Megafauna Extinction Due to Climate 481
jvchamary writes "Most biologists believe that Earth is currently undergoing its sixth mass extinction. The cause? Human activity, either directly (e.g. the Dodo) or indirectly (e.g. the Amazon rainforests). The disappearance 30,000-45,000 years ago of the Australian megafauna, large animals such as the marsupial lion, is often attributed to hunting by Aboriginal settlers. However, recent research in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that it was more likely a shift in climate, rather than hunting, that caused the over-sized organisms to die-out (via Nature and the BBC)."
WOOT! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WOOT! (Score:5, Funny)
Relevant Dave Barry Quote: (Score:4, Funny)
It's Bush's fault. (Score:3, Funny)
America the Ugly (Score:2, Funny)
For strip-mined mountain's majesty above the asphalt plain.
America, America, man sheds his waste on thee,
And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea."
-George Carlin
Re:WOOT! (Score:2)
Re:WOOT! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WOOT! (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's a coincidence. We keep hearing about global warming tied to our activity. I could just see everyone on the planet agreeing to some preposterous rules to remove any of our interference and the warming would continue.
Much like watering your flowers in the rain. Turning off the human interference (the hose) doesn't stop what nature is already doing.
The human reaction|solution to control this is stupid - we do it in every situation: credits. Companies can then buy|sell|trade those credits.
Re:WOOT! (Score:3, Funny)
"Hi, I'm Troy McClure! You may remember me from such films as, 'Man versus Nature, the Road to Victory!'."
Re:Define 'winning' ... (Score:2)
Yep, that pretty much defines it for me. Wake me up when my trophy arrives.
Re:Define 'winning' ... (Score:2)
That sounds like a definition of winning to me.
I suppose you are free to not win, if you don't like that definition. Or, you could look for a definition you like better, but I suspect getting it generally accepted will be an uphill struggle.
Re:Define 'winning' ... (Score:2)
That's so kick ass.
Time Enough at Last (Score:4, Funny)
Well, at least I still have my books. And the best thing is, there's time now... all the time I need.
<<Picks up a book, but glasses fall off and break.>>
That's not fair! That's not fair at all! (source [tvtome.com])
Re:Time Enough at Last : ) (Score:3, Funny)
[Picks up a book, but glasses fall off and break.]
That's not fair! That's not fair at all! (source)
[skips a few lines]
Why should I believe you? You're Hitler!
Bummer... (Score:5, Funny)
That's too bad...I've always liked the idea of my ancestors storming across the land, exterminating entire species of giant animals with spears and rocks.
Re:Bummer... (Score:5, Interesting)
A) In most of the world (even if not for some animals in Australia) extinctions were timed, as well as we can measure, with the arrival of humans into each region, even though the global climate was changing as a whole
B) Species survived far more dramatic climate changes in the past, with nowhere even approaching the degree of megafauna losses. The scale of megafauna losses last ice age was staggering - for the largest animals, often over 90% of species.
C) We've seen this occurring in more modern times. For example, the Moa of New Zealand; there is essentially no doubt that they were butchered by the Maori, because their fossilized cooking pits are filled with Moa remains in nice neat layers - huge numbers of them that the species clearly couldn't have sustained. When the Maori were discovered, they talked about hunting and killing them. There's a sudden cutoff point in Maori sites in which suddenly Moas disappear from the diet.
Also, climate change isn't the only alternative theory. There's also the concept of humans being a carrier for diseases/pests, human-induced environmental changes, human killing of "keystone" species, and my favorite, "many of the above combined".
There goes the neighborhood. (Score:2)
Of course, we're doing the same to the climate itself: while our emissions are dwarfed by other "natura
Re:There goes the neighborhood. (Score:3, Informative)
In North America, which is the part of the world that I know best, Mammoths, Mastadons, Giant Armadillos, Giant Beavers, Sabre Tooth Tigers, and numerous other species all went extinct between 11 and 9 kBP (those are radiocarbon years -- I don't recall right off where that calibra
Re:Bummer... (Score:2)
Basically what these guys seem to be arguing in t
Re:Bummer... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this for an alternative; humans are running around the globe being 'chased' by climate change, trying to find a nice place to live?
It could still be purely coincidental, maybe the climate changes that don't favor the megafauna are attractive to humans?
Re:Bummer... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bummer... (Score:2)
Climate change could have driven human migrations, and the humans could have eaten the megafauna.
Re:Bummer... (Score:3, Insightful)
the climate change and end of the ice ages caused the trees to start growing, blocking some of the migration paths. this combined with the warming trend reduced the amount of land the larger (especially wooley) beasts could live in for food. reduce available land and you reduce the population. The increased water flow from the thaw also changed the landscap
MegaBeaver (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MegaBeaver (Score:3, Informative)
ackthpt, however that is pronounced :-p, I'm not sure the beaver was 6' tall, here's a picture of a model one courtesy of the CBC: Castoroides ohioensis [www.cbc.ca]. That's the host of the show, Quirks & Quarks beside him.
mmmm .... marsupial burgers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:mmmm .... marsupial burgers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:mmmm .... marsupial burgers (Score:2)
Something about Ireland and potatoes come to mind...
Tonight's headline: (Score:3, Funny)
So what does that mean for us? (Score:2)
Re:So what does that mean for us? (Score:3)
Will it impact us a whole lot? Eh, who knows. It certainly won't be a completely benign situation. See
Re:So what does that mean for us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what does that mean for us? (Score:2)
No it's not.
Yes, it IS. [mng.org.uk]
Re:So what does that mean for us? (Score:2)
Re:So what does that mean for us? (Score:2)
Re:So what does that mean for us? (Score:2)
Climates change, times change (Score:2, Insightful)
Global warming will speed to extenction of many creatures, but it will also aid evoltion of many more.
Re:Climates change, times change (Score:2)
Re:Climates change, times change (Score:2)
Duh. When people say "Save the Planet!" what they really mean is "Save our asses!" As George Carlin once said,
"The planet is fine! The people
Re:Climates change, times change (Score:3, Funny)
Not only that, but consider this: we humans produce certain bacteria, because the waste of that bacteria is helpful to us. Who's to say that Nature didn't produce man because of the waste he produces? Maybe Nature's next Act will be seeded by nuclear waste or old AOL CD's.
Re: (Score:2)
Extinction? (Score:3, Interesting)
Over 99%? Oh.
Yes, species die off. Sucks for the those animals, and makes us feel guilty if were are causing it, but the fact is that natural processes have killed off more animals than humans have.
Re:Extinction? (Score:2, Interesting)
The other thing we need to do is get gene samples for all these "dying" species. Once
Re:Extinction? (Score:2)
Some would say that you have just described what heaven/purgatory will be like for the first couple of tens of thousands of years. We get to clean up the crap hole we made of the place, and fix all the mistakes we made to good ol' mother earth. But the idea would probably be more along the lines of "immortal" as opposed to "godlike".
Defeating viruses? (Score:2)
Do you honestly expect that we will *ever* be able to "defeat" viruses, or contagious disease in general (bacteria et al)? That's a war that can never be won. The microbes predate us by ages, and some of them got together to form into things like us because it was for their benefit; and if we get too out of line and keep trying to wipe them out, all we'll do is selectively breed them to be better and killing us. They breed faster, adapt faster, and c
Re:Extinction? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is very true, but you're looking at the wrong time scales. Most of those species that died had no effect on humans, because we're a relatively recent phenomenon.
If you're suggestion that we simply shouldn't care whether species live or die, I'll treat it in a self-centered fashion: we don't want to wipe out species if they could do something for us, or if their deaths would be a barometer for our own.
In the former case
Re:Extinction? (Score:2)
Now, I gather that the official position of the Church of Christ, Scientist is opposed to the evolutionary explanation of the fossil evidence, and for the literal Bible creation explanation, but you'd know a lot more about that than I do.
Someone please help me.... (Score:4, Funny)
They died out because they were over-sized! If they were right-sized, they would still be alive! Everyone knows that obesity is the leading cause of anguish and suffering.
Or wait, I'm sorry, they were right. I forgot that climate shifts due to human activity are the cause of all evil.
Part of Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this is not an excuse for an "anything goes" attitude. We still need to work hard to preserve the earth; it is one of our greatest responsibilities.
In 10 million years (Score:5, Interesting)
We will have human-derivitive predators, human-derivative herbavores, human-derivitive sea mammals, etc..
Sound strange? It shouldn't. Every once in a while, a specific set of genes shows so much ability to dominate that it completely overwhelm all others and then slowly specializes in the ecosystem, taking on the familiar roles we see. The first Dinosaurs were all morphologically identical with differentiation only occuring as the other species in the ecosystem were driven to extinction and leaving room for the different ecological niches to be filled through evolved Dinosaur morphology. Same with Mammals.
I suppose this vision could require a collapse of civilization such that humans actually had to fill all the various niches in the ecosystem, but given 10 million years, I'd say that is pretty likely. It would be pretty gruesome in the beginning, with canabilism and whatnot being fairly common, but after a few hundred millenia it should shake out to a variety of different predators and prey subspecies quite readily.
Re:In 10 million years (Score:3, Interesting)
The key word is could, not would. It is difficult to predict what might become of man over a ten-million year timeframe. We could proliferate out to other star systems or we could become so dependant on some advanced future technology that we end up in a state of critical equilibrium, our civilization collapsing ba
Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:5, Informative)
Taken From "http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/"
Personally, I've always found it rather arrogant to believe we are the greatest cause of climate change on Earth. Lol, it could be that the Sun is literally causing us to use more energy...but thats taking the butterfly effect a little too literally - maybe.
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:2)
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:2)
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole "sunspots affecting temperature to the degree we're seeing recently" thing has always been rather suspect. It's not going to affect directly - radiant energy varies by only 0.1-0.2%. But perhaps indirect effects might be occurring, and some have been suggested (such as through altering ozone levels). Nonetheless, the best-predicting climate models currently show that the most important role is played by humans.
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:3, Interesting)
We cant even predict the weather without real-time pictures, to say nothing of climate prediction. However I do agree with your main point. I've never quite understood the sunspot-climate relationship. As everyone knows the Sun works on an 11 year cycle (or 22 year for you purists). The number of sunspots goes up and down like clockwork, yet I have not seen any study that shows an 11 or 22 year cycle in temperature. Perhaps they are out there and I haven
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes and no, sunspot activity does have a direct effect on our weather, just not an intuitive one that has anything to do with fluxuations in solar radiation output. I took a graduate course in the near-earth space environment (really space weather) and the organization
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:2, Insightful)
The polluters, whose millions of dollars are lining the pockets of arrogant presidents and congresscritters, are the most arrogant ones here, whose singular devotion to the bottom-line, consequences be damned, has the potential to create, extend and accelerat
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, this is slashdot... you had us at "pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere." I challenge you to find a single post that is anti-pollution/pro-Kyoto that has ever been modded as troll.
Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:2)
On the flip side, I don't believe for a minute that human activity as a whole doesn't have long term consequences.
I think there must be a balance of considerations between the two.
A paleoanthropologists view (Score:5, Interesting)
He said that while it was currently fashionable to blame the climate and exonerate aboriginal hunters, he said it makes perfect sense that it was probably a combination of the two.
We modern humans have a definite tendency to underestimate the intelligence, resourcefulness and persistence of our forebears. A good example of this is all the mysticism and voodoo crackpot theories of how Stonehenge, the pyramids, etc. were built. The fact is that ancient people were quite -- sometimes ingeniously -- resourceful at accomplishing what they wanted to do.
Along that same vein, I have no doubt that they became quite expert at killing such things as mammoths, which would feed a whole clan for months (esp. if you dry some of the meat, etc) and provide ivory, bone and fur besides. Mammoth hunting would also have been a great opportunity for clan members to show their skills, bravery and dedication to the tribe -- something of great importance in many aboriginal societies.
Paleoanthropologists are a pretty interesting bunch to talk to.
- Alaska Jack
Huge liberal bias (Score:3, Funny)
State of Fear (Score:2, Interesting)
Have any /.ers read it?
Re:State of Fear (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm quite sceptical about Global warming. Near as I can tell, the phenomenon (if it exists at all) is so buried within greater natural, well-understood cyclic climate variations that NO ONE has been able to sh
Mass Extinction at the hands of humans eh? (Score:5, Funny)
1. We're the product of evolution. We're the greatest and most interesting species evolution ever produced. We owe nothing to anyone but ourselves for our success and if we want to wipe out a few other forms of life so be it. We rock! And of course in the grand scheme of things if we did wind up wiping ourselves out, nobody will be around to care.
2. We're the product of intelligent design. If the Christians are right, the whole world is here for us to fill, subdue and use for our benefit. If we need to knock out a few species, its no different than me knocking out a wall in my house to make room for a pool table. We're the pinnacle of creation, We ROCK! And after ragnarok, there will be a whole new creation anyway.
3. We're either created or evolved, but we're adaptable enough that if the need arises we'll find a way to create new species to replace the ones we eliminated. Heck maybe we'll make whole new worlds. In this case, I guess the Mormons would be right. In any case, we're the smartest and most adaptable. We ROCK! In any case, we can always clean up the mess later.
Who am I to suggest I have the right to wipe out whole species? I AM MAN!
Re:Mass Extinction at the hands of humans eh? (Score:2)
Why don't these people just see evolution as a possible creation method as Darwin did?
Re:Mass Extinction at the hands of humans eh? (Score:2)
Great question. I personally believe the reason that so many Christians won't accept evolution as a tool of God is because the issue of evolution has become the modern cornerstone of the Religion VS Science debate that has raged on since the fall of Rome. Since people use the theory to imagine a world where God might not be needed (such as lightening making cells that evolve into beings or what have you), the extremely re
Yowies (Score:2)
How about burn offs? (Score:2)
The environmental issue is that it increased the frequency of b
wild horses on North American continent (Score:2)
Re:wild horses on North American continent (Score:3, Funny)
Month 1:Human walks up to group of horses and tosses them apples something that they have difficulty getting normally.
Month 2:Horses are used to humans and actually approach them for apples.
Month 3:???
Month 4:Profit!
Well, DUH... (Score:2, Funny)
Rubbish and Flim-flam! (Score:3, Interesting)
Fuck that.
Earth activists love to envision a world where we all can live in peace and harmony with mother earth; never stepping out of bounds; preserving the earth as it is ( or was ) for all time. It is a beautiful ideal, and I can at least applaud them for having ideals. It also happens to be completely impossible.
The universe is self-destructive by it's very nature, always building and destroying and reworking atoms on a scale impossible for us to comprehend. The systems of this planet, too, are constantly in flux. This is normal folks. We are supposed to have self-corrections in the ecosystem, as evidence of these corrections date back much farther than our existence.
"But Corbin, the difference is that we're the ones causing it! We're destroying our home, not some giant asteroid!." Heh. How arrogant and presumptuous of a human to suggest that they operate outside of the ecosystem, outside of the natural ways of the universe. We as a species are not capable of knowing the correct course for this planet any more than a dog. As smart as we think we are, humans are still pretty stupid when it comes to the workings of the ecosystem, the way it ties in with the planet's activities, and the infulence of celestial bodies. Even if preservation was the right course of action, we do not know the correct balance of actions that would be required to reverse current trends and restore "balance". And even if we did know, what if it means cooling the oceans, or changing solar activity? Do we really have that kind of power? ( That was retorical, by the way. )
Let it ride. We're already hip-deep in this mass-extinction, we can't stop it even if we wanted to. People inclined to recycle and ride bikes to work should do so, by all means. It will make a small difference, but a difference none the less. Could this cycle kill humans? Very possibly. However, as most people would agree, the earth is over-populated with humans anyway. This can only be a good thing. Could the human race die? Yeah, that's possible too. If we did, then at least there's historical evidence that a better species would evolve in our place. Plus, as an added bonus, we wouldn't be around to screw up the planet anymore. That should make the environmentalists happy. Right?
Indirect? (Score:2)
Erm. In what way is the destruction of the Amazon indirect? We chopped those down just as surely as we hunted down the dodos.
Let's try an example like global climate change or construction of roadways that severely limit the habitat of migratory mammals. That's indirect.
-Waldo Jaquith
Occam's Razor (Score:2)
I'm glad there is evidence that we may not have caused the extinction, but this sentence immediately made me think of Occam's Razor and our likely need to rationalize the devastating effects of humanity on all other species. Just a thought.
Obligatory Mr. Burns (Score:3, Funny)
Climate changes obviate human guilt - news at 11 (Score:2)
.
-shpoffo
Difference between Humans and Nature. (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way I've heard this expressed is Nature doesn't make waste. Nature makes food. (I'd love to claim this, but I can't remember for sure who said it. It might have been Bucky or Amory Lovins. At any rate, all the other species make food, and participate in the food chain and cycle all waste around.
We, as humans create waste that no biological process can deal with. Now humanure can be composted and reused, but there's lots of stuff that is good for no living thing.
That's the big difference. Waste not, want not.
Re:good luck (Score:2)
"If you could press a button, and kill all humans on the planet (painlessly), would you?"
No, for two reasons:
^_^
Re:good luck (Score:2)
VHEMT (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.vhemt.org/ [vhemt.org]
It's actually a pretty good cause if you ask me.
Re:Wrong terminology (Score:2)
Re:Wrong terminology (Score:2)
Re:Wrong terminology (Score:2)
Are you aware that among certain circles (to which most slashdotters certainly belong) the symbol "!=" means "not equal"?
Re:denying global warming... (Score:2)
Yet the Americans continue to deny global warming.
Not all of us, dude...just our elected officials.
Re:denying global warming... (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I beleive that all the carbon dioxide we've released in the last 100 years must be having some effect.
Re:denying global warming... (Score:2)
Re:denying global warming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell me again why I should listen to even one climatologist when they talk out of both sides of thei
Re:Irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
This off-planet stuff is confusing. If the population continues exploding, then even within my lifetime there will be a hundred billionish people on Earth. How the heck are we going to get even a million people off the planet, let alone billions of them?
Re:Irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
The population of the world will continue to grow, then start declining midway through this century.
This is because of several factors:
1. The USA and Europe will go into population decline in about 20 years. Their birth rates have stagnated. EU will go faster if its member states don't
Re:Irrelevant (Score:2)
Re:Irrelevant (Score:2)
You want the real answer?
Because those billions of humans will either be:
1) Killed off.
2) Transmogrified into Transhumans.
3) Left to drop dead in due time from their own incompetence in providing for themselves.
Actually, 4) - all of the above - is the most likely scenario.
When I speak of off-world migration, I'm referring to a consequence of transmogrification to Transhuman status. Transhumans have no need to remain on this planet since they have no biological requirements that must be supported by this
Re:Irrelevant (Score:2)
Re:Irrelevant (Score:2)
1. It isn't in corporations' best interests to significantly improve life for the population unless either A. they think somebody else will get there first and beat them to the market or B. people stop buying what they're already producing. As long as people buy tons of cars as they are now, and as long as the five or ten auto manufacturers all know that the others are not to try to develop flying cars, where's the incentive to innovate?
2. Most people can't even f
Re:How much longer until it stops being speculatio (Score:2)
Re:How much longer until it stops being speculatio (Score:2)
Re:How much longer until it stops being speculatio (Score:2)
Implying a weak correlation, not a causality.
Re:How much longer until it stops being speculatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um..? (Score:2)
You've obviously never heard of the sport-utility boomerang.
Re:Um..? (Score:2)