digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at guardian.co.uk

Wildlife Extinction May be 100 Times Faster Than We Thought

guardian.co.uk — Endangered species may become extinct 100 times faster than previously thought, scientists warned today, in a bleak re-assessment of the threat to global biodiversity. Leading ecologists claim that methods used to predict when species will die out are seriously flawed, and dramatically underestimate the speed at which plants/animals will be extinct

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tribunis, on 07/02/2008, -12/+5I blame Al Gore
    • FirEnRain432, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0i didnt understand the movie "Wanted" but angelina jolie's ass was hot in that one scene

      oh yeah, just wondering, would you rather have a War on Terror or a War against ManBearPig?
    • arpad, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1"May be 100 times faster"? Geez, that's degree of certainty you can take to the bank.
  • yragrelluf, on 07/04/2008, -10/+2Yeah me too. He should have invented the internet sooner so that he could spread his global warming banter a few decades earlier.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1The Goracle tried to invent the internet sooner, but eeeevil Republicans prevented him from doing so by stealing his money, hurting children, killing puppies, and destroying the environment.

      /Typical liberal emotion-based nonsense on Digg
    • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3You know Al Gore was actually part of a committee that helped fund the creation of the ARPANet. So it's at least partially true that he helped create the internet.
  • JimmySpaza, on 07/04/2008, -12/+3And in other news...leftwing newspaper and website extinction may be 100 times faster than we thought.

    All the big names in liberal news are taking hits on circulation, cutting jobs, and rethinking their strategies. Maybe it's because people just don't trust their propaganda any more. Isn't that right, leftwing wacko Guardian?
    • Scruffydan, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6I guess you couldn't be bothered to check the source:
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7200/fu ...
    • monoa, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4And again we see Jimmy The Tool pigeon-holing everything in to ideological colors of his own choosing in order to make the world a simple place for him. Right and left, good and bad, Jesus-lovers and sinners.

      The phrase "dumb as ape *****", has just popped in to my head. Wonder why?
      • JimmySpaza, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1"The phrase "dumb as ape *****", has just popped in to my head. Wonder why?"

        Self-loathing is a bad thing, sweetie.
  • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -10/+4In my defense, I have found them all rather tasty.
  • donttaseme, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5all the wildlife I have ever seen was on television, especially PBS and Discovery Channel. Preserve those clips, because I stare a a monitor all day anyways. I don't know anyone personally that goes out and looks for wildlife to experience. I doubt all you diggers go to the zoo
    • Scruffydan, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8the real important critters are the ones no one (but biologists) care about. Stuff like fungus bacteria and insects are far more important than the big majestic vertebrates that get all the attention.
    • pauliusuza, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Zoo is not wildlife
  • SundayBrunch, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2***** the wildlife. they should do the same thing to it like what they did in alaska, drill the wildlife.
  • Badandy127, on 07/04/2008, -8/+1Let me guess:

    t3h globle warming?
  • shithitinthefan, on 07/04/2008, -8/+1Oh well, I guess this means that all living organisms went extinct 5 years ago.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10Things are even more bleak when you realize genetic erosion happens faster than new genes are mutated. We may see stupid things like fish that are smaller because they slip through nets easier. People are saying that fish are "hyper evolving" because they're getting scarce and there are less genes to go around. They're partly right, more exotic genes are being expressed but that is because there is less genetic diversity. But they're not gaining new genes so it isn't like it is a positive sum evolution.

    It is more like things are working their way down to be like the cheetah which almost has no gene pool. It isn't a positive evolution to be leaking from your gene pool with man on the scene. What is a boon for a species one day may be its bane the next as we do all sorts of strange and dumb things to the environment.
  • angrynorwegian, on 07/04/2008, -8/+3so?
  • fuse13, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1oh my, the comments. scientific claims like this need to be filtered, first for the press who tend to asess things according to hit metrics. secondly, are the sources reputable? thirdly, are the claims valid... is this good science?

    those who dont "believe" in climate change need to understand that while science is as fallible as man, science has done some amazing things. the atomic bomb was an example of where the most unbelieveable of theories was brought to horrendous fruition. if they can predict that some tiny things called "atoms" can create a most destructive force of unimaginable scale, then we need to listen when they predict bad things. science has earned the right for us to take them serously. i mean, we have managed to get to the moon.

    i am seriously worried they might be right. im not sure, but nobody can be. the certainty and mocking of the vocal anti crowd on the internet strike me as rather decided already. i dont trust people who have certainty in real estate prices, let alone people who are certain about a massive conspiracy to bilk grant money by fooling the world.

    they might be wrong. but many people seem afraid to even admit they might be right.
  • kevdotbadger, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2...or it could still be the original figure.
  • elindell, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Whatever happens, let's at least save the bees, ok? I watched this PBS doc "silence of the bees", and this Chinese town managed to kill off their bee population with pesticides. So these farmers had to hand-pollinate all the pear trees; every single blossom... If you like fruit, we need bees; we need what the bees need too, and so on down the chain.
    • Rudegar, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2not just fruit also corn and grain and other plants
    • petrodollar, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Can't we just replace the bees with chinamen?
  • tama00, on 07/04/2008, -4/+6omg im sick of these 'maybes' in articles. Seriously give me some FACTS not just some undergraduate from uni who learnt how to use a calculator for the first time and test sampled some ants he found while he was eating lunch and published an article with scare tatics so everyone would read it to cash in on his adsense to buy lunch the next day.

    jeez. did i just write all that..
  • C02Charlie, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2Welcome to the next big scare tactic designed to line the pockets of researchers and bureaucrats with money while separating it from the suckers who will actually believe this swill.
  • iPoul, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2Evolution.
  • fearlessfx, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Well, i don't really spend that much time thinking about extinction so I can't really quantify how fast I had previously thought extinction was occuring, and as such, 100 times nothing is still nothing, so... I guess extinction isn't a problem.
  • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Can I ask a dumb question? And I mean this sincerely, I'm not a creationist and I'm not trying to bait anyone.

    If the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution says that organisms will evolve in response to pressure and crisis, why is it that all the other animals are just up and kicking the bucket? Shouldn't at least some of them be adapting to counter the threat of human beings?
    • wexmajor, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Some of them are. Like foxes and raccoons and pigeons. Who ever said that all of them were failing to adapt?
  • orchidee2, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Sometimes, one might really think that our planet would be better off without us!
  • dtfinch, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I hate weasel words.
  • mderbyshire, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Just as the great George Carlin said, we are all concerned about saving something, when we can't even take care of ourselves. The Earth - left to it's own devices, at least - can quite happily take care of itself. Therefor, any serious problems we encounter are likely as a result of our own "fine" and overly mass species. Lets not naively try to rectify each particular negative situation that arises as a result of the greater problem here, then - the fact that we are a destructive and over-populuated species that cannot co-exist with other the rest of nature. If we fix ourselves, and stop this putting up the constant battle with the planet and the natural forces of nature, perhaps things would run a lot more smoothly, and then we can spend more time enjoying life, each other, and all the other wonders of the world, rather than trying to fight losing battles using the wrong methods.

    At the same time, if - and there is indeed a definite possibility - the issues of global warming and the mass extinction of wildlife (assuming these are related) are not as a direct result of ourselves, then lets back the hell off anyway. We would be fighting another losing battle in the midst of a naturally reoccuring cycle of climate change. Let them go gracefully, and when our time is up (which it inevitably will be), we can at least try to do the same.
  • EEdesigner, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1No use trying to present cogent arguments anymore. This is the Guardian. As someone who went to grad school in the UK, know this: lib arts majors read the Guardian. Science types read the Times. You want lib art science, go ahead and believe that paper.
    • B3000, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Um, regardless of The Guardians readership the article is quoting from Nature wich is respected scientific journal... which is read by actual scientists, not just "science types"
  • JPJones, on 07/04/2008, -2/+0Good, then maybe our time is coming sooner than we think.
  • B3000, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2"More than 16,000 species worldwide are currently threatened with extinction, according to a 2007 report from the IUCN. One in four mammal species, one in eight bird species and one in three amphibian species are on the organisation's red list."

    Holy ***** that's a lot of endangered animals.
  • HubbertWins, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1As long as it is insects, I am cool with it. Frickin hate bugs.
  • DiggStarFleet, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I think it's true that animal extinction is happening faster than we thought. I remember reading in Livescience about some reptile producing more males than females because of global warming. While most reptiles produce females when it's hot, this particular reptile does the opposite which threatens its existence.
  • balilanai, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Instead of just clicking DIGG, think about your choices the next time you order sea food.
  • phreak79, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1It worries me that we may one day reach a kind of tipping point and set off a huge chain reaction of extinctions.
  • beauley, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Will the world ever become cleaner, our air, oceans and streams less polluted ? Will man with his past great accomplishments find a way to reverse what it has exhausted into our ecosystem ?
    http://www.socyberty.com/Issues/We-Live-In-A-Pollu ...
    We live In A Polluted World
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.