What is Digg?88 Comments
- Murdats, on 07/29/2008, -3/+33yes it does happen naturally, but not in the numbers it is currently happening in, we are in a extinction level event, maybe something to do with cutting down half of the worlds largest rainforest and paving a large percentage of the world.
producing large clouds of pollution all over the place cant help and then add to that the fact that all the largest creatures are being hunted to extinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_e ...
Significantly, the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth; - kevman459, on 07/28/2008, -2/+24I think it depends on whether or not human culture has made a direct impact on the species, for example building over their natural habitat.
- diggenerate, on 07/28/2008, -24/+46Does no one understand that plants and animals, live, die and eventually become extinct? This has been happening for millions of years and it is inevitable, saving one specie is utterly pointless.
- Codename, on 07/29/2008, -1/+14Has this plant considered Life Alert?
- LGod, on 07/28/2008, -5/+16Well, if it got you high then it would definitely not become extinct.
- dysfunction, on 07/29/2008, -0/+94rp4n3t: As the only species with the capability both to wreak such changes and to understand their consequences, I think we bear some responsibility.
- cor315, on 07/29/2008, -2/+11well seeing that it stopped growing seeds 43000 years ago, I doubt that we had anything to do with that. I think it's time to let go...
- ogore, on 07/29/2008, -0/+9Well the root rot that's killing the plants is an introduced fungus, if that makes a difference to your argument and it's not like it will take huge resources to save it, only a cutting.
Here's more info on the plant : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Lomatia - rz8472, on 07/29/2008, -1/+9and while we're at it, maybe we should order it Diabeetes testing materials from Liberty Medical Supplies.
- sockpuppets, on 07/29/2008, -0/+8http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q231/frickinawe ...
- JDove6, on 07/29/2008, -6/+14I'm no tree-hugger, but considering out blatant over-population is the cause for most of the lacking diversity in the wild now, we should take acts to preserve some of the species still left.
- cor315, on 07/29/2008, -2/+8I really don't think he's saying you're retarded for your explaination of plant cloning.
I think he's saying that you're retarded because you think other people would think that people cloned plants 80000 years ago.
Which is pretty retarded - Alth, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6Tasmanian here, I live less than five minute's drive from the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens. I never realised we had the world's oldest clone-reproduced plant in there :O
The Gardens have been having major problems with root rot for many years now, with large areas around trees roped off so you can't walk anywhere near the roots (apparently it spreads easily just by transferring the soil with your feet) so hopefully they're keeping the Lomatia indoors or well protected >.<
Hmm. I might have to make a trip there soon to see it before it dies out. Just because I can. - Dabaum, on 07/29/2008, -2/+8"The biophilia hypothesis suggests that there is an instinctive bond between human beings and other living systems."
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6And yet somehow fails at both.
- swatward, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6Is it just me or is everyone else on digg drunk or high right now?
- 4rp4n3t, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6"yes it does happen naturally, but not in the numbers it is currently happening"
Difficult to fathom, but *we* are a part of nature. We evolved from single celled organisms, the same way every other living thing on *our* planet did. Nothing we can do therefore can be described as 'unnatural'.
If we push our use of the Earth's natural resources too far, spew too much pollution into the atmosphere, *we* will be a species that becomes extinct. This, quite literally, wouldn't be the end of the World... - Dabaum, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5***** you COMMUNIST PIG!!!!!!!!!!1!
- da_bradler, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5What I'm wondering is normally when you look back in history at when the mass extinctions happen there is normally an explosion of new species that follow. What are the new species that are going to take the place of the ones we destroyed?
Not more evil black squirrels I hope. who knows in a couple thousand years we might luck out with nature creating something that can eat plastic drink acid and breath carbon. It certainly would never go hungry. - wonderbriefs, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5Ronny, you're from the US. Are you aware that Tasmania is not in the US?
- gyver, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3the description is backwards, cloning doesn't increase vulnerability to disease, it just doesn't allow for the creation of resistances to diseases.
- krAzykrAkr01, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3I vote retard.
- Alth, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3It's not like it takes a lot of money - and the Botanical Gardens have a society which regularly donates money from fundraisers etc. to assist with maintenance costs. With all the money we spend on football teams and golden handshakes for politicians, it's not like it's getting spent on anything better. Why not save 'an old bush'?
Oh, this only applies if you're Australian. If you're an American (with a /properly/ over-extended national budget), then RTFA :) - Nintendesert, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4You're retarded.
- BuzzFriendly, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2While I understand wanting to save something that old perhaps were trying to prevent the natural cycle of nature.
- nuprophet, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2for the nay sayers
"Why are these plants unable to sexually reproduce? Although this plant does produce flowers it has never produced fruit or seed. The reason for this is that the plant is a triploid. This means it has three sets of chromosomes instead of the normal two. This renders the plant sterile. Other Tasmanian species, L. tinctoria and L. polymorpha are diploid (two sets of chromosomes), as are other species of the genus and the subfamily to which it belongs. "
http://www.liquididea.com/2008/05/kings_lomatia_th ... - Gioleb, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Blame the "How to hallucinate naturally" article...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn1GaaLhz4g - Stalks, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Then by that very reckoning, we should do something about slowing down our wanten destruction on the world and save species from going extinct where we have had an unbearing effect on their lifespan. If only to save our own skin!
- krAzykrAkr01, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2You must be a republican fag, you GODDAMN NAZI!!!!!!!
- b1177, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Interesting how when its a cute live animal, like a dolphin or turtle, everyone is up in arms about it becoming extinct, but when its a plant its "evolution at work". Screw the sea turtle. Pigeons and Squirrels FTW.
- Eezyville, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2@ dysfunction
You seem to think that humans are special because we can consume alot of resources and change the landscape. Other animals can do this as well if you get enough of them, look at Australia. All life consume resources whether its plants animals or minerals. but usually there's a balance or that particular creature will be extinct. - dysfunction, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2ToiletGhost, can you cite any real evidence that the average Digger would be waiting in a bread line now if the government (I'm assuming American, because I'm from there, and possess that American arrogance) weren't intervening in the economy? I'm no libertarian, but to think Bush's little economic stimulus check is having that kind of effect is just silly.
- JDove6, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Not a plant...but the environment...can you read properly?
Without an environment there is no government or economy.
You do realize our government got us here in the first place don't you? - charlietuna, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Did I say that? We have a real rhetorical genius on our hands. Extinction of species reduces the diversity of biogenic compounds, an important source of pharmaceutical agents. Case in point Taxus from the Yew tree. Whether it is increasing, decreasing, bad or good is really not the issue, but I think you have a different agenda.
- Trace, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1They are probably using one of the failed dating methods such as carbon-14, potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium.
- krAzykrAkr01, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1"Oh man, I'm so high"
/Towlie - krAzykrAkr01, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Did you REALLY think that was worth posting twice?
- Trace, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1A creationist, such as myself, would ask how did they date this plant? Someone in this article just throws a number out there and you are apparently just assuming it is true.
- smurfsahoy, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Why is this plant more worth encouraging than the fungus?
It looks to me like it boils down to it being more interesting for humans to read about. There's a bang-up reason to toy with evolution if ever I've heard one. - sockpuppets, on 07/29/2008, -2/+3***** you, two of my friends were killed by exclamation points.
- rocketz, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2Why save it? Wont that just defeat natural selection?
- 1b2a, on 07/29/2008, -2/+3Has anyone considered that it wants to become extinct? It stopped producing seeds centuries ago for *****'s sake!
- smurfsahoy, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Uh, how many are created without ever being looked at? And how many of those hold a cure for HIV? You have no reason to believe that the first number is larger than the second number. In fact, since HIV is spreading, it's much more likely for new species to be resistant to it, and for old species to not be (because HIV would affect evolution)
- smurfsahoy, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2You have absolutely no way of knowing whether more species are dying off now than there were dying off 20,000 years ago per unit time. We don't even know what most of the species in the world ARE, much less how many of each are around, and MUCH less how humans may or may not be influencing those numbers.
And there's no reason to believe a priori that our actions would reduce species significantly overall. We are changing the environment - that does not imply more or fewer species. It only implies different species dominating.
So really, you have no idea. Find some reason to believe what you believe first, and THEN we can talk about making policy decisions to support those beliefs. - Punisher2K, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH PANIC!!
- rz8472, on 07/29/2008, -2/+343000 years ago, it might have been evolutionarily favorable for the plant simply to clone itself, either because mutations were very strongly selected against, or because cloning might have expended less natural resources than fertilization (the plant won't have to expend resources on attracting insects or other pollinators) and that was also uniquely favorable at the time. Whatever the causes, the plant is paying the price right now.
- prompel, on 07/29/2008, -1/+243000 years without sex? Poor thing!
- charlietuna, on 07/29/2008, -3/+3It's called fuzzy logic... removing one hair does not make one bald, so removing all hairs will not make one bald(?)
Allowing one species to go extinct will not be a tragedy, so allowing all to go extinct...." You follow? - synapz, on 07/29/2008, -3/+3@JDove6: Go ahead, just don't force me to help you out.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 