?

Jon Snow: There exist sufficient environmental perturbations which occur so fast and on such vast spatial scales as to render the normal concept of natural selection moot, resulting in indiscriminant or nearly indiscriminant extinctions.

Chance favors the prepared mind. - Louis Pasteur

"We don't want to make a choice between nature and the economy; we just want to bring nature to the same level when you have to take a decision"

ROFL

If they are going to be extinct anyway, can we sell the last few to some hugely rich Chinese guy with a tiny limp dick for a billion dollars so he can eat them?

Damnhippyfreak: It's a good question. I would say no for a couple of reasons. The most obvious one is that such selection pressures are very difficult to call 'natural'. Bulldozing a forest and paving it over, for example, is fundamentally different in scope, severity, and effect than any non-anthropogenic disturbance.

You can still call it "natural" within a different context.

In terms of "natural selection" (which is oddly cited ONLY in this case by right-wing dittoheads who otherwise don't believe in it) I don't necessarily draw the line between "man" and "others". We evolved from nature, and we're still part of it. Think our changes were major? Heck, a couple billion years ago some microorganism so thoroughly dominated the ecosystem they transformed the atmosphere from CO2 to O2. Only problem for them is that they were anaerobic microbial mats. Need CO2 to breathe, hate O2.

Oops.

They literally breathed themselves to near-extinction in what is referred to as the "Oxygen Catastrophe" and never -- NEVER -- recovered. Now they're only found in deep swamps. So you see, being an overwhelmingly dominant species that farks up the entire planet isn't such a good thing for the top dog.

And that's the problem. I don't necessarily advocate spending tens of millions of dollars to breed the last few survivors of a species, but as Damnhippyfreak explained correctly, a lot of species are dying out because of habitat loss. Now, I could roll out the "sooner or later we'll pay for it" line, but here's where the idiotic dittoheads retort, "Well, I'll be dead so I don't give a fark."

We're ALREADY paying for it. We pay for bottled water because we don't trust water quality, which kills fish. Here in Ohio we need sump pumps because with all the forests cut down and either paved or turned to corn fields, there's little ground available to soak up floodwaters -- and little forest also means nowhere for many animals to live. Invasive species cause billions of dollars in damage everywhere. Tourist spots struggle to keep trash out and famous species from getting wiped out. The Iriomote cat is considered a "national treasure" by Japan (which is big on national treasures) and found only on Iriomote Island, but there are less than 100 left. If they die out, well, there goes one big reason to ever bother visiting the place. For a small island economy, a bad blow to tourism (and local pride) isn't something to just laugh off.

Species extinction isn't a problem. It's a symptom, and the fact that it keeps happening is a very serious sign that we're doing something very wrong, and it's only getting worse. We've got a long way to go before human extinction, but it's not a pleasant trip. So, really, why the fark are we so damn eager to keep going full throttle in the "maximum misery" direction? Probably because it's so easy and fun being a dumbass that few people bother to wonder how their wasteful habits and shiatty communities are connected. People here in Ohio fully admit it's a damn ugly and miserable state, but they're also among the most hardcore anti-environmental Hummer-driving suburbia McMansion yuppies on the planet. They're fully incapable of putting two and two together.

Or in this case, delicious pizza topping.


//Came here for anchovies reference -- dissappointed, has to do everything myself.

Stavr0: //Came here for anchovies reference -- dissappointed, has to do everything myself.

I came here for the Komodo dragon song reference.

Furious_Chicken: That's because there is no 'best way' answer. The concept of 'good steward' and what is 'natural' is all perspective. Humans try to follow some arbitrary line that isn't there. Just because we have the ability to think we are somehow outside the natural system doesn't mean we are.

Not only that but the very definitions of benifit and impact cannot be quantified into simmliar demonimations. Placing a dollar amount on an environmenatl impact is entirely subjective.

dragonchild: So, really, why the fark are we so damn eager to keep going full throttle in the "maximum misery" direction?

Because turning back would require sacrifices the most would not be willing to make. I agree that there are some very simple things that could be done to help a great deal. However, if we were to fully turn around and go back the 'other way' -if you will- the requirements for such an action would not be acceptable to most.

It is pretty easy to say that we need to stop. Quite another thing to pull it off.

"Climate change is not now the main threat to biodiversity but that could change, the report said."


This guy just does not understand how science works. He was just two lines away from a big government grant and then he had to go and tell the truth.

Darwinism at work.