The Greens and other organizations have set up a goal of no extinctions. This is unreasonable. We humans are here because of a mass extinction. With the elimination of the dinosaurs the vacancy was filled by the rise of the mammals. That included the primates to which our species belongs. Evolution proceeds by extinction and the rise of new species to fill the niches left by the elimination of species. Sometimes a species becomes extinct because a competing species drives it to extinction.

In the present world there is too high a rate of extinction as habitat disappears and introduced species such as cats drive indigenous Australian species to extinction. Apparently there is evidence that ancestors of the Aborigines caused Australian megafauna to become extinct.

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.30

“Evidence for a human cause has been mounting over the past decade. One study dated the extinction of the 2-metre-tall, 200-kilogram flightless bird Genyornis to about 50,000 years ago, soon after human colonization, and at a time when the climate was benign. That work, on the bird's eggshell, was later backed up by a coast-to-coast project dating the extinction of giant marsupials, reptiles and birds across the continent to about 46,000 years ago.”

Instead of a goal of no extinctions let us recognise that extinction is an evolutionary mechanism and reduce the level of extinction rather than maintain the unreasonable goal of eliminating it

david f,

A sensible attitude. The disappearance of some birds, animals and plants is inevitable. Much of the alarmism is about activists getting money from governments in lieu of getting jobs. Some of the extinction or near extinction claims are just plain false, as with koalas in SA.

I'm a bird and native plant lover myself, and I regret threats to them. But many of the claims made by activists are dishonest.

Dear David F.,

Extinction may well be a natural phenomenon but surely
humans have made it worse. Accelerating natural extinction
rates due to our role in our activities - we've pushed
nature to the brink. Nothing other than knowledge is
going to save the planet and the humans and other animals
that live in it. The renewable technologies we get
excited about, the carbon-neutral lifestyles we aim for
are the inventions of humans, and their success depends on
an understanding of them, and a wish to implement them.

We have the intelligence, the tools, and the natural
resources for a good sustainable life provided that there
are not too many humans to exceed the world's carrying capacity.

Addressing the extinction crisis is important. Without
environmentally conscious individuals, as well as policy
changes by governments world wide we may lose even more
than we have so far. We need leadership alongside far
reaching initiatives that will attack the problems at their
roots.

Our world leaders need to take notice of the vast army of
experts who are willing and able to guide us through the
difficult times ahead. The time is well past - where we can
just ignore the issues - and pretend they're not happening.
Action is needed to be taken. Or things will only get worse.

There are forms of life which I would eliminate if I could. The small pox virus still exists in some laboratories. Should it exist at all? Plains death adder (an endangered poisonous snake), the tubercle bacillus, the Aids virus, foul brood and tracheal mites are all candidates for elimination in my opinion.

If we keep on accelerating natural extinction rates
due to our role in habitat loss, pollution, de-forestation,
spreading disease, population growth,, et cetera. Things
will only get worse.

Here's an interesting link from the New York Times:

http://nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinions/conservation-ethics.html

Let me try again:

http://nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinion/conservation-ethics.html

Dear Foxy,

There is an unacceptable high rate of extinction at this time. I do not recommend ignoring it. I recommend recognising that extinction is a natural process which should be reduced when its rate is too high, but it has positive aspects. Consider the Great Oxidation Event.

Great Oxidation Event

“The Great Oxidation Event (GOE), also called the Great Oxygenation Event, the Oxygen Catastrophe, the Oxygen Revolution, and the Oxygen Crisis, was a time interval when the Earth's atmosphere and the shallow ocean first experienced a rise in the amount of oxygen. This occurred approximately 2.4–2.0 Ga (billion years) ago, during the Paleoproterozoic era. Geological, isotopic, and chemical evidence suggests that biologically-produced molecular oxygen (dioxygen, O2) started to accumulate in Earth's atmosphere and changed it from a weakly reducing atmosphere practically free of oxygen into an oxidizing atmosphere containing abundant oxygen.

The sudden injection of toxic oxygen into an anaerobic biosphere caused the extinction of many existing anaerobic species on Earth. Although the event is inferred to have constituted a mass extinction, due in part to the great difficulty in surveying microscopic species' abundances, and in part to the extreme age of fossil remains from that time, the Oxygen Catastrophe is typically not counted among conventional lists of "great extinctions", which are implicitly limited to the Phanerozoic eon.

The event is inferred to have been caused by cyanobacteria producing the oxygen, which may have enabled the subsequent development of multicellular life-forms.”

The Great Oxidation Event caused a mass extinction of various species of cyanobacteria, but also resulted in an atmosphere that could support oxygen breathing forms of life such as our species and most species that inhabit this planet.

Those who recommend zero extinction are ignorant people who don’t recognize the role of extinction in evolution

david f & Foxy,

Spot-on assessments !

Dear David F.,

I get your point. By making room for new species
extinction helps drive the evolution of life.
We've had periods of mass extinction where large
percentages of the planet's species became extinct
in a relatively short amount of time due to widely
different causes.

In each of these cases the mass extinctions allowed
for new groups of organisms to thrive and diversify
which produced a range of new species. The demise
of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to thrive and
grow larger.

Today, scientists warn that because of human activities
such as pollution, over fishing, cutting down forests,
and so many other negative human activities, the earth
might be on the verge of (or already in) another mass
extinction.

If that is true - what new life will rise up to fill the
niche that we currently occupy?

Dear Foxy,

What new forms of life will arrive when our species trundles off to extinction? Humans are a terribly destructive species. We can design nuclear bombs and nonsense religions (redundant - all religions are nonsense.) . A shonky real estate dealer ex-president and a dictator seeking to recreate the glories of a totalitarian empire dominate the news. The news seems like bad fiction. However, think of what will disappear with our demise - rock & country music wailing, advertising jingles, Bible & Koran bashers, TV soaps & all the other detritus produced by a vulgar humanity.

If there still is life there will probably be predators and prey, social and anti-social creatures and possibly a new intelligent species which can create new forms of irrationality. "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

I will be 97 this month & am consumed with guilt for adding more individuals to an over-populated world.

Foxy: "If that is true - what new life will rise up to fill the niche that we currently occupy?"

The traditional six* Kingdoms of life: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea/Archaebacteria, and Bacteria/Eubacteria

The new kid on the block: Kingdom Non-Bio-Machina - ie, things that we typically call "man made machines". These are the next major step in evolution. (This is my personal take on the matter- traditionally biologists don't recognize this Kingdom as division of life)

Entities in Kingdom Machina are the fastest evolving forms on the planet. To give a comparison about how fast they are adapting/evolving consider the ability to see. Cell based biological machines (ie: traditional life-forms) took billions of years to develop sophisticated vision processing. In comparison non-biological machines required less than 10,000 years of evolution and now their sight is vastly superior to the most advanced vision of any biological species.

*: there are different categorizations of the world's biological species into Kingdoms. Some have less than six division's some have more. Many would argue that non-cellular evolving entities (like robots) wouldn't be classified as a Kingdom but a level up into a new Domain. Or even the next level (top level) up along side "Life Forms"- but this is a matter of philosophical debate, can a non-biological (esp: non-cellular) entity that reproduces by a process that consumerinh energy and material inputs and that adapts to its environment by an evolutionary mechanism be considered a life form?

The loss of one species can have unforeseen
consequences for many others since our systems
are connected by a complex web of interactions.

I'm hoping that such an ecosystem collapse is far
enough down the road for us to be able to forestall
it. It is difficult to make generalizations and
predictions. Unfortunately, early signs such as
habitat fragmentation and species loss in rainforests
and reefs are not good.

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://theconversation.com/what-species-would-become-domiant-on-earth-if-humans-died-out-53340

The prediction seems to be - ants!

We are connected in a web of life. Which species is most important in the web? We place cuteness as a value. The icon of Australia is the cute koala. The disappearance of the koala would cause the disappearance of those species that are parasitic on the koala - possibly only those species. The disappearance of the honeybee would endanger all those species which depend on the bee for pollination. That would be catastrophic.

There is a website which lists 11 important species or types of organisms.

https://interestingengineering.com/science/11-vital-species-we-need-to-save-the-planet

The site lists bees, phytoplankton, fungi, menhaden, bats, earthworms, cyanobacteria, sharks, coral reefs, springtails and ants.

However, there is value in cuteness. If we save the koala we also save the trees which the koalas depend on. Perhaps we can think of species the way John Donne thinks of humans.

'No Man is an Island'

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee

Perhaps the best outcome for most of the species on earth would be the departure of Homo sapiens.

"The prediction seems to be - ants!"

and "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE

Dear David F.,

If you haven't already seen it - the magnificent world
of wild-life comes to life on our TV screens tonight
on Channel 9 at 7.30 pm. TARONGA: WHOS WHO IN THE ZOO.

Naomi Watts continues as the narrator for this award
winning observational documentary series. It attempts to
look to a brighter future.

We get access to the keepers, vets, and support staff.
We follow them through all the highs and lows that come
with running one of the most successful zoos in the world
in Sydney.

At the forefront the focus is the animals. From breeding the
rarest rhino to leading the way in conservation and
research programs and feeding more than 5,000 residents a
day.

Nothing is more important than upholding the vision and
living philosophy of Taronga's key mission - working
together to ensure a shared future for wildlife and people.

I remember as a young girl - the thrill of my first elephant
ride at this zoo. Something I'll never forget.

Hi mhaze,

Brilli-Ant!

Every species ever to develop on this planet is bound for extinction sooner or later. To believe it is our duty, or with in our capabilities to prevent this happening is to grant ourselves abilities far beyond what we have, & to assume we are some kind of god to decide the future & value of these species.

Time to drop this self aggrandizement & let nature, & the survival of the fittest take it's course.

In the whole of the 20th century 543 vertebrate species went extinct out of approximately 100,000 such species.

No one knows for sure but it's estimated that there are between 10 and 15 million species worldwide. Again no one knows for sure but the upper estimate for extinctions in the last 1000 years is 10,000.

10,000 out of 10 million.

Get a grip.

The activists never talk about the actual extinctions because the numbers there are scary enough. So we are always told about those species that are always close to extinction - although they rarely get there.

OMG Koalas are going extinct. Except there are 10 time more now than when Cook arrived.

My favourite is the Gouldian Finch. We are told its close to extinction. There is currently a development in the NT threatened because of a Gouldian Finch flock in the region. But...go into any quality pet shop and you'll find them for sale. I used to breed them by the hundreds.

Its all a boondoggle - funds for people who create the problem and then offer a solution.

Do you want to save species in Australia? Declare open season on all wild cats, dogs, horses, camels, deer. Let the army go out for the next decade and have some fun and shooting practice or bait them all.

Declare open season on all wild cats, dogs,
mhaze,
another good reason for national Service !

Notwithstanding all that good science is capable of doing,
humanity won't move closer to a sustainable future
without the use of tools of persuasion, without the
right incentives, and without where necessary strict laws.

This is not to argue that ideas are not important - they are.
However they tend to take a long time to reach and influence
the majority. It's a concern that if the world's leading
climatologists are correct in their prognosis on climate
change and we don't reduce our carbon dioxide emissions -
a myriad of disastrous extreme weather events are likely
to beset the globe and affect all our lives.

There have been too many alarmist claims made by some in
the past. When these claims did not come to fruition - the
environmental advocates lost some of their credibility
and their future messages became muted.

It's been necessary for the environmental
advocates to try to get their message across by whatever
means possible. They don't have the public relations
budgets of the large corporations and governments.
Frightening citizens can work, but the scare has to be real.
And not all the approaches have worked. This is a real
problem in an era where urgent action is required.

Still on a positive note - it's only been several decades that
a generation of educated people have had the available
resources (time and money) to engage in the research,
the discussion, the reflection, and the trials and errors,
that are necessary to forming something
new.

And yet, today the connections have been made by so many
globally, between environmental degradation, and our lifestyles
our burgeoning population, and Third
World poverty. Much time has passed before the essential
links have finally been made. Progress has been slow for
environmentalism - but the world is starting to wake up
and realize that a better world is possible if we work together.
And we must for all of our survival.

.

Dear David,

.

The 2022 IPBS (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) report has just been published. It contains some interesting statistics on our biodiversity.

IPBS was created in 2012 by 139 governments. The report is the result of 4 years of research by 85 experts in more than 50 countries.

The total number of living species on earth is estimated to be in the range of 8 to 10 million, of which about 2 million have been described – insects representing three-quarters of all known animal species.

Humans exploit some 50,000 wild species in various sectors and industries (food, energy, medicine, etc.). A fifth of the world's population depends on wild plants, seaweeds, and mushrooms for food and revenue, and 2.4 billion people depend on wood for cooking.

It is estimated that 1 million animal and vegetable species (1 in 8) will become extinct in the short term, the current rate of extinction is in the range of 10 to 100 times (depending on the species) what it has been during the last 10 million years.

Overexploitation of fishing and hunting combined with the increased world human population is well documented in the report – worth noting : 1,300 mammals, especially the larger animals are particularly endangered.

Nowhere in the report is there any suggestion of a goal of “no extinction”. The authors observe that indigenous people and local populations depend heavily for their existence on natural resources and generally manage them well.

Greater awareness of our dependence on natural resources and the importance of preserving them are badly needed among the non-indigenous world population.

.

"It is estimated that 1 million animal and vegetable species (1 in 8) will become extinct in the short term"

The report says 1 million are 'threatened'. That's completely different from "will become extinct" in the same way as 'I have as cut on my figure' is different to 'my arm will be amputated'.

Do the numbers...
'Short term' is said to be the next few decades. Let's say 50 years.

1 Million in 50 years = 384 per week - every week for 50 years.

Reminder, there were maybe 1000 extinctions in the 20th century or 0.19 species per week.

These claimed 'threatened' species numbers are based on models, not observation. They have been making it up for decades but never got within cooee of the facts.

The real result of these reports are attempts convince governments to keep the funds flowing.

I once asked a conservationist "If a decline in the number of the world's species is a problem, then why don't we just make more species?"

They had no logically consistent answer to my question.

Reverse extinction?

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-large-extinct-australian-cockroach-has-reappeared-after-more-than-80-years

"The alleged Extinction Crisis is but a component of the multibillion-dollar climate scam". (Vic Jurskis).

Although clearing and logging SUPPOSEDLY threatens native animals, the biggest extinction problem is feral cats, according to the Invasive Species Council.

Most of Australia's extinctions occurred/occur in arid zones where there are no forests and no clearing. Just cats.

As for the political solution by Labor, locking up 30% of Australia - the 'Lock It Up and Let It Burn' method - Black Summer saw these mismanaged parks go up in flames, killing millions of native animals and people also died or lost their homes.

Don't expect a political 'solution' by Labor, or the other mob, who have claimed that Labor pinched their plan!

The following link gives us a 10 facts about
deforestation in Australia:

http://wilderness.org.au/news-events/10-facts-about-deforestation-in-australia

Here's the link again:

http://wilderness.org.au/news-events/10-facts-about-deforestation-in-australia#

Don't forget rats have a place too, be it the dodo or trees on Easter Island. Mice have not been good for sea bird populations either. And trying to poison them can be disastrous for predatory birds.

"The following link gives us a 10 facts about
deforestation in Australia"

From the site it seems that the most important 'fact' is that you have to DONATE to the Wilderness Society.

__________________________________________________________________

The UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation has been tracking forests for decades.

Some Facts from them....

* Australia ranks number 6 in total forest area.
* Australia ADDED (yep added) 4.5 million (yep Million) hectares of forest in the decade to 2020.
* That is the second highest increase in the world.
* Australia ranks in the top ten countries for forest in protected areas

All good news.

But you can't elicit donations by telling good news.

Good Heavens!!
A factual post about the Wilderness Society.

Perhaps this may provide further explanation:

http://acf.org.au/state-of-the-environment-report-explained-2022

The problem with relying on the internet for information is that Google and other Big Left Tech search engines have what they want you to think at the top, and it's a long and tedious task to wade through Big Tech Left preferences for other views and opinions. Alternative information and views are available, but usually down too deep for lazy researchers merely looking for confirmation of their own opinions. This is why I never look at the 'references' provided by lefties - the biggest abuses of information - because I know that they will be written by someone who merely thinks the way they do.

I watched a smug UN activist proudly explaining this to an interviewer a couple of days ago. I already knew this, as I'm sure other aware right of centre posters here are. I won't read the things and I certainly will not use them. There are plenty of real, known authorities to go to for information more reliable than Big Tech.

What I find extraordinary is that the world's leading organisation as regards forest cover, with decades of experience and a significant budget to boot, has confirmed that there is no DEforestation in Australia, but instead REforestation. Normally the woke would swoon at the findings of a UN based organisation.

Yet despite the FACTS as laid out by the FAO, the green organisations in Australia continue to just assert that we are deforesting.....and some believe it.

Facts be damned.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

I wrote :

« It is estimated that 1 million animal and vegetable species (1 in 8) will become extinct in the short term »

And you replied :

1. « The report says 1 million are 'threatened' »
.

You’re quite right, mhaze, mea culpa ! I was reading the report in French and wrongly translated that phrase. I should have written : “It is estimated that 1 million animal and vegetable species (1 in 8) are threatened with extinction in the short term”.

That said, I’m rather dubious of your interpretation of “short term” meaning 50 years. One in eight animal and vegetable species may well be threatened with extinction over that 50-year time scale you calculate, but I wouldn’t refer to it as “short term”.
.

2. « These claimed 'threatened' species numbers are based on models, not observation. They have been making it up for decades but never got within cooee of the facts. The real result of these reports are attempts to convince governments to keep the funds flowing »

I suppose that’s possible, mhaze, but I can’t help thinking it’s the sort of thing climate deniers have been saying for years about global warming. Perhaps you could provide a little more information to back up your statement.

You say : “they have been making it up for decades”, but as I indicated in my previous post, the IPBS was only created in 2012 (10 years ago) by 139 governments. The report is the result of 4 years of research by 85 experts in more than 50 countries.

Are you suggesting that the whole thing is just a vast hoax to swindle money out of those 139 governments and that the 85 experts in more than 50 countries are all crooks and liars ?

.

then why don't we just make more species?"
thinkabit,
Apparently, there's already someone doing that !

Banjo wrote :"You’re quite right, mhaze"

Well done. Its rare on these pages that someone owns up to their errors.

_________________________________________________________________

"I was reading the report in French ...."

You can never trust the French.

__________________________________________________________________

"I’m rather dubious of your interpretation of “short term” meaning 50 years. "

Well the report doesn't define it but it does say 'the coming decades'. If they mean something less than 50 years it just makes their numbers even more absurd.

______________________________________________________________________

"..but I can’t help thinking it’s the sort of thing climate deniers have been saying for years about global warming. Perhaps you could provide a little more information"

First, I point out that using the term "climate denier" labels you as a team player, more interested in the propaganda than the facts. Climate alarmism was always based on models.
As to this issue, it seems rather obvious that it is based on modelling. If there are 10 million species but only 2 million described, then the only way to determined the 'threatened' status of the other 8 million is via models. You can't decide if a particular species is threatened if it isn't even defined, n'est pas?
IPBES actually wrote a report on modelling..."Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services"

____________________________________________________________________

"You say : “they have been making it up for decades”, "

It was a more general 'they'. Yes the IPBES is recent but it is comprised of people who've been in the game for decades. It goes all the way back to E.O.Wilson's 1980s claim which he finally had to withdraw a decade later as mere guesses.

"Are you suggesting that the whole thing is just a vast hoax to swindle money "

No. As with climate, I'm sure these people sincerely believe their models and that they are doing God's work. They convince themselves that their models are the real world. OTOH I'm sure that, as with climate, there are few charlatans who know that the only way to further their case (and career) is to create "scary scenarios" to frighten the public.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

I wrote :

« I was reading the report in French »

And you replied :

« You can never trust the French »
.

Unfortunately, there are many people one can never trust in this world, but it has nothing to do with nationality (remember ScoMo and the French submarines).

No, it has nothing to do with the French. It was my fault and my fault alone.
.

Many thanks for your explanation regarding research based on modeling which I understand and appreciate. It’s obvious that given the immensity of the task of dressing the inventory of all living species on planet earth, it would take more than 4 years for those 85 experts to accomplish it, even if they worked day and night.

I doubt that I could count the total number of ants correctly in just one ant heap, let alone the total number of ants on every inch of the planet – nor the total population of earthworms hiding under the surface of the ground, every blade of grass, every tree, every shrub, and flower.

Every ant, every earthworm, every sparrow, and every frog looks exactly the same to me. I’d probably count the same ones several times and others never.

And yet, the 85 experts would have had to repeat that same operation several times over the 4-year period in order to measure the evolution of the 8 to 10 million species on earth and calculate the rate of extinction or proliferation of each species.

So, as a physical inventory is impossible, I guess they had to decide either to give up or find another method.

If I understand correctly, statistical modeling based on a random selection of sample data, which you consider to be non-representative of reality, was apparently the best they could do.

Let’s call it “an intelligent guess” and treat it as such. Maybe it’s better than nothing and, hopefully, they might be able to improve the model as time goes by.

It should get easier and more accurate as more and more species become extinct.

.

Banjo Paterson, when you hire a bunch of activists to do the research you get such a result, which was what you paid for.

Foxy for heavens sake stop posting links to such biased rip off merchants as the Wilderness Society. It degrades your posts.

.

Dear Hasbeen,

.

You describe the experts of the IPBES as “a bunch of activists”.

I checked out half a dozen of them at random. All six appear to be reputable scientists so far as I can judge. I have not found anything to suggest that any of them are “activists”, but if you have any probative evidence to the contrary perhaps you would be kind enough to share it with me.

Here is the list with a brief bio for each expert :

1. Julia Marton-Lefèvre (France) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Marton-Lef%C3%A8vre

2. Carolyn Lundquist (New Zealand) :
http://www.iai.int/admin/site/sites/default/files/Escola%20SP%202019%20-%20Bio%20-%20Carolyn%20Lundquist.pdf

3. Youngbae SUH ((Republic of Korea)
http://2012congress.iucn.org/cmsdata.iucn.org.iucn.vm.iway.ch/downloads/suh_youngbae___bio.pdf

4. Asghar FAZEL (Iran) :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asghar_FAZEL1_s2.jpg

5. Simon Ferrier (Australia) :
http://people.csiro.au/F/S/Simon-Ferrier

6. Mary Rowen (USA) :
http://seas.umich.edu/ecomgt//events/bios/rowen.htm
.

If, by chance, these six do not happen to be among the “bunch of activists” you have in mind, perhaps you could point out the ones you do know about. Here is the complete list of the 85 IPBES experts :

http://ipbes.net/experts?field_government_target_id=All&field_deliverable_target_id=All&page=0

.

"If we keep on accelerating natural extinction rates
due to our role in habitat loss, pollution, de-forestation,
spreading disease, population growth,, et cetera. Things
will only get worse."

Things are guaranteed to get worse.
They are already promoting eating insects, what do you think is going to happen?

I predict the poor will eat kangaroo, possums, koalas, and wombats before they succumb to house crickets protein.

- Just keep increasing the immigration rates and I promise it won't be long before Aussies are eating ALL the marsupials to extinction.

AC,
if only Australians wgould start ehating ‘roo and wallaby we’d be a healthier nation and the land would be less degraded.

Extinction is natural.
One species can grow to dominate a region, and push another out of existence.
Those who see this as normal are quite right.
The problem for us is that the human species has been far too clever at surviving.
It has thus overpopulated the planet.
It is now necessary to reassess our use of the planet's resources.
We need to take from it what we need to survive, and take only that.
And, where possible, replace and replenish what we use.
Otherwise, we will simply eat ourselves out of house and home.
And should this happen, we will be relegated to some distant part of history?
I wonder which amimal would rise in mumbers to take our place?
I doubt it would be a plant

Ipso Fatso wrote "I wonder which amimal would rise in mumbers to take our place? I doubt it would be a plant.

Rest assured. Any animal which took our place would not be a plant.

Well I've never understood why people don't just make more species if they're so concerned about the number of species declining.

But the other thing I've never understood is why people keep saying, as Ipso Fatso has just said, that the world is overpopulated. What do they actually mean by this? The global average living standards are higher now than at any other time is history. We produce more food now than at any other time in history. Indeed food production is so high that I remember reading years ago that the number of obese people on the planet now outnumbers the hungry. So why do people think that we're overpopulated?

Dear thinkabit,

We are overpopulated because we are using up the resources of the world faster than they can be replaced. There is also an unequal distribution of resources. While many people are obese, many are also going hungry. We cannot continue our present rate of consumption and reproduction. It is unsustainable. Crunch time is coming, and it will be most unpleasant.

davidf: "We are overpopulated because we are using up the resources of the world faster than they can be replaced."

But that doesn't mean that we are overpopluated. To give you an hypothetical example why not: consider Mary, who has a small desk top gold fish tank with a single fish in it. Now Mary has accidentally purchased ten tons of fishfood flakes to feed the fish. So here the gold fish is consuming a finite resource (the 10 tons of food) faster than it can be replaced (Mary is never going to buy more) but it is NOT overpopulated because it will die of old age before it runs out of food. It is the same with us humans- we do use up resources but due to the fact, that we a) can recycle and b) can swap to other resources for most stuff, the rate we inexhaustibly consume resources is a non-issue since a human can only live about a century. If in the deep, deep future we do begin to run out of some critical resource, we can simply adjust our population by breeding less and let our population naturally decrease in size due to death by old age.
But we are nowhere that point yet, because there is no evidence that there exists any non-substitutable critical resource is or that will about to enter into short supply within a human's life-time. (In fact, humanity deciding to deliberately reduce our global population realistically probably won't ever need to happen- because machines will have evolved to completely replace humans before then. They already are starting to replace humans in first world countries. Birth rates in first world countries are plummeting because society doesn't need human labour so much anymore since machines can do a lot of the work. Machines are the next phase in the evolution of what's traditionally labelled "life" on the planet.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

"There is also an unequal distribution of resources."

Yep, but that's due to geopolitics/religion- not population size. The hungry people in the world are mainly found in countries with authoritarian regimes that aren't liberal democracies. Or in intolerant societies where one group of people simply refuse to get along with the group next door. Or crazy religious people who breed because their religious leaders told them to instead of making wise choices about limiting their family size to the number of mouths they can personally provide for. But despite this, overall there is more than enough food in the world today to adequately feed every living person.

"While many people are obese, many are also going hungry."

Well obese people are fat because they keep shoving food in their mouths and don't get enough exercise. Skinny people (besides those with eating disorders) are hungry mainly due to politics/religion as described above.

"We cannot continue our present rate of consumption and reproduction."

We certainly can continue with our current rate for quite a while yet.

"It is unsustainable."

Yes, it is unsustainable- but like the gold fish example above this doesn't matter much.

"Crunch time is coming, and it will be most unpleasant."

No it's not and it won't be.

.

In case you missed it, The Living Planet Report 2022 has just been published. It claims :

« The Living Planet Report 2022 is WWF’s most comprehensive study to date of trends in global biodiversity and the health of our planet. The latest flagship publication reveals global wildlife populations have plummeted by 69% on average since 1970. The staggering rate of decline is a severe warning that the rich biodiversity that sustains all life on our planet is in crisis, putting every species at risk – including us »

Here is the report :

http://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_2022_full_report_1.pdf

.

We're told that "Every 5 years the Australian government
releases a comprehensive assessment of the state of our
environment. It's where we find how healthy - or sick-
our animals, forests, rivers, oceans, climate, communities,
and cities really are. The new report is out and unfortunately
it reveals even further declines in the health of our
incredible plants, animals, and ecosystems.

http://acf.org.au/state-of-the-environment-report-explained-2022

How many species (plant, mammal, fish, bird) exist in Australia now?

Answer: around 600,000 give or take.

How many species (plant, mammal, fish, bird) existed in Australia when Cook arrived?

Answer: around 600,000 give or take.

How many species have gone extinct in Australia since 1788?

Answer: 100.

100 out of 600,000. Get a grip.

Its all smoke and mirrors. Its all about funding, careers, politics. We are given links to 'reports' from the Conservation Foundation and the WWF both of which highlight the "donation" button on their homepage. That's what it all about.

Scientific American tells us that there is a rise of
extinction deniers. "Just like the climate deniers,
they're out to obfuscate and debase the scientists and
conservationists trying to save the world and maybe get
rid of a few pesky species in the process."

What does all this serve?

" Obviously just as with climate denial - the more you
deny that extinctions happen or that they're a problem,
the more you can drill, blast, pave, extract, or
eliminate all - so you can remove any barriers to your
"freedom" and make as much money as you want."

Perhaps it is this kind of mindset that needs to go extinct?

There's more at:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown-rise-of-the-extinction-deniers/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000632071930895X?via%3Dihub

There were 100 documented extinctions in Australia since 1788. Them's the facts, but if you don't want the fact to be a fact then just start throwing around the ad hominems.

It seems that anyone who disagrees with the latest scam becomes a 'denier'.

On the other hand, maybe they're not a denier, just more interested in facts than the feelz.

If we don't limit our inroads in to this planet's resources, we will cause our own extinction.
Throwing nuclear devices at each other would achieve the same result, but with more agony.

"If we don't limit our inroads in to this planet's resources"

The only problem with that assertion is that there aren't any resources that we are running out of.

The doomsayers have been asserting for a century that we are going to run out of this or that resource - we never do.

.

Dear mhaze

.

You wrote :

« How many species have gone extinct in Australia since 1788? … 100 out of 600,000 »
.

That certainly puts things in perspective, mhaze, and is somewhat reassuring, at least from a purely statistical point of view.

But then when we look a little more closely at the composition of those 600,000 species and exactly which species have already gone extinct as well as those that are in danger of going extinct “in the short term”, things are not quite as reassuring as they seem at first sight.

I understand that insects represent about 75% of all know species and we don’t seem to have lost any of them. According to the Science Direct article to which you kindly posted a link, the 100 species that were noted to have become extinct at the last count were :

« one protist, 38 vascular plants, ten invertebrates, one fish, four frogs, three reptiles, nine birds and 34 mammals »

Though we may not miss, nor even notice, the loss of species such as insects, protists, vascular plants, etc., we probably will miss many if not all of those 9 birds and 34 mammals.

Apart from our important insect population, it seems we are now left with the following :

- 8128 accepted described species known as chordate, which include vertebrates, as well as 98,703 invertebrates, 24,716 plants, 11,846 fungi, and around 4186 in other groups

That ties up roughly with the overall average estimate of 75% insects and 25% other species.

But it’s a bit disturbing to learn that Australia is a global leader in wildlife extinction, especially since we have the second-largest number of endemic species – plants and animals found nowhere else in the world.

I hope we’ll be able to do something to preserve what’s left of our birds, fish, and mammals in particular.

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald in July 2020 :

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-is-australia-a-global-leader-in-wildlife-extinctions-20200717-p55cyd.html

.

Lets look at what causes the depletion of our natural
resources.

Some of the things listed are - overpopulation, our
consumption and waste, deforestation and the destruction of
ecosystems to loss of biodiversity, mining of minerals and
oil, erosion, pollution and contamination of resources,
technological and industrial development are some
of the things listed.

There are of course some people who believe that we shall
continue to ahve water to drink. That we won't run out
of fossil fuels. That our oil supply won't decrease.
That we'll continue to supply natural gas and that we shall
always have fish to eat.

But scientists and conservationists are warning us of what our
future will look like if we don't listen to what we are
being told. The choice is up to us. Live for today - who
cares about tomorrow? Perhaps future generations do!

"Lets look at what causes the depletion of our natural
resources."

What natural resource is depleted? Name 'em.

One way to tell if a resource is depleting is to look at its price. If we are running out of something, the price rises. No such resource exists. As I've said many times here, humankind has never run out of a resource.

As if to emphasis just how immune to the facts some are, I've previously shown evidence that Australia is REforesting not DEforesting. Yey the Foxy's of the world just carry on a though those facts just don't matter, or even exist.

A quote I saw today..." People are much more upset about being given a fact they don't want to be true, than being told a lie".

Banjo Paterson: "But it’s a bit disturbing to learn that Australia is a global leader in wildlife extinction, especially since we have the second-largest number of endemic species – plants and animals found nowhere else in the world."

But why do you find this disturbing?

Why does the number of extant species seem so important to you?

Do you realise that the vast, vast majority of species (we're talking 95%+ here) that have ever been went extinct BEFORE homo-sapiens evolved into existence?

Does the extinction of these previous-to-human species disturb you, or is it just the extinction of those that are contemporaneous with us humans that upset you?

And if the current number of living species are so important to environmentalists, then why don't they advocate for creating new species*?

[*: many aren't aware that humans can and have made new species. For example, the domestic dog results from human actions, but the process of its evolution took 10,000s of years. These days with modern science we can genetically engineer new species in a lab very quickly. Today we could pump out any number new species that we wanted within our lifetimes, its just a matter of funding.]

"Not long ago, environmentalists constantly used pictures of polar bears to highlight the dangers of climate change. Polar bears even featured in Al Gore’s terrifying movie An Inconvenient Truth. But the reality is that polar bear numbers have been increasing – from 5,000-10,000 polar bears in the 1960s, up to around 26,000 today. We don’t hear this news. Instead, campaigners just quietly stopped using polar bears in their activism.

There are so many bad-news stories that we seldom stop to consider that on the most important indicators, life is getting much better. Human life expectancy has doubled over the past century, from 36 years in 1920 to more than 72 years today. A hundred years ago, three-quarters of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Today, it’s less than one-tenth. The deadliest environmental problem, air pollution, was four-times more likely to kill you in 1920 than today, mostly through people in poverty cooking and heating with dung and wood.

Despite Covid-related setbacks, humanity has become better and better off. Yet doom-mongers will keep telling you the end is nigh. This is great for their fundraising, but the costs to society are sky-high: we make poor, expensive policy choices and our kids are scared witless."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23039603.believe-not-world-getting-better-just-dont-hear/

Bjorn Lomborg is a treasure.

One thing is for sure there are no shortages of ‘roos or wallabies, otherwise the red hot conservationists would demand the safe fencing off of our roads.

Oops, when I said 95%+ in my previous post it should have been 99%+.

.

Dear thinkabit,

.

I wrote :

« But it’s a bit disturbing to learn that Australia is a global leader in wildlife extinction, especially since we have the second-largest number of endemic species – plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. »

And you asked :

« But why do you find this disturbing? »
.

Like our Aboriginal compatriots, I tend to consider that we are custodians of the land on which we live and, in fact, not just the land, but also the natural environment of which we are an integral component.

So, I find it a bit disturbing to learn that we are doing less well in looking after “our” land and “our” environment than most other countries and that we have the highest rate of mammal extinctions than any other country in the world.

Obviously, we can’t be held responsible for the mass extinctions that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago and there’s no point in bemoaning the loss.

My concern is that by our acts and omissions in the world in which we live today we are probably not only not doing what we should to preserve and enrichen our natural heritage but quite the contrary, endangering and impoverishing it.

We obviously need to take stock of the situation and do whatever is necessary to improve our performance.

We pride ourselves in thinking we are a young, vibrant nation in “the lucky country” with a bright future ahead of us. The fact is we are bottom of the class in biodiversity management.

That’s what I find a bit disturbing.

.

We can't help but notice difference.
I cannot see any harm in taking an interest in a person's background.
If they come from another country, it can be educational as well as friendly.
But overall, we should cease putting people in to 'groups'.
I know that 'birds of a feather will flock together', and that there are large areas where strange languages are spoken.
But that is a natural outcome of people 'toing' and 'froing' in the community.
However, we are all australians: we are all here together: we need to get along.
I don't approve of the deliberate division I see evolving.
That to me is highly racist in the worst sense.
This 'voice to parliament' business is highly divisive and racist?
Putting one part of the community in to a different category?
Setting it apart?
It is insulting to them.
We need to treat everybody the same.
Expect the same level of community spirit from all.
Willingly assist those who have true difficulty adapting to society.
And for those few who are trouble makers, fall on them with a heavy weight.
Cut them out of the herd for the sake of the rest of us.

Life flourishes almost everywhere.
I think life is inherent in matter.
All life is driven by intelligence of some kind.
As is matter itself.
All the life forms compete for resources.
As we compete, we are engaged in a kind of battle with each other.
We have an advanced intellectual ability, so we can think and plan, and outwit other life forms.
We do this when they are a threat to our existence, (plagues etc) or when it will allow us greater comfort and convenience.
It might not seem reasonable, but remember, 'all is fair in love and war'.
And I am sure we do not love any harmful virus or other 'nasty'.
So it is all out war.