Slashdot Mirror
Study: Sixth Extinction Event Is Underway
garyisabusyguy writes: We've heard proposals in the past that a new extinction event is underway. However, a new study takes into consideration many other factors that may be tilting the data, and still comes to the inevitable conclusion that we have triggered a large die-off, and that we may become victims of it as well.
From the paper's abstract: "Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way."
The authors suggest that rapid work to avert the worst of the die-off is still possible. The question may really be whether we can get past paid trolls, FUD, and finger pointing in order to act wisely in a timely manner.
From the paper's abstract: "Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way."
The authors suggest that rapid work to avert the worst of the die-off is still possible. The question may really be whether we can get past paid trolls, FUD, and finger pointing in order to act wisely in a timely manner.
This paper talks about the background rate, averaged over 350 million (with an M) years, since the Cambrian Explosion. In the middle of that "background" we have had tidal shield volcanism, planet-killer asteroid strikes, the utter destruction of the global ecology by graminoids, and the nearly complete extinction of all anerobic life by cyanobacteria.
Now, compare this against the "current time frame" -- 100 years. 100 Years! That's insanely short. The analogy is comparing the overall murder rate of people attending church, averaged since we had statistics, to the single two hours in Charleston and then making the claim that "Church Murders are 500 Time Higher."
Comparing rates is tricky stuff. The data curve is hugely noisy, with one event causing a spike, other times things average out. In mathematical terms using the derivative of a function over short periods to extrapolate a long term event is suspect at best, and an exercise in blithering ignorance at worst. 100 years sounds like a long time to humans, but in geological time it's not even a clock tick.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Big whoop. Nobody lives in the desert or in arctic tundra.
Also, very few people live in the rain forests, the taiga, the steppes, etc. The population is becoming more concentrated, as the world is becoming more urban. Big areas of Siberia have been emptying out. Many small towns on the American prairie are dying, as young people head off to the cities. If you want to preserve wild habitat, the best thing to do is to encourage even faster urbanization, especially in the third world. Urban people have a smaller ecological footprint, and also have fewer children.
So because the world you live in hasn't changed significantly ('Still got chicken and cities!'), the idea that biodiversity is on a fast decline is wrong... even though the article asserted it started long before the 1970's. So yes, it did "come to be". Please give us some references that there hasn't been a massive loss of biodiversity over the last 100 years. You can't because there has been. Are you really naive enough to think we can't have any effects on the biosphere, because look we're all still here? We do have finite resources and an ever expanding population.
The Holocene extinction is a well known phenomenon; you can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The paper doesn't present any new evidence; it's a biased interpretation of existing, known data.
Ehrlich is simply wrong when he says "[the study] shows without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event"; that would require 75% or more of all species to disappear; the paper only looks at a small subset of species, those most affected by humans. The paper also incorrectly extrapolates from the past into the future, but 19th and 20th century trends simply aren't relevant to the 21st century or beyond. Growth is entirely different in the 21st century, and the high extinction rates in past centuries were due to particularly susceptible species and pristine ecosystems being affected. Think of it this way: if we were actively trying to kill species, we are now reaching the point where we have killed off all the ones that are easy to kill, and if we wanted to continue, it would be a lot harder and we would have to slow down.
Finally, the paper presents no evidence that an anthropogenic extinction or mass extinction event would be harmful to humans. Gibbons, bison, manatee, oryxes, tapirs, and all those other endangered species are wonderful to have around, and I think everybody should donate and volunteer trying to provide habitat for them. But misrepresenting their significance doesn't help: Bartel's Rat going extinct is no more a threat to human survival than the Mona Lisa going up in flames would be.
The paper is bullshit, and if you knew anything about the subject, you would recognize it as such.
Paul Ehrlich is a famous doomspeaker known for his predictions of imminent doom and gloom.
He's not famous for being right though.
He may not believe in the easter bunny but he certainly believes in The Great Demise despite its consistent failure to materialize in any shape or form.
Well, I got it from this XKCD. And he got it from this report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The trouble is, the AAAS seems to have changed around their website since then and the report is either no longer available or is just no longer findable by me.
So there you are. I'm willing to trust the XKCD guy, he's always been pretty diligent, but you can go hunting for the original document if you'd like.
Well, that was an impressive leap!
so, got any evidence of overpopulation among humans? Other than a number that frightens you badly?
Since I was a kid, population has more than doubled, but people are living longer, there are fewer famines (other than those engineered by governments to get rid of undesired minorities), fewer plagues, fewer wars. Basically, double-triple the population but living better than any time in history....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"