Humans: the Sixth Mass Extinction?

[Kryten]

It's not extinction, it's evolution. Everyone here knows the peppered moth story, right?

What did the Thylacine evolve into?

[B787_300]

It's not extinction, it's evolution. Everyone here knows the peppered moth story, right?

That was essentially a fringe case, most animals that are going extinct are going extinct because of human interactions and consequences.

IMHO it is sad what we have done, the current efforts are not enough, and we as a species started too late to prevent most of the recent extinctions and the only hope now for those species is cloning of some sort

[magnemoe]

We've been here slightly longer than 50 years...

Yes, however things happening 50 years or more ago is not ongoing but history.

Here's a list of 700 that have been individually confirmed. This isn't where the really high numbers come from but you can be safe to multiply that number many times; as all of these animals will have species specific parasites and bacteria which also go extinct with the host animal.

http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/mostrecent.htm

The really high estimates come from bio-diversity studies in the rain-forests. Every time entomologists catalogue an area of rainforest they come across loads of unique species they've only ever found in that area. The really high estimates are derived from mathematical formulae which take into account the thousands of square miles of rain forest we chop down, rather than individual species being recorded.

Thanks, and I agree with the list is incomplete, ignore gut bacteria, think about insects and other smaller animals. However larger animals are more critical, we will not get new species of large animals we don't create ourself as their habitats are far smaller.

As for rainforests, we all agree its an major problem.

One thing on the other hand who make the list more "natural" is that lots of the species are island species who only exist one one island, they mostly get extinct because of introduced species, cats and small flightless birds ends bad for the birds, however any predator who managed to come to the island natural like some bird of prey would have the same effect.

Overspecialized island species live on borrowed time, that does not say we should not protect them.

[Moar Boosters]

Yes, however things happening 50 years or more ago is not ongoing but history.

Thanks, and I agree with the list is incomplete, ignore gut bacteria, think about insects and other smaller animals. However larger animals are more critical, we will not get new species of large animals we don't create ourself as their habitats are far smaller.

As for rainforests, we all agree its an major problem.

One thing on the other hand who make the list more "natural" is that lots of the species are island species who only exist one one island, they mostly get extinct because of introduced species, cats and small flightless birds ends bad for the birds, however any predator who managed to come to the island natural like some bird of prey would have the same effect.

Overspecialized island species live on borrowed time, that does not say we should not protect them.

I guess it depends on how far we go with the destruction of our planet before we kill off our own species.

Going extinct is "normal" path for most species. There are exceptions which survive throughout the fossil record unchanged but the majority of species that have existed go extinct. We're not above this, so the fate of our ecosystem really depends how far we go with the destruction of habitats before we go extinct ourselves.

Somebody in another thread (there are about 3 very similar threads going right now) mentioned the great oxygenation event, and how that was both the cause of mass extinction, and the boost for new evolution. There's already evidence that we've started something similar ourselves. We've caused de-oxygenation in large areas of oceans; killed off the regular inhabitants and created new habitats for creatures that can survive the new conditions. As a result we've seen big increases in population of creatures like humbolt squid, and huge swarms of various jellyfish.

Creatures thriving in new habitats and adopting new behaviors are one of the key requirements for evolution. The more radical the mass extinction, the more radical the change to life will be. When the K-T event hit, the dinos all died and the world was inherited by the small fluffy proto-mammals and the small fluffy dino-birds who were able to keep warm.

Even with all our technology we're FAR from the most robust survivable lifeforms, so even if we take our destruction to the ultimate level and wipe ourselves out, something will survive us. Sea-life has always proved much more better at surviving mass extinctions, and looking at the way we're damaging our planet, our ultimate fate is recreating something similar to the ordovician period. That's the co2 saturated atmpsphere, melted icecaps, heated earth scenario environmentalists talk about.

It'd be unlivable for most species, but the last time the world was like that there was an evolutionary boom in advanced molluscs: The ammonite and belemnite fossils we're all familiar with took off around that time, which are similar to modern cephalopods. Some of the current species we have are remarkably intelligent, so who knows what path evolution would take if they inherit the earth.

[78stonewobble]

Here's a list of 700 that have been individually confirmed. This isn't where the really high numbers come from but you can be safe to multiply that number many times; as all of these animals will have species specific parasites and bacteria which also go extinct with the host animal.

http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/mostrecent.htm

The really high estimates come from bio-diversity studies in the rain-forests. Every time entomologists catalogue an area of rainforest they come across loads of unique species they've only ever found in that area. The really high estimates are derived from mathematical formulae which take into account the thousands of square miles of rain forest we chop down, rather than individual species being recorded.

700 species is 0,058 percent of the 1.2 mio. registered species, with certain estimates being 8.7 mio. species in total (others say 10-14 mio, yet others 3-100 mio).

Previous extinction events are between 60 to 96 percent of all species going extinct.

[Sirrobert]

Yea, all the changes that we humans cause are not JUST going to cause extinction. They are also going to cause new species.

But that takes longer than the direct future, so noone takes that into account.

But if Humanity were to survive the next thousand years, I have no doubt there will be many new, different species living next to us

700 species is 0,058 percent of the 1.2 mio. registered species, with certain estimates being 8.7 mio. species in total (others say 10-14 mio, yet others 3-100 mio).

Previous extinction events are between 60 to 96 percent of all species going extinct.

As he also explained, that's NOT taking into acount microscopic life forms, and species we don't know about in uninhabited parts of the world, and in the oceans

Edited January 21, 2015 by Sirrobert

[Moar Boosters]

700 species is 0,058 percent of the 1.2 mio. registered species, with certain estimates being 8.7 mio. species in total (others say 10-14 mio, yet others 3-100 mio).

Previous extinction events are between 60 to 96 percent of all species going extinct.

For the sake of argument, lets say it's even less.

700 species gone in 500 years. I'm not very good at math, so lets cut that down to 500 species in 500 years, or 1 per year. That's all life gone within 1, or 8 or 300 million years, which is nothing on a geological timescale. Obviously it wouldn't pan out that way. It wouldn't be a slow rot. At some point thresholds would be reached which would start a far more rapid acceleration.

[78stonewobble]

For the sake of argument, lets say it's even less.

700 species gone in 500 years. I'm not very good at math, so lets cut that down to 500 species in 500 years, or 1 per year. That's all life gone within 1, or 8 or 300 million years, which is nothing on a geological timescale. Obviously it wouldn't pan out that way. It wouldn't be a slow rot. At some point thresholds would be reached which would start a far more rapid acceleration.

My point was that it was sounding like we were lawnmowing them down by the dozens... on purpose... with lawnmowers.

Sure, we can do something about habitat encroachment and possibly stop eating some of the species, but climate change is a slow change (relative to us), no matter what we do and dependent on how much of climate change is actually humanity's fault and not just naturally occurring.

Heck, even if we all killed ourselves tomorrow, it would take x decades, if not hundreds of years, for the damage to be undone.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Humans most likely won't even last enough to see the Sun become a Red Giant Star (aprox. 6 billion years). Probably, not even 100 x 10^-16 of that time.

[J.Random]

We're killing microscopic life forms? Oh, my, it's horrible! OK, time to stop vaccinations and bring back the Black Death. This is gonna be fun.

[Crimson Sunrise]

We're killing microscopic life forms? Oh, my, it's horrible! OK, time to stop vaccinations and bring back the Black Death. This is gonna be fun.

We have AIDS and Ebola already. I'll pass.

[Bill Phil]

We have AIDS and Ebola already. I'll pass.

We've HAD ebola, and AIDS isn't HIV per se.

[Moar Boosters]

My point was that it was sounding like we were lawnmowing them down by the dozens... on purpose... with lawnmowers.

Sure, we can do something about habitat encroachment and possibly stop eating some of the species, but climate change is a slow change (relative to us), no matter what we do and dependent on how much of climate change is actually humanity's fault and not just naturally occurring.

Heck, even if we all killed ourselves tomorrow, it would take x decades, if not hundreds of years, for the damage to be undone.

The worst mass extinction of all took about 10 million years to complete, so on a geological timescale there's bloody lawnmowers everywhere. From your and my perspective, we'll probably be fine. We're still at the "won't it be a shame if our grandchildren don't see pandas" stage. In a few generations humans might have stopped polluting the planet, ceased gaining population at an unsustainable rate and all be flying around in fusion powered cars....... or they might be cursing our generation because they can no longer get rice or corn to grow.

[Tex]

Just a quick edit. Added the video to the OP post. And I suppose I'll stick it here too.

Hopefully this can sort of clear the air and focus more on the discussion of the implications of "Humans are the next mass extinction" rather than jabbing at each other's posts. I really don't want to see this one locked, please. It was a simple topic that I was curious about.

[KerikBalm]

Absolutely, we are causing a mass extinction.

Those who deny it are simply uninformed and lack the knowledge to put things in perspective.

[magnemoe]

The worst mass extinction of all took about 10 million years to complete, so on a geological timescale there's bloody lawnmowers everywhere. From your and my perspective, we'll probably be fine. We're still at the "won't it be a shame if our grandchildren don't see pandas" stage. In a few generations humans might have stopped polluting the planet, ceased gaining population at an unsustainable rate and all be flying around in fusion powered cars....... or they might be cursing our generation because they can no longer get rice or corn to grow.

However, the process has pretty much stopped in the first world this includes habitat destruction on large scale, yes you might say we are done, Europe looked radically different 7000 years ago or even 1000, this would be obvious from orbit. Currently the destruction happens in 3rd world countries with plenty of wilderness.

[Kryten]

However, the process has pretty much stopped in the first world this includes habitat destruction on large scale, yes you might say we are done, Europe looked radically different 7000 years ago or even 1000, this would be obvious from orbit. Currently the destruction happens in 3rd world countries with plenty of wilderness.

There are plenty of species left in fragmented remaining areas of wilderness of Europe or the US, and this renders them extremely vulnerable. For example, the Pyrenean Ibex went extinct in 'first world' Spain in 2000.

[Sirrobert]

My point was that it was sounding like we were lawnmowing them down by the dozens... on purpose... with lawnmowers.

Sure, we can do something about habitat encroachment and possibly stop eating some of the species, but climate change is a slow change (relative to us), no matter what we do and dependent on how much of climate change is actually humanity's fault and not just naturally occurring.

Heck, even if we all killed ourselves tomorrow, it would take x decades, if not hundreds of years, for the damage to be undone.

Well if you replace the lawnmowers with lumberjacks in the rainforests... We kinda are

[magnemoe]

There are plenty of species left in fragmented remaining areas of wilderness of Europe or the US, and this renders them extremely vulnerable. For example, the Pyrenean Ibex went extinct in 'first world' Spain in 2000.

This is true, you also have a lot of species who got down too so low numbers that they are hard to save later on.

However more species in the first world move out of the endangered list than into it.

[GreeningGalaxy]

This is true, you also have a lot of species who got down too so low numbers that they are hard to save later on.

However more species in the first world move out of the endangered list than into it.

I think that there's only one main reason why we see less extinction in places like North America and Europe. Many of the areas not yet developed (or in the process of being developed) by humans, such as South American rainforests or African jungles, are more biodiverse than the temperate northern regions - on the Great Plains in the USA, you can bulldoze for miles and probably never run over a species of insect that only lives in one tree or in one square kilometer, while if you do that in a rainforest, you'll absolutely wipe out entire species.

It doesn't really have anything much to do with the amount of development itself. It's not like North America and Europe are any good at saving species from extinction - heck, it's not like it's the exclusive fault of those who live there for wrecking the ecosystems in the Amazon and in Africa - it's just that your "first world" nations often live in much less diverse biomes than "third world" ones.

It's no good to point fingers, all of us live on the same planet.

Honestly, I just don't understand how it's at all significant that extinctions happen more in "the third world." The tropical jungles just happen to be the places where the whole world sees agricultural and industrial opportunities, and that's why those places are suffering the worst from the mass extinction.

Edited January 23, 2015 by GreeningGalaxy

[RainDreamer]

Well. We should probably accelerate our plan of going to other planets and making those place habitable, then leave Earth alone for a few millennia.

[Baenki]

--

Edited March 25, 2018 by Baenki

[magnemoe]

I think that there's only one main reason why we see less extinction in places like North America and Europe. Many of the areas not yet developed (or in the process of being developed) by humans, such as South American rainforests or African jungles, are more biodiverse than the temperate northern regions - on the Great Plains in the USA, you can bulldoze for miles and probably never run over a species of insect that only lives in one tree or in one square kilometer, while if you do that in a rainforest, you'll absolutely wipe out entire species.

It doesn't really have anything much to do with the amount of development itself. It's not like North America and Europe are any good at saving species from extinction - heck, it's not like it's the exclusive fault of those who live there for wrecking the ecosystems in the Amazon and in Africa - it's just that your "first world" nations often live in much less diverse biomes than "third world" ones.

It's no good to point fingers, all of us live on the same planet.

Honestly, I just don't understand how it's at all significant that extinctions happen more in "the third world." The tropical jungles just happen to be the places where the whole world sees agricultural and industrial opportunities, and that's why those places are suffering the worst from the mass extinction.

You have a point here, this also aplies to any less active ecosystems than rain forests. However how old is Amazonas? Or more accurate how big was it during the ice age?

And yes most of Europe was forests even in roman times, we don't know much of that went extinct in prehistoric times outside of large an common species.

[Sirrobert]

Well. We should probably accelerate our plan of going to other planets and making those place habitable, then leave Earth alone for a few millennia.

A mass extinction event doesn't destroy life. It just changes it.

Nature will adept to our influence. The only questions are if WE survive that change, and how it will look after everything is done

[-Velocity-]

A mass extinction event doesn't destroy life. It just changes it.

Nature will adept to our influence. The only questions are if WE survive that change, and how it will look after everything is done

Maybe this is comforting to you, but many people view other species as having value in of themselves.

Also, mass extinctions do destroy; they destroy millions of years of genetic heritage and reduce biodiversity. Organisms do not live and die in vain; they all contribute to the billions-of-years genetic history of life. The genes of a living creature tell an incredible story of biochemistry that we are beginning to learn how to read; every time a species goes extinct, then a huge amount of that history is irreplaceably lost. Future history is also lost- all the species that the extinct species could have possibly evolved into are also lost. Heck, for all we know, any random higher animal species (most likely mammal or bird) could lead to its own intelligent civilization in 20, 30, 100+ million years. Earth has at least 500 million years left.