What is Digg?89 Comments
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -0/+22There are no humans without biodiversity.
Remove insect eating species, let insects who eat our crops expand exponentially, and we all starve to death.
No bees? No pollination. No pollination, no food. We're not gods, we depend on everything around us to survive.
And all the things we depend on depend on everything around them to survive.
If we don't start controlling humanity willingly, necessity will force us to wage war against each other for the ressources that are left.
But hey, this is old news. People simply don't accept it. - AlwaysAwake, on 05/17/2008, -5/+24Something is clearly happening. If we can leave our video games, and gawking at Britney Spears for awhile, and pay attention, perhaps we can learn more about it.
- ryancawdor, on 05/17/2008, -3/+15"Decimation" = 1 in 10
"Obliteration" is a better choice here. - jimmy17, on 05/17/2008, -0/+9Sigh, this is getting boring people. Like it or not evolution is a proven FACT. End of story.
- WordsnCollision, on 05/17/2008, -9/+18The other side of the coin is that after each of the great historic extinctions, life bounced back with a vengeance. Given, humans may be driving species to extinction - life will adapt, however, and a variety of "human proof" species will spring up to fill the gaps. This might not be a good thing for the humans...
- marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -0/+7If you start with ten apples and every minute you lose 2 apples but I give you one apple in return, are you:
A) Gaining apples
B) Maintaining apples
C) Losing apples - inactive, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6That doesn't contradict evolution in the least bit.
"Even IF inanimate material could come from nothing"
You make a great argument against the existence of God. - neofreakiii, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Yes ironic isn't it, we there are so many species we haven't found and yet we may have already drove them to extinction.
- CaptainCool53, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Something will get done because something HAS to get done. It's pretty simple. Either we begin following the laws of nature again, or nature gets rid of us. Either way, it's not the environment I'm concerned most about; it's us.
- marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Not much of an armchair anthropologist, are you?
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6I wish more people got that. "Eco freaks" aren't in it for the planet - the planet's tough, she can take a much greater beating than we could ever hope to inflict. It's us that are screwed - it really wouldn't take much at all to wipe us out. I mean, the human race could literally be obliterated with the press of a button, thanks to our nuclear stockpiles. And yet, for some reason, people wanna keep pretending that we can't hurt ourselves.
- Orion1004, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5Harvard's EO Wilson thinks mass species extinction this century will be worse than the effect of global warming on the planet.
- 3leggedHorse, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4 A warming planet, Lizards return to the throne. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/406307977/
- offspring06, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5Take off the blinders. Humans rely on other species to live.
- hiPpymIck, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3also
correct me if im wrong..
dont they mean numbers within each species
NOT
numbers of species
i saw the same mistake on the BBC story but theyve since put it right - so i guess it was a badly worded press release
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7403989.stm - franksalvo, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3I like to look at these results as a sort of barometer. A doom barometer.
- neofreakiii, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4The problem is how long does it take for life to bounce back. We humans may be killing off species way too fast for life to adapt. By the time, life adapts, it may be too late.
- CaptainCool53, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5Or humans will go extinct.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3We are going to change our way of life in the next few decades. We have no other choice. If we don't do so voluntarily, then the changes will be forced on us. There is no way for 10 billion people in the world to all live in the suburbs and drive their SUV's to the mall. Not without killing off every native plant and animal on earth.
- loggedout, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5it's not called "human nature" for nothing..
but in all seriousness no matter how much environmentalists gripe, nothing significant will ever get done. too many people don't care to give the time to solve the problems. - MachtSpass, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3They will . . . as soon as it affects them personally or they have something personal to gain from it... Selfish, greediness: it's the human way.....! . . . Oh, and immediate gratification.
- Szandor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Guess some missed the /s tag.
- Szandor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I haven't gawked at Britney Spears since 2004.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2We aren't smart enough to replicate natural systems with technology. Maybe if we went slowly and took a few hundred years we could figure it out. But we don't have that much time.
- DaLukeMan, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4It's in our nature to ***** ***** up.
- hendrixiloveyou, on 05/17/2008, -0/+265 BILLION YEARS AGO !
- positron, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2cjmal, meet fossil record.
- prometheanspark, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2When the dinosaurs went extinct, 98% of the major land animals went extinct. That is NOT happening now. The species we're losing are mostly minor species that are already on the brink of extinction. For the most part we're just pushing species over the edge that already had their toes on it.
Also, just because an area loses 'biodiversity' doesn't mean that anything went extinct. Just that it isn't in that area anymore. Mountain lions used to live throughout the US, but now they're limited to the northwest. They're not even close to endangered, but because they don't live in virginia anymore, virginia has had a loss of 'biodiversity'.
Similarly, cities and suburbs have a near 100% loss in 'native biodiversity', but though the native lifeforms are mostly gone (a few trees, bushes, squirrels and weeds stay), we put in other plants and animals to make up for it. They're just different plants and animals - but that's not a sign of impending doom for the earth. Unlike environmentalists, nature doesn't care if a plant is native or not, just that it sucks up CO2, produces oxygen, enhances the soil and produces food for some other creature. Suburbia has much more plant biodiversity than wild habitat, just it doesn't count because people put them there.
If you cut down a wild tree and replace it with an apple tree, the folks who wrote that article consider it to be the same as if you pave it over with concrete. That's not the same thing, though, and frankly that's misleading. - Szandor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2That might be the dumbest comment I've ever seen on Digg, unless you were being humorous; in which case I give you kudos.
- CaptainCool53, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2You should check out 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn. He answers why "for some reason, people wanna keep pretending that we can't hurt ourselves," among other things. It's a great read.
- hairydotus, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Yes you are correct, the point however that people are making is that this evolution and extinction does not have to occur. It could be stopped or at least slowed by a change in human activiity that is damaging the planet. No species damages the planet or the creatures that live on it except parasites. All other animals work in harmony
- hairydotus, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I completely agree with that. Nobody realizes how important animals are to are survival. they control pests, pollinate our fruit plants, every animals works in balance so no one gets too powerful or too overpopulated but this extinction could throw that off.
- CaptainCool53, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1How? Last I heard, you can't make something out of nothing.
- hairydotus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I agree with 99% of what you are saying, they only thing I cannot agree with is that you said that most species that are going extinct are highly specialized and while this may be true to some extent although not completely, look at large predators such as sharks, tigers, panthers, wolves, tuna, cod etc. These animals are not highly specialized and can survive if one food source disappears or if their habitat changes, simply look at sharks they have been on this planet since before dinosaurs roamed the earth so why are their numbers are declining so rapidly now. It isn't because they are not fit for survival it is because they are being over hunted for mostly unneeded reasons. And to go back to your comment about highly specialized species being the ones that are dying off that has a lot to do with deforestation and loss of habitat. We can look at Madagascar for a perfect example. Madagascar is home to some of the most specialized species on the planet. Lizards so specialized that their camouflage depends on a specific tree for them to hide. These animals are going extinct because they are losing their habitat, not because of a natural climate shift or natural disaster but because of human destruction. Less than 10% of Madagascar's original natural habitat still exists. Forests have been cleared to farm, and grow things like coffee.
While I do agree that highly specialized species have a much smaller chance for survival in a changing world, we need to ask ourselves why is the world changing and I am not speaking simply about climate change and global warming. I am talking about rapid habitat loss due to deforestation and rapid urbanization of many parts of the world. I understand that it is nearly impossible to solve the increasing human population problem but it is a problem none the less that needs addressing.
To end my comment however I would like to address what I believe is the largest problem facing animals in todays world. And that is poaching and illegal animal trade. Many of todays seriously threatened species, species that could be extinct in the next decade or less are not dying of natural causes. They are being pulled from their environment and either being sold for their skins (tigers) or being sold as exotic pets. And many people like to believe that most of these problems happen only in places like thailand and other nations in south east asia. People in the States are just as much at blame because wealthy americans are many times the customers. - angryredplanet, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I digg down all political comments regardless of sarcasm. Consider it a pet indulgence.
- CaptainCool53, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Humans can do whatever they want with their minds. The fact will still remain, we are completely dependent on Earth's ecosystem. I just read somewhere (can't remember what magazine) that every third bite of food in the US is dependent on bees pollinating plants.
Our reality may be virtual in a hundred years, but an ecosystem collapse is an ecosystem collapse, and whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, we're headed for one, and it'll be devastating. - CaptainCool53, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Dugg.
For everybody else: Our culture (the one that ***** ***** up) is about 6 thousand years old. Humans (***** sapiens) are 200,000 years old. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In just 6,000 years, we've managed the first ever man-made mass extinction in 200,000 years of existence, and the sixth ever mass extinction in 4.5 billion years. And we're not even operating at full *****-*****-up capacity. We have to wake up and realize what we're doing to ourselves, before it's too late (no cliche intended). - monoa, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2It's this kind of half-informed commentary that validates all the other idiots.
Yes, there have been other, natural mass extinctions and the planet's biodiversity has recovered - over the course of *millions* of years. That does not give humans an excuse to ***** the planet over by driving around in a 5 litre SUV or hopping on a plane any time you feel like it.
"life, so incredibly resilient, has always recovered (though after long lags) after major extinction spasms, it is only after whatever has caused the extinction event has dissipated. That cause, in the case of the Sixth Extinction, is ourselves — ***** sapiens. This means we can continue on the path to our own extinction, or, preferably, we modify our behavior toward the global ecosystem of which we are still very much a part. The latter must happen before the Sixth Extinction can be declared over, and life can once again rebound." - http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldre ... - blast_flame, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Maybe for now but that will change.
- Envark, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Speak for yourself, Captain.
I do not intend to be at nature's whim. - blast_flame, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1So a million years from now when humanity has uploaded their minds to a self replicating nanite swarm, living their lives in virtual reality paradise but they will still be at the whims of nature? How does that work?
- hairydotus, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1we do know of extinction rates in the past. They know about animals that went extinct during ice ages because there were a lot. It is just that A. the dinasoaur extinction was huge and so is this. B. natural cycles of earth didn't kill of dinasaours an asteroid did and Human's are destroying the animals this time. Both of which are natural in the sense that everything is natural but they are artificial because they are atypical and not part of the natural cycle of the planet
- CaptainCool53, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1If you meant that our heading for an ecosystem collapse will change, I hope you're right. But saying it'll change and actually changing are two very different things.
If you meant the effect of such a collapse won't be devastating, then my above post still applies. - CaptainCool53, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Let me know how that turns out.
- jbenson2, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Some past cases:
"Are you telling me I can't build my Burger King because a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly that has never been seen and is above ground only a few days a year might be near-by?" YES
"I can't build a connector road because the noise from construction might damage the hearing of the Stephens' kangaroo rat thus impairing its reproduction?" YES
"All construction in San Diego involving impacts to road ruts which might contain Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp is enjoined? All construction?" YES
The Polar Bear listing is worse than any of these examples, because it will affect all businesses that require Federal licensing or approval.
Test cases should be brought by industry that argue that various federal permits --import/export permits, private jet landing permits, conservation banking permits-- all have greenhouse gas impacts, no matter how small, and thus that they must be subject to Section 7 review.
I would love to see industry go after the Hollywood PRIVATE JET INDUSTRY. Oh, how the effete liberal snobs would react. It would be positively wonderful! - hmunkey, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but not all of that ***** has a disastrous potential.
- mstrebe, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Life on earth will always find equilibrium. If humans refuse to change their ways, eventually some man-made catastrophe will cause 90% of them to die off, and the earth will return to wild, with a sustainable number of humans who have survived because of their superior adaptability or beneficial location.
That's why I'm not worried. -
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is