Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newly Discovered Sixth Extinction Rivals That of the Dinosaurs

Posted by samzenpus on from the end-of-the-line dept.

sciencehabit writes Earth has seen its share of catastrophes, the worst being the 'big five' mass extinctions scientists traditionally talk about. Now, paleontologists are arguing that a sixth extinction, 260 million years ago, at the end of a geological age called the Capitanian, deserves to be a member of the exclusive club. In a new study, they offer evidence for a massive die-off in shallow, cool waters in what is now Norway. That finding, combined with previous evidence of extinctions in tropical waters, means that the Capitanian was a global catastrophe.

93 comments

  1. Newly discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wtf? I learned about this in university gives years ago..

    1. Re:Newly discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a new discovery in geological time.

    2. Re:Newly discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Say, what an interesting language! You appear to be using the Roman alphabet and it almost looks like English! What gives?

  2. The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real sixth extinction is what man is doing to the planet right now. Species are going extinct at way higher than background rates, and we are largely to blame.

    1. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real sixth extinction is what man is doing to the planet right now. Species are going extinct at way higher than background rates, and we are largely to blame.

      They're also being created at "way higher than background rates" - from genetic engineering through city and country birds not mating due to different songs and others of that ilk.

    2. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so i should eat a bullet?

    3. Re:The real extinction by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      I keep hearing that, and every time I look up for factual information on it I end up on a deadend of sites, or non-existent papers, or articles in non-scholarly journals. And considering I've been digging through this off and on for the last 20 years, and always end up at the same state, that leads me to believe that it's simply being used as a hyped up bit of propaganda work. I'm not saying there aren't extinctions, I'm saying that they're not at the level that people claim it is.

      You know, much similar to the end of the world, or global warming will cause the earth to have no ice caps by 2000(said in early 70s and again in the 90s), or the arctic ocean will be free of ice by 2010(early 80s), or New York City will be like Ft. Lauderdale by 1995(said in late 60s).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No.

      There is a great lecture by Dr. Albert A. Bartlett on Youtube about growth.
      In the second part around the 6 minute mark he presents a list of options.
      I would say that he is reasonable pragmatic about it. Either we pick a way to limit population growth or nature selects a way for us.
      In the long run it doesn't really matter what option we go for but there seem to be a short time benefit of choosing a less painful population reduction method.
      I think the one child per family method is pretty good. It's not very fast, but it keeps population down while still allowing people to get children. Another benefit is that it is far less violent than many of the other options.
      If you want to go all out you can always join The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement They try to achieve human extinction by encouraging people to not have children at all.

    5. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David, is that you?

      I feel honored that you hang around the same social site as I do!

    6. Re:The real extinction by quenda · · Score: 1

      If by "right now" you mean the last 50,000 years, then yes. Its called the "Quaternary extinction event", but it is minor compared to the "Big 5".
      Humans have wiped out the mega-fauna as they spread across the earth, though the SJW types refuse to believe that the noble traditional owners, first peoples and custodians could do such a thing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...

    7. Re:The real extinction by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Go take a couple of graduate level courses in paleotaxonomy. Then perhaps an introductory course in logic.

      Then get back to us.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:The real extinction by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      For those of the geological persuasion, 50 000 years is certainly 'right now'.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:The real extinction by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Informative

      The evidence of man's mass extinction is so vast and well-documented, that I'm going to go ahead and say you haven't done a lick of research. Saying there's no evidence for the Holocene Extinction is tantamount to saying we aren't changing the climate or evolution is not happening. You're either lying or illiterate. Or both.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    10. Re:The real extinction by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try these?

      • Firestone RB, West A, Kennett JP et al. (October 2007). "Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (41): 16016–21. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10416016F. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706977104. PMC 1994902. PMID 17901202.
      • Loarie, Scott R.; Duffy, Philip B.; Hamilton, Healy; Asner, Gregory P.; Field, Christopher B.; Ackerly, David D. (2009). "The velocity of climate change". Nature 462 (7276): 1052–1055. Bibcode:2009Natur.462.1052L. doi:10.1038/nature08649. PMID 20033047.
      • Steadman, D. W. (1995). "Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific island birds: biodiversity meets zooarchaeology". Science 267 (5201): 1123–1131. Bibcode:1995Sci...267.1123S. doi:10.1126/science.267.5201.1123.
      • Steadman, D. W.; Martin, P. S. (2003). "The late Quaternary extinction and future resurrection of birds on Pacific islands". Earth Science Reviews 61 (1–2): 133–147. Bibcode:2003ESRv...61..133S. doi:10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00116-2.

      and

      • S.L. Pimm, G.J. Russell, J.L. Gittleman and T.M. Brooks, The Future of Biodiversity, Science 269: 347–350 (1995)
        Doughty, C. E., A. Wolf, and C. B. Field (2010), Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first humaninduced global warming?,Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L15703, doi:10.1029/2010GL043985
      • Pitulko, V. V., P. A. Nikolsky, E. Y. Girya, A. E. Basilyan, V. E. Tumskoy, S. A. Koulakov, S. N. Astakhov, E. Y. Pavlova, and M. A. Anisimov (2004), The Yana RHS site: Humans in the Arctic before the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 303(5654), 52–56, doi:10.1126/science.1085219
      • Barnosky, Anthony D.; Matzke, Nicholas; Tomiya, Susumu; Wogan, Guinevere O. U.; Swartz, Brian; Quental, Tiago B.; Marshall, Charles; McGuire, Jenny L.; Lindsey, Emily L.; Maguire, Kaitlin C.; Mersey, Ben; Ferrer, Elizabeth A. (3 March 2011). "Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?". Nature 471 (7336): 51–57. Bibcode:2011Natur.471...51B. doi:10.1038/nature09678.
      • Zalasiewicz, Jan; Williams, Mark; Smith, Alan; Barry, Tiffany L.; Coe, Angela L.; Bown, Paul R.; Brenchley, Patrick; Cantrill, David; Gale, Andrew; Gibbard, Philip; Gregory, F. John; Hounslow, Mark W.; Kerr, Andrew C.; Pearson, Paul; Knox, Robert; Powell, John; Waters, Colin; Marshall, John; Oates, Michael; Rawson, Peter; Stone, Philip (2008). "Are we now living in the Anthropocene". GSA Today 18 (2): 4. doi:10.1130/GSAT01802A.1.
      • Vitousek, P. M.; Mooney, H. A.; Lubchenco, J.; Melillo, J. M. (1997). "Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems". Science 277 (5325): 494–499. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.494.
      • Wooldridge, S. A. (9 June 2008). "Mass extinctions past and present: a unifying hypothesis". Biogeosciences Discuss (Copernicus) 5 (3): 2401–2423. doi:10.5194/bgd-5-2401-2008.
      • Jackson, J. B. C. (Aug 2008). "Colloquium paper: ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean" (Free full text). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (Suppl 1): 11458–11465. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511458J. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802812105. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2556419. PMID 18695220. edit
      • Elewa, Ashraf M. T. "14. Current mass extinction". In Elewa, Ashraf M. T. Mass Extinction. pp. 191–194. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75916-4_14.
        Mason, Betsy (10 December 2003). "Man has been changing climate for 8,000 years". Nature. doi:10.1038/news031208-7.
        MacPhee and Marx published their hyperdisease hypothesis in 1997. "The 40,000-year plague: Humans, hyperdisease, and first-contact extinctions." In S. M. Goodman and B. D. Patterson (eds), Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar, pp. 169–217, Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC.
      • Lyons, S. Kathleen; Smith, Felisa A.; Wagner, Peter J.; White, Ethan P.; Brown, James H. (2004). "
      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    11. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no that is probably the 100th and something destruction of mankind.... but who is counting....

    12. Re:The real extinction by radl33t · · Score: 2

      go red team! http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

    13. Re:The real extinction by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that (and sci-fi stories have predicted this for decades) if the people who voluntarily cut back on their breeding aren't somehow matched (probably through compulsory sterilization) with breeders who think it's their right ti have up to a dozen kids or more, then eventually we're back to almost everyone being a selfish breeder.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    14. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those failed predictions you speak of were worst case, might happen with 0.00001% chance probability predictons.

    15. Re:The real extinction by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      You know, much similar to the end of the world, or global warming will cause the earth to have no ice caps by 2000(said in early 70s and again in the 90s), or the arctic ocean will be free of ice by 2010(early 80s), or New York City will be like Ft. Lauderdale by 1995(said in late 60s).

      Yeah, and smoking is supposedly bad for my health. I smoke 20 cigarettes/day, and I didn't die neither yesterday nor today.

    16. Re:The real extinction by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      For those of the geological persuasion, 50 000 years is certainly 'right now'.

      But it's not the same "right now" that includes driving cars.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re:The real extinction by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      How are we going to implement the "one child per family" option in the places where the population is growing the fastest? Westerners have been trying and failing to teach denizens of the 3rd world to use condoms just to control the spread of disease! These places would be unable to implement or enforce such a policy and you know that any proposal to force population control on the third world, say by putting contraceptives in water supplies, would be roundly criticized as 'racism' and 'eugenics'.

      We could at least limit environmental destruction of North America and Europe by cutting off immigration. You wouldn't need to impose child limits on Europeans, USAians and Canadians because they aren't even procreating at replacement levels. As we know however, anti-immigration policies bring out the same whines about 'racism!'

      I think peak oil is our best chance at population control. Petroleum scarcity will limit food production, drive up prices and lead to starvation and war. A new world war or nuclear war might be nature's way of population control. I also keep thinking that it's only a matter of time before the emergence of a mutated strain of avian flu that can pass from person to person.

    18. Re:The real extinction by jittles · · Score: 1

      The real sixth extinction is what man is doing to the planet right now. Species are going extinct at way higher than background rates, and we are largely to blame.

      Nah. That would be the seventh extinction. We're getting good at causing these mass extinction events. And here we thought he had only laid waste to the earth 5 times. ;)

    19. Re:The real extinction by khallow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's not saying that the extinctions aren 't happening. He's saying that we don't know that they're comparable to the big extinctions of the past. It's worth remembering here that there is a huge problem with comparing modern world extinctions with extinctions in the geological past. First, it is vastly easier to see and catalog species today than in the past where fossilization is an extremely rare event. We can't know what didn't get fossilized.

      But creatures which weren't easy to drive extinct, due to numbers, longevity of the species, or widespread habitat, would also be more likely to leave fossils. So we also have that the fossils of the geological past come from species which are more likely to not be threatened by extinction than the usual species today.

      Third, species have different meanings in modern and geological terms. Today, we can classify species based on subtle distinctions like behavior, coloration, habitat, and most important, DNA which usually are impossible to determine from fossil records. Fossil species on the other hand, are determined by rather crude morphology traits which can be fossilized. A fossil species is a much bigger grouping than a modern species.

      So when you combine all these aspects, you get that extinction of a fossil species is a much bigger deal just on its own than extinction of a modern species and may represent in some cases the extinction of dozens of modern species.

      I think a better measure here is extinction at the genus level. Genuses are more likely to have fossil records and we can speak of the relative decline of the number of genuses in a proposed extinction event.

      When you do that, I don't think there is a serious comparison at the present between human-caused extinction and geological extinction events. I suspect most genus-level extinctions would be in large terrestrial animals, amphibians, and any genus of organisms particularly susceptible to local habitat destruction. You don't have large scale declines in the number of all land and sea genus-level organisms (which can be fossilized) as are present during major extinction events of the past.

    20. Re:The real extinction by khallow · · Score: 1

      The developed world already solved the problem of overpopulation. Make people wealthy and allow women to have equal opportunity to men rather than be relegated to baby-makers. Most of the native populations of the developed world reproduce at below replacement rate and continued population growth comes from immigration from the rest of the world and the higher fertility of those immigrants.

      Further, if humanity has die-offs, those die-offs will be concentrated in the areas that are having the most trouble with population growth. Even enormous mass migrations or the developed world partially sharing in the pain will not change that. The disease will be the cure, if those areas which suffer from overpopulation don't do anything about it.

    21. Re: The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't get the families to limit themselves to one child, you have to limit the number of families who can have children. Last time I checked, being alive was a requirement. You see, the fix is easy.

    22. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How are we going to implement the "one child per family" option in the places where the population is growing the fastest?"

      With laws, police-types, guns, imprisonments, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, executions.

      That's how the Communist Government of Mainland China did it. They are no longer the largest nation on earth, from what I understand. India now has the largest population--well over 1 billion people.

      The suffering on the common, average family was horrific though. A tremendous number of girl-babies were aborted since the Chinese culture demands boy (to take care of aged parents). The Chinese population became tilted toward boy-babies and most will grow up and never marry. But pointing a gun at someone generally brings compliance.

    23. Re: The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered education? Worked here, birthrates are down, only the rich can afford children. Leading to inbreeding, leads to megamanicial leaders, who insist on glory of the fatherland/motherland , gee, sounds familiar somehow...

    24. Re:The real extinction by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I think it'll be disease long before it's war or starvation.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    25. Re: The real extinction by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you, except that you will blame the west only. Right now, far right wingers deny agw, but the far left ( which likely includes you ) deny that China and other nations are part of this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    26. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (said in early 70s and again in the 90s), or ... by 2010(early 80s), or ... by 1995(said in late 60s).

      Citations, of course, would be welcome, if they existed.
      There's a standard format you may find useful:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

    27. Re:The real extinction by jae471 · · Score: 1

      I think a better measure here is extinction at the genus level. Genuses are more likely to have fossil records and we can speak of the relative decline of the number of genuses in a proposed extinction event.

      Exactly. Mass extinctions are measured by the % loss of genera, not a species count.

      (Along those same lines, very few people can name more than one dinosaur species, but they can name several genera.)

    28. Re:The real extinction by sudon't · · Score: 2

      Well, that would make the Holocene extinction number seven.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    29. Re:The real extinction by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      At that rate of smoking, it would be a miracle if you did get cancer. You have to be up in the three packs a day range (60 ciggs) to even have a chance.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re: The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about eugenics. But I totally agree that we should sterilize liberals.

    31. Re:The real extinction by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The evidence of man's mass extinction is so vast and well-documented, that I'm going to go ahead and say you haven't done a lick of research. Saying there's no evidence for the Holocene Extinction is tantamount to saying we aren't changing the climate or evolution is not happening. You're either lying or illiterate. Or both.

      Not really, it's just that the IUE has gotten together and as the last agenda of the conference had a vote and declared it as a "dwarf extinction" and not to be classified with the other classical extinctions. It seems that although it fit past definitions of extinctions, they decided to redefined them rather than be faced with too many extinctions they'd rather not talk about.

    32. Re:The real extinction by khallow · · Score: 1

      Go take a couple of graduate level courses in paleotaxonomy. Then perhaps an introductory course in logic.

      You need to have scraped your beak against the rock of Svithjod (which is currently a hundred miles high and a hundred miles wide) once every thousand years and wear it down to a nub before you are allowed to make the above argument.

    33. Re:The real extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, just you

    34. Re:The real extinction by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Interesting, thanks.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    35. Re:The real extinction by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      For those of the geological persuasion, 50 000 years is certainly 'right now'.

      But it's not the same "right now" that includes driving cars.

      "Sez you!" - F. Flintstone

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    36. Re:The real extinction by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Forgot the reference.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  3. And the seventh mas extinction? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Must be now.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liberal tears are delicious

    2. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      FTFA:

      "Now, paleontologists are arguing that a sixth extinction, 260 million years ago, at the end of a geological age called the Capitanian, deserves to be a member of the exclusive club."

      Wouldn't you like to member of an "exclusive club"?

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      The Holocene extinction, sometimes called the Sixth Extinction, is a name proposed to describe the currently ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (since around 10,000 BCE) mainly due to human activity.

      The large number of extinctions span numerous families of plants and animals including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods. Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year.

    4. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by chipschap · · Score: 1, Funny

      the vast majority are undocumented.

      They're not "undocumented," they're illegal!

    5. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was there for the awful end
      The bodies strewn in ashen piles
      They told us this would keep us safe
      And we never learned a thing.

    6. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the vast majority are undocumented.

      They're not "undocumented," they're illegal!

      Yes, they are ILLEGAL, not just "undocumented" - enough with this left wing's rape of language and logic!
      (if you know what i mean...)

    7. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "mass", as in all at once, as in "mass murder", not as "over a period of thousands of years. Maybe.".

    8. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by FoxMcElroy · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize the subject was "undocumented extensions of species in the present era". Poe's law already? Slashdot is quick.

    9. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by FoxMcElroy · · Score: 1

      *extinctions

    10. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Yes, they are ILLEGAL, not just "undocumented""

      How can be a person Illegal? Acts can be illegal, not people.

    11. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "mass", as in all at once, as in "mass murder", not as "over a period of thousands of years. Maybe.".

      Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "mass". It means pertaining to a large number. Time frame may be relevant in the context of any given usage of the word, but is not intrinsically linked.

    12. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by nightcats · · Score: 1

      I hope Chris Carter's paying attention -- he may want to work in a revision of his earlier view by that name (opening of season 7 of X Files) as he prepares the neXt big thing for FoX. That whole ancient alien astronaut theme could use some dusting anyway.

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    13. Re: And the seventh mas extinction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can be made illegal. Jews were illegal in Europe once. Now spazzes and mongoloids are almost gone as well, never to pollute our society again.

    14. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by chipschap · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize the subject was "undocumented extensions of species in the present era". Poe's law already? Slashdot is quick.

      It was supposed to be a joke, son.

    15. Re:And the seventh mas extinction? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was weird. Some people can't take a joke. I can just picture him sitting at the breakfast table with his laptop and his morning beer, sticking his button everywhere so people can press it.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  4. Re:Just like Google Maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RIP Classic google maps, RIP Google talk (when your day comes tho they have battered and crippled you), RIP Google Reader, RIP pre-2010 Google news.

  5. Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    They're the worst disgusting and gross, leave their trash everywhere. They think all history was made in order for their own creation. They pollute everywhere they figure out how to get to. I welcome the coming apocalypse. Face it humans, you're too chicken to accept another species could be come smart enough to enter space. Dumb nuts. Gaia will win in the end.

    1. Re: Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pave the planet!

    2. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful

    3. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They think all history was made in order for their own creation.

      Isn't it by definition? LOL

    4. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-humanist?

    5. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by disposable60 · · Score: 1

      Face it. We're a virus with shoes.
            -- Saint Hicks

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    6. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know man. Those bacteria that live in caves and excrete yellow acidic slime which even the scientists liken to snot are pretty nasty.

    7. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [Humans are] the worst disgusting and gross, leave their trash everywhere. They think all history was made in order for their own creation. They pollute everywhere they figure out how to get to.

      Do not mistake the ineffectiveness of other animals to be "care" for their environment. A beaver will happily defoliate acres of land. Cats can depopulate entire species of birds, given the chance. Rabbits will breed far beyond the capacity of their environment to support their numbers. All of them will "pollute" as readily as man, leaving their waste wherever it may drop and not taking particular care to "clean up" after themselves when they are done using a burrow or nest. Certainly, they show no evidence of caring about other species; other animals are prey to be fed upon, or predator to be fled from, or other to be ignored but never a concern beyond that.

      Humans aren't perfect, to be sure, but our problems are largely due to own success. Though we would believe ourselves somehow superior to the "lesser animals" with which we share the world, we are still moved by the same base impulses of our distant cousins. However, our cleverness with tools and our extreme adaptability means that we are more resistant to environmental repercussions with which the system uses to self-correct the actions of its more boisterous inhabitants. A wolf-pack that eats all the deer in its territory is likely to starve next winter, but Men will just move to a new territory or import food from its neighbors, and thus the genes of the "over-eaters" are preserved rather than culled. Alas, now that our territory encompasses the entire world it may require a worldwide disaster to rehabilitate Man.

      But then again, maybe not. Because we are learning - however slowly it may seem - that not only are our resources not unlimited, but also that the Earth is a vast and interlocked system which we share with all the other species on the planet. This very concept of environmentalism is fairly new - a few hundred years at most and truly popular only for the last two or three generations - and prior to this Men took little concern to their depredations because they always thought there would be an endless supply so long as they moved to the next horizon. Now, we are reconsidering our actions - acting against the very instructions of our genetic make-up - working to preserve what we have. While it is not entirely without self-interest, nor is it entirely selfish; we preserve other species for no other reason than a belief that they have as much a right to exist on this planet as we do. That is more than any other species on Earth has done.

      Our impact on this planet has been devastating, matched perhaps only by the impact of micro-organisms or the insect kingdom. But these mistakes are only because we follow our genetic predisposition to breed to capacity and do not believe for a moment that any other species on this planet would do any different. Certainly we should use our intellects to curb our innate predilections but neither should we entirely condemn ourselves.

    8. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This very concept of environmentalism is fairly new - a few hundred years at most and truly popular only for the last two or three generations - and prior to this Men took little concern to their depredations because they always thought there would be an endless supply so long as they moved to the next horizon

      Is this true for all indigenous peoples / cultures destroyed by civilization and European explorers, who existed for 1000+ years before their arrival? Assuming you are from the USA, look at the native american culture. It is commonly taught they took to hunting with much stewardship. Did they treat the land and environment as modern civilization does now, pushing the limits and then collectively realizing time to back off a little? Not saying I despise the explorers because of this, but thousands of native cultures did live in a way that did not push the limits in the way you describe. You say "man" representing all humans, this is simply not true. Again, there were thousands of native cultures and peoples wiped out (by their own species), and now you in all your post you don't even acknowledge them, even tho stewardship of the Earth was well in grained in those cultures and such cultures existed long long before even 500 years ago. While I agree with most what you say - that part I do not.

    9. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Stone age cultures just didn't have the technology to do all that much.

      What is 'commonly taught' is mythology, same as it's always been.

      Stone age native cultures wiped out the Mammoth. Once the horse was introduced the warlike, raider cultures came to dominate their more peaceful neighbors.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stone tools were the HUGE advantage over all other forms of life. We still use very similar tools today. Of course they're more refined, but the idea that stone age technology was not an enormous leap forward is laughable. Next time you use a knife or a hammer, try to remember where they came from.

    11. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by khallow · · Score: 1

      It is commonly taught they took to hunting with much stewardship. Did they treat the land and environment as modern civilization does now, pushing the limits and then collectively realizing time to back off a little?

      Lot's of things are taught. That doesn't make them true. The only real difference between then and now is that humanity has a larger impact on its environment.

    12. Re:Humans are the gross, worst spieces ever by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Face it. We're a virus with shoes.

            -- Saint Hicks

      I believe that this geologic age will pass the tipping point at the Shoe Event Horizon.

            -- Saint Adams

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  6. Everything is bloody Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Come on, I can't be the only one to have read this at first as 'Sith Extinction'

    1. Re:Everything is bloody Star Wars by war4peace · · Score: 1

      You're not :)
      I joined that exclusive club!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  7. I can hardly wait!! by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    Some day --- finally! --- we will discover evidence of our own extinction.
    Then --- finally! --- the human assimilation of knowledge will be complete.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  8. Re:Just like Google Maps by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Science news from the media is usually really bad.
    This is the new hypothesis that got some funding for additional research.
    Let me know in 10 years on how it pans out.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. Re:Coincidence? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    It happened just after they developed systemd.

    The proposed sixth extinction event happened some 250 million years ago. I don't think the Unix epoch covers that range of time.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Not really by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

    "Earth has seen its share of catastrophes, the worst being the 'big five' mass extinctions"

    I think that all those catastrophes are minor compared to the catastrophic impact event that created the moon.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Earth has seen its share of catastrophes, the worst being the 'big five' mass extinctions"

      I think that all those catastrophes are minor compared to the catastrophic impact event that created the moon.

      How many species were rendered extinct by that event?

    2. Re:Not really by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "Earth has seen its share of catastrophes, the worst being the 'big five' mass extinctions"

      I think that all those catastrophes are minor compared to the catastrophic impact event that created the moon.

      How many species were rendered extinct by that event?

      If it were to happen today, the answer would be 100%, as the rocky surface of the planet would be liquified. But to judge the size of a catastrophe solely by the number of extinct species is an arbitrary measure, one that ignores reality. For example, a supernova elsewhere, even if it doesn't result in any extinctions here, is still a larger catastrophic event.

      Or say that a virus came out that killed 99% of the beings in every single species, but left a few survivors in every case. No extinctions, but certainly a huge catastrophe, even when compared to an event that resulted in the extinction of half the worlds' species.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even that might have been mild compared to the early bombardment period, or the formation of the earth, or the production of the heavy elements of the Earth in stars. Imagine the devastation to life it had been around when the light elements were forming during the Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

  12. Global? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    "Global"
    "In ... what is now Norway"

    Those seem like mutually exclusive ideas, Was it global or was it contained to a single tiny point?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Global? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Prehistoric Norway was much larger than it's modern counterpart

      Once the seas teamed with huge Norways, but that was before over-norwaling

  13. They must mean this... by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 1

    http://www.gocomics.com/calvin...

  14. Obesity, helping man evolve towards Dinosaur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course to still be human, there will be a couple of long snouts that can suck up rocks to later spit out weapon style.

    The long forgotten appendix won't be just hold backup stash of digestive bacteria, but will be a gland to grow kidney-stone-like bullets.

    Will the one-percent club be listening to cannibal recipes on talk radio? Being of strong moral character, they will no-doubt have ethical issues over consuming choice muscular slaves.

    "It's just so sinful to even think of taking the best from the labor pool, but the others are too damn chewy". Promoting equal opportunity, some are becoming pro-immigration.