Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Megafauna Extinction Due to Climate 481

Posted by Zonk from the dead-giant-sloths dept.
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)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Megafauna Extinction Due to Climate More

Megafauna Extinction Due to Climate

Comments Filter:

  • WOOT! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:44PM (#12689356)
    We Win!

    • Re:WOOT! (Score:5, Funny)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:47PM (#12689396)
      What, did you expect that a mere asteroid can be a bigger disaster than us? Hah!
    • I'm not quite sure why. I'll have to check democratic underground to find out.
    • "Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain,
      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
    • Slashdot. Climatology for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

    • Re:WOOT! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Schrockwell ( 867776 )
      When this match is over, could we PLEASE change the map?

    • Re:WOOT! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SeventyBang ( 858415 )

      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)

      by 1010011010 ( 53039 )
      Hah!

      "Hi, I'm Troy McClure! You may remember me from such films as, 'Man versus Nature, the Road to Victory!'."

  • Bummer... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:44PM (#12689361)

    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)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:02PM (#12689513) Homepage
      Don't give it up so quickly. There are some huge problems with the "climate-only" theory. Namely

      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".
      • Who's to say the humans didn't arrive after fleeing their original homes when their hometown megafauna finally disappeared? Already pressured by climate change, humans could have pushed their prey over the edge (pun intended :). Why not just move on, and repeat the success elsewhere? Our current mass extinctions are probably the same: humans pushing the sustainable cycles too far, past the breaking point.

        Of course, we're doing the same to the climate itself: while our emissions are dwarfed by other "natura
        • Because in other parts of the world, the megafauna survived. For intance, in Africa: Elephants, Lions, Giraffes, Rhinos, Hippos, and Gazelles; in Europe: Cows, Deer, and Reindeer; in Asia: Pigs, Sheep, Yaks, and Water Buffalo.

          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
      • Just how many times do people have to see the "humans show up, large animals die out" pattern before you start seeing the connection? It happens in Australia, North and South America around 10,000 years ago, then New Zealand and Madagascar, then smaller islands like Mauritius (where the famed dodo lived) and Hawaii (home to flightless ducks and geese). Humans may not be the exclusive factor in these extinctions but it seems pretty clear they're a major part.

        Basically what these guys seem to be arguing in t

        • Re:Bummer... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by myowntrueself ( 607117 )
          'Just how many times do people have to see the "humans show up, large animals die out" pattern before you start seeing the connection?'

          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)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:49PM (#12689887) Homepage
        I forgot to mention another reason why climate clearly isn't the only issue: Holdouts. For several species, there were inaccessable regions which humans didn't discover right away - for example, mammoths on Wrangel Island. While the climate changed around them, they survived just fine. Their mainland bretheren, encountering humans and their side effects, died out.
      • Climate change could be the indirect cause.

        Climate change could have driven human migrations, and the humans could have eaten the megafauna.

      • Re:Bummer... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by acroyear ( 5882 )
        i think climate change is the key but for different reasons, one of which made it easier for humans to hunt them, but they were going to die anyways.

        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)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:45PM (#12689365) Homepage Journal
    Interesting bit about the mega mammals. There's a diarama at the Chippewa Nature Center, Midland, Michigan, depicting a giant beaver. Stood about 6 feet tall, probably a few hundred pounds. (what kind of trees did this thing gnaw anyway, it'd need lots of them) Always wondered how they would have died off, I can't imagine too many bow-and-arrow or spear wielding humans able to take on something like that.

    • Re:MegaBeaver (Score:3, Informative)

      by Neop2Lemus ( 683727 )
      The above, you ignant prudes is not flamebait.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:45PM (#12689368)
    I envy early man and his wider variety of animals to eat
    • Funny, yes, but also true. With a less diverse food source we're more subject to disease in our food supply. Jared Diamond makes a great point in Guns Germs and Steel that early man had hundreds of grain types available to him, and now we have something like 15. A single blight that affected a few key crops could do some real damage. I too envy early man and his many foods.

  • Tonight's headline: (Score:3, Funny)

    by oberondarksoul ( 723118 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:45PM (#12689373) Homepage
    When you kill stuff, it stays dead. When you kill all stuff, it's all dead! Weather coming up, after the break.
  • Since the hand of human civilzation is turning up the thermostat on ol' Mother Earth?
    • Increase in weather fluctuation and intensity. Shifting of the greenbelts north and south, desertification in the old greenbelts, add in increased population density, assuming population growth continues it's general pattern right now, and you're going to see more communicable diseases spring up. Basically, I'd say it's a good time to buy land in Southern Canada and start growing soy, wheat, and corn.

      Will it impact us a whole lot? Eh, who knows. It certainly won't be a completely benign situation. See
    • Means Someone's going to be pissed when He comes back. "What? Why aren't there any trees left? Did you really think 'dominion' meant 'destruction'? Silly humans. No eternity for you!"
  • Although I have no doubt that the current human-caused warming trends will greatly effect the biodiversty of this planet, I'm not worried about the long term survival of the earth. Althouhg the megafauna of Australia went extent, other animals have filled the niche, althouhg Australia is isolated so it is any interesting case.

    Global warming will speed to extenction of many creatures, but it will also aid evoltion of many more.

    • I don't think any reasonable people are concerned that life on Earth will be threatened. But people themselves could be threatened, and fancying myself a person, I kind of feel that it concerns me.
    • Although I have no doubt that the current human-caused warming trends will greatly effect the biodiversty of this planet, I'm not worried about the long term survival of the earth.

      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 ... are fucked."
    • Sure, the Earth will abide.

      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.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Extinction? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by loraksus ( 171574 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:51PM (#12689427) Homepage
    What percentage of animals that once lived are now extinct? (this is sort of a trick question for the christian "scientists" who go looking for dinosaurs in Africa, but lets ignore those morons for a moment.)
    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)

      by BewireNomali ( 618969 )
      Agreed. I have a bleeding heart like the next guy, but the tenets of evolution confirm that the fittest survive. My thinking is that our survival now will be determined by several things: defeating viruses before they get too mutated to contain, gene therapy to adapt the human body to our suiting (using aforementioned tamed and redesigned viruses), and making it so that we can safely explore and settle space as a species.

      The other thing we need to do is get gene samples for all these "dying" species. Once
      • [blockquote]Once our privileges get escalated to "godlike" we'll just bring them back[/blockquote]

        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 before they get too mutated to contain

        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)

      by jfengel ( 409917 )
      the fact is that natural processes have killed off more animals than humans have.

      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

  • Someone please help me.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:56PM (#12689471)
    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)."

    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)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:58PM (#12689486)
    Human Beings are as natural a part of the Earth's ecosystem as earthworms and aardvarks. We need to accept that our behavior will affect the planet not unlike any other animals.

    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)

      by Corpus_Callosum ( 617295 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @10:21PM (#12690484) Homepage
      In 10 million years, perhaps all primary terrestrial life will be descendents of Homo Sapiens. Perhaps we are just in the process of a morphological gene renormalization.

      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.

  • Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:5, Informative)

    by bacon55 ( 853395 ) <mikesm@shaw.ca> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @07:59PM (#12689490)
    There's a lot of evidence to link large scale climate change with periods of heightend and lowered activity in the Sun.


    Taken From "http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/"


    From 1645 to 1715, there was a drastically reduced number of sunspots. This period of reduced solar activity, which was first noticed by G. Sporer and was later investigated by E.W. Maunder, is now called the Maunder Minimum. This period of time was also unusually cold on earth, and it has been referred to as the "Little Ice Age." This has led to some speculation that sunspot activity may affect the earth's climate. Similar periods of low solar activity seem to have occurred during the Spoerer Minimum (1420-1530), the Wolf Minimum (1280-1340), and the Oort minimum (1010-1050). Solar astronomers label solar cycles from one minimum to the next, and assign them numbers, starting at one, with the 1755-1766 cycle.


    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.

    • considering that we have only had the impact of one or two volcanic eruptions since the start of the industrial revoluiton(source= Trashing the Planet: How Science Can Help Us Deal With Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone, and the Soviet Threat Among Other Things by Dixy Lee Ray, Louis R. Guzzo) I would say it is VERY arrogant to assume that we are the cause.

    • Re:Solar Activity Coinciding with Climate Change (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:29PM (#12689712) Homepage
      That's not quite accurate. The "little ice age" lasted from 1450 to 1820, a time during which there were sunspot highs and lows. The lows of 1645-1715 (the Maunder minimum) and 1795-1820 (the Dalton minimum) just happened to be the coldest points of it. Some of their other minimum numbers seem a bit odd, too.

      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.
      • "the best-predicting climate models" ... um suck.

        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
      • 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

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What is truly arrogant is pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year without regard to the consequences. What is arrogant is blindly ignoring the continually mounting evidence that human activity is playing a role in climate change.

      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
      • At the risk of being modded troll, people who think that humans are NOT contributing signifigantly to climate change need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that even if there is the smallest probability it is true, doing nothing could not be more irresponsible.

        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.

    • True, humans aren't necessarily the greatest cause of climate chage.

      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)

    by Alaska Jack ( 679307 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:01PM (#12689510) Journal
    Hmm. I know a relatively famous (in his field, at least) paleoanthropologist,and was just talking to him about this very thing. I asked him his thoughts about the two competing theories of large animal extinction.

    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)

    by aendeuryu ( 844048 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:02PM (#12689518)
    When will these "scientists" (who are obviously biased liberals) realize that it's not megaflaura extinction, it's that the megaflaura are experiencing their rapture?

  • State of Fear (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 )
    Apparetnly Michael Crichton's newest techo-thriller State of Fear deals with this very issue and offers a counter-hypothesis (i.e. humans are not affecting the earth very much).

    Have any /.ers read it?

    • Re:State of Fear (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NoseBag ( 243097 )
      Yep. Read it quite some time ago. Researched it on my own, starting with his references. Reviewed the bogus hockey-stick data. reviewed the "arguments" trying (and failing) to prop it up. Then I slowly picked up on the pattern of "assuming its there" that seemed to be inherent in the pro-G-W articles.

      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)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:17PM (#12689624)
    Well, there are three possible ways to look at this:

    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!

    • Why three options? Should it really be a Christian view of things that God did something 4000 years ago, buggered off, sent in a proxy 2000 years ago and hasn't been involved since?

      Why don't these people just see evolution as a possible creation method as Darwin did?

      • Why don't these people just see evolution as a possible creation method as Darwin did?

        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

  • In Australia there are chocolate things that contain a plastic toy of an extinct animal, with a little sheet of paper describing the critter and its means of extinction. My favourite is one species that became extinct by the actions of a single domestic cat.
  • Climate change maybe a large factor, especially if it resulted in dryer conditions. Still one of the ways that it is thought the Australian Aboriginal ancestors effected the australian environment was to use fire as an extensive hunting tool. Australia vegetation is setup to burn (and often require it for renewal), what humans did is to use controlled burns to flush out animals and catch them when they are fleeing the fire and most vulnerable.

    The environmental issue is that it increased the frequency of b
  • I'd been skeptical for a while that humans ate all the horses. They can survive on the nastiest scrub, are basically too tough for wolves and coyotes (moose may be bigger, but moose are solitary), and they are fast. It's true that humans can cover more ground in a day (if those humans are apaches) but not more ground in an hour. They have excellent senses, so they are hard to sneak up on. Really, the way to catch them is to have caught one already.
    • Humans are very good at just sneaking up on things and making friends with them, and then later exploiting them shamelessly.

      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)

    by dpends ( 888440 )
    Everyone knows SUV's got way worse mileage 30 to 50,000 years ago. What did they expect?

  • Rubbish and Flim-flam! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Corbin Dallas ( 165835 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:09PM (#12690026) Homepage
    The first linked article's author, at least, could use a cold shower. Every time an interesting and insightful fact was revealed, it seemed that the author took a moment to wallow in polite hatred for all things human, who are, in fact, wreched abominations engaged in widespread destruction of this fragile little blue and green ball of dirt. Apparently I'm supposed to feel guilty.

    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?
  • Human activity, either directly (e.g. the Dodo) or indirectly (e.g. the Amazon rainforests).

    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
  • From the BBC article: The studies suggest instead a more complex pattern to the extinctions.

    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)

    by The Hobo ( 783784 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:37PM (#12690218)
    "I'll have my lunch now. A single pillow of shreaded wheat, some steamed toast, and a dodo egg"
  • In a recent study, Science asserted that its superior reasoning had laid to rest nagging guilt brought on by the intuitive sense that we are being too heavy a burden on the planet.

    .
    -shpoffo

  • Difference between Humans and Nature. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by H01M35 ( 801754 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:20AM (#12691603)
    I understand the argument that humans are a part of nature, and so are their tools. (By the same token, a bullet to the forehead causes death quite naturally, er, so I'm told.)

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Close