The false problem of species extinction

[Enishi]

Species extinction is very much a problem as each species is part of an intricate biosphere, and the removal of any one 'thread' can have countless unforeseen effects. In addition, most of the species dying out now aren't disappearing due to ordinary processes, but human activities that aren't sustainable in the long-term.

 

That being said though, I do agree that trying to preserve species like Cheetahs that are quite rare and not particularly 'fit' will not make much of a difference either.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Enishi

[Owledge]

Simon Parkes is interesting. This is the first section of a 4 part interview. He's a politician, a member of parliament in the UK, but dont let that put you off.

 

An who has the time to watch a 1-hour video without knowing what's in it, posted by someone who may or may not have seen it herself, but if so, is kinda lazy to not give a summary for the benefit of others? :-P

Edited November 25, 2012 by Owledge

[三江源]

An who has the time to watch a 1-hour video without knowing what's in it, posted by someone who may or may not have seen it herself, but if so, is kinda lazy to not give a summary for the benefit of others? :-P

 

O RLY?!

 

You dont need to watch it to see it is 'contactee'..

I've watched it a coupla times. This person has been in touch with mantid beings since childhood and tells about it in detail, with his drawings of them

[Owledge]

Thanks, this makes the video much more appealing.

[Marblehead]

Species extinction is very much a problem as each species is part of an intricate biosphere, and the removal of any one 'thread' can have countless unforeseen effects. In addition, most of the species dying out now aren't disappearing due to ordinary processes, but human activities that aren't sustainable in the long-term.

 

That being said though, I do agree that trying to preserve species like Cheetahs that are quite rare and not particularly 'fit' will not make much of a difference either.

Yea! Back to reality.

 

Agree with the first paragraph. I would still argue with the second paragraph though. Here we are talking about diversity. True, the continued existance or disappearance of the Cheetah would present no change in the ecology of a region. However, they are beautiful animals and for me that is reason enough to preserve the species. Or, at least, not be the cause of its extinction.

[zanshin]

But here's another eye-opening thought: If you imagine a more 'progressive, wise' future where we terraform this planet's deserts into very habitable regions full of green vegetation... what about all the desert-climate-dependant species you would condemn to death doing this? Will you make a fuzz about that, too? Will you demand to stop the madness of destroying our planet's beautiful and unique desert ecosystems?

 

Yes, I would be very fussy about it. Where are we going to put the solar collectors without deserts anyway? We figured out wetlands are important at least slowed down draining swamps. Why do you want the whole world to be the same?

[Marblehead]

Actually, there wouldn't be any problem here if we people just went away.

[zanshin]

Probably should, before we drain the oceans to make it a nice place for people to live.

[Birch]

Actually, there wouldn't be any problem here if we people just went away.

 

That's been expressed by a few people in the past and very recently. It's one thing to suggest it, quite another to actively plan to reduce population. Who gets reduced? How?

[zanshin]

http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_us

 

Developed countries are slowing down because it has gotten to be sort of a luxury to have kids with all the expectations of providing for them and education required for them to have "middle class" standard of living.

[Owledge]

The myth that Africa is a problem population-growth-wise is perpetrated by those who create the problem in the first place (some influential armageddon-cult freaks with too much time on their hands). Just like any animal, humans procreate at an accelerated rate when their survival is threatened, in order to increase the chances to prevail as a species. The ironic truth is that by providing enough food and decent living conditions for the whole of Africa would reduce population growth there, just as it is evidenced by more industrialized countries.

China has an interesting strategy to counter population growth. Every pregnancy beyond the first child is followed by a big monetary penalty. If you are middle-class and can afford the penalty, you can have three happy kids in your house. If you can't afford the penalty, they will forcibly cut the unborn out of the mother, probably traumatizing her for the rest of her life.

And one would think that population is a productivity asset for a country and thus desirable, but a crazy fear of overpopulation will manifest in crazy measures.

Now the so-called developed countries, in their hybris and control-issues, expect Africans to slow down procreation WITHOUT helping them develop decent living conditions. The actucal intention behind this becomes clear. It makes it even easier to wipe them all out. And once an African country's population has been reduced suficiently, they won't have high productivity, they won't have a significant army, and thus conquering them is very easy, freeing up vast new landmass for populating it with your own people.

And I didn't even go into the whole African AIDS scam at this point.

[oildrops]

I'm familiar with the history of AIDS and the role of the Catholic church during the beginning. Is there something else I am unfamiliar with that would constitute a scam?

 

There have been some interesting responses to this- it veered off topic nicely and no one is being rude. I like this forum again.

 

I am an ecologist in training, and I've worked with species that had been made functionally extinct by human behavior and then brought back from edge. There is definitely a need to prioritize where we push resources based on ecosystem viability, but we as humans are responsible for our destruction whether we are dealing with a keystone species or not. The issue I see most is the result of "innocent until proven guilty" environmental policy, and the fact that by the time a population is noticeably reduced, the motion toward extinction is already in effect.

[Owledge]

I'm familiar with the history of AIDS and the role of the Catholic church during the beginning. Is there something else I am unfamiliar with that would constitute a scam?

House of Numbers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p-ttLfkZHQ

Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS:

People in denial can always find stuff to take it apart, but if you focus on the most solid information and don't interpret stuff into it that's not claimed, if you realize the implications and maybe know a thing or two about anthropology, the history of science and the likes, then those videos (the first one should be sufficient) will be enlightening.

Two points that require special attention is the difference between HIV and AIDS and the different diagnosis of what constitutes HIV and especially AIDS in Africa compared to other countries.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Owledge

[oildrops]

RE: the Simon Parkes interview

 

I just watched the first section. What do you think after watching several times?

[shanlung]

I see mankind as a kind of rampant cancer gone wild.

Even worse is that we moralised we have the right, because we are mankind, to subjucate

all beasts in the forest and fields, all birds in the air and trees and all fishes in the sea, because they all are given to

us by a God above.

 

Almost as bad as the Chinese saying all things with 4 legs other than tables are to be eaten.

 

Some even go to the extent that they are the Chosen Race. Many others are just as bad in accepting them as the Chosen Race, and lands of other people to be given to the Chosen Race, and that Chosen Race have the right to rain down phosphorus shells and bombs in precision strike on hospitals and schools should the people they took the land from objected to being disposed of their land.

 

While we all babble on here, the tipping point had passed and gone.

 

The outcome of our joint stupidity will be unfolding starkly in front of us.

 

In not too distant future, we will envy those who had died.

 

Idiotic Taoist.

[Owledge]

Almost as bad as the Chinese saying all things with 4 legs other than tables are to be eaten.

This is good. It means that all 'chairmen' are free to be devoured. :-D

[Marblehead]

That's been expressed by a few people in the past and very recently. It's one thing to suggest it, quite another to actively plan to reduce population. Who gets reduced? How?

Those are the big questions, aren't they?

[Marblehead]

http://www.populatio...gename=about_us

 

Developed countries are slowing down because it has gotten to be sort of a luxury to have kids with all the expectations of providing for them and education required for them to have "middle class" standard of living.

True. I have believed for a very long time that education and a better standard of living will automatically slow down human population growth. However, with the world being as divided as it is I doubt that this will ever happen, at least in my lifetime.

[zanshin]

 

This is good. It means that all 'chairmen' are free to be devoured. :-D

 

Soylent Green seems like a really bad idea.

 

Never heard that saying but Chinese are good dinner party guests. It gets really tedious to cook for people with dietary restrictions.

[thelerner]

I am an ecologist in training, and I've worked with species that had been made functionally extinct by human behavior and then brought back from edge. There is definitely a need to prioritize where we push resources based on ecosystem viability, but we as humans are responsible for our destruction whether we are dealing with a keystone species or not. The issue I see most is the result of "innocent until proven guilty" environmental policy, and the fact that by the time a population is noticeably reduced, the motion toward extinction is already in effect.

I like this. Right on target.

Edited November 26, 2012 by thelerner

[Owledge]

Never heard that saying but Chinese are good dinner party guests. It gets really tedious to cook for people with dietary restrictions.

There could be Chinese Muslims among them.

[zanshin]

Muslims are hard to cook for and some more meticulous with restrictions than others. Better do kabob joint for takeout, Muslims do make some tasty lamb dishes.

[Marblehead]

I tried having a Muslim for dinner once but he kept jumping out of the pot.

 

But on the other hand, Muslims are not going to cause the extinction of pigs by eating too many of them.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Marblehead

[zanshin]

Never ask for pork chops at the Halal butchers, but the other meat there so much better than the supermarket. We should all be vegetarians anyway to lighten up on the planet. I am a bad environmentalist in this regard, I eat meat 2 or 3 times a week. It is tasty.

[Marblehead]

Yes, meat is quick protein and important when growing and for those who do a lot of physical labor.

 

Older folks like me and folks who don't do much physical labor really don't need that much protein and our needs can be satisfied with vegetable protein.