Slashdot Mirror
Newly Discovered Sixth Extinction Rivals That of the Dinosaurs
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.
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.
Must be now.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It's a new discovery in geological time.
Say, what an interesting language! You appear to be using the Roman alphabet and it almost looks like English! What gives?
Come on, I can't be the only one to have read this at first as 'Sith Extinction'
Face it. We're a virus with shoes.
-- Saint Hicks
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
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>
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.
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!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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.
"Global" ... what is now Norway"
"In
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.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvin...
[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.
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'
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.
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.
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