We are facing the greatests Exticntiction

[behaviour???]

We are now witnessing the greatest extinction crisis since dinosaurs disappeared from our planet 65 million years ago, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

IUCN, which is the oldest and largest global environmental network, has said that the governments have failed to meet targets to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.

Read more...

Thanks

B???

[SRCivic98]

Thanks

B???

and this is news how? Doesn't really surprise me in any way. but instead it shows me how dumb scientist are getting now....oh well we're all screw in 2013 anyways....we'll get another bunch of idiots up there telling us what to believe...

[danielost]

man is not the only thing introducing alien species. there is that goose(?) on the east coast that was blown off course and now makes the east coast it's home.

also i believe that we in the time period for the earths normal get rid of everything and start over cycle.

[Slorri]

also i believe that we in the time period for the earths normal get rid of everything and start over cycle.

Has this happened before?

Surely the dinosaurs died, but that was probably because of some disaster.

What if life will not be able to start over again.

Humans deem themselves as intelligent, but can they deal with this problem, that they have caused.

[Guest]

man is not the only thing introducing alien species. there is that goose(?) on the east coast that was blown off course and now makes the east coast it's home.

also i believe that we in the time period for the earths normal get rid of everything and start over cycle.

That assumes that climate change and overpopulation were part of the grand plan - which seems b******s to me. Without man there is absolutely no reason for the extinctions, so your theory suggests that nature created us to cause them.

Remember that as yet there have been nearly no extinctions attributable to AGW, so its all down to population which would have to be the main driver of natures plan.

Looney logic.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 4, 2010 by Guest

[Mattshark]

and this is news how? Doesn't really surprise me in any way. but instead it shows me how dumb scientist are getting now....oh well we're all screw in 2013 anyways....we'll get another bunch of idiots up there telling us what to believe...

Ridiculous comment.

Please in some sort of semi-reasonable manner do you want to tell me why this shows scientists being dumb?

I mean why should we care about our environment and the importance of its ecology, it is not like this is the only planet we have to live on....................... oh wait.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mattshark

[lp21why]

Has this happened before?

Surely the dinosaurs died, but that was probably because of some disaster.

What if life will not be able to start over again.

Humans deem themselves as intelligent, but can they deal with this problem, that they have caused.

It has happened periodically since the dawn of life. They usually arise due to a catastrophic event (snowball earth, asteroid impact, volcanic eruptions, etc).

Although there is no 'getting rid of' cycle. These are random events, however what is happening now is due to us.

[danielost]

That assumes that climate change and overpopulation were part of the grand plan - which seems b******s to me. Without man there is absolutely no reason for the extinctions, so your theory suggests that nature created us to cause them.

Remember that as yet there have been nearly no extinctions attributable to AGW, so its all down to population which would have to be the main driver of natures plan.

Looney logic.

Br Cornelius

if according to you and science this is all an accident then overpopulation is part of the plan. as soon as one or more species has become overpopulated then it is time to start over.

climate change is part of the grand plan...

if according to me, we have not over populated this planet yet. if you took and gave 5 acres to every man woman and child on the planet they would all fit in the USA and Canada with room left over. that means if we really wanted to and we could all get along we could live on Antarctica and use either Africa or south America as a source to grow our food. or live in Siberia and do the same thing.

[Guest]

if according to you and science this is all an accident then overpopulation is part of the plan. as soon as one or more species has become overpopulated then it is time to start over.

climate change is part of the grand plan...

if according to me, we have not over populated this planet yet. if you took and gave 5 acres to every man woman and child on the planet they would all fit in the USA and Canada with room left over. that means if we really wanted to and we could all get along we could live on Antarctica and use either Africa or south America as a source to grow our food. or live in Siberia and do the same thing.

That makes many unreasonable assumptions. Firstly your guestimate assumes that all of the planet is of equal productivity. In northern Siberia the survival area needed would be many square kilometers. Much of the planet has even lower carrying capacity than that. It actually works out at a generous 2hectares of land each as been available for all our survival needs. Without fossil fuels then almost all of that would have to be allocated to sustainable fuel forestry. A single cow takes up about 1 hectare on its own so the figures just don't add up. We survive at the population densities we do because of industrial farming which is predicated on cheap fossil fuels (machinery + fertilizers), take that away and we quickly starve. The down side of industrial farming is that it degrades the soils and depletes the water aquifers leading to desertification.

Of course this all assumes that the whole of the planets resources are soley here for our exploitation and the loss of species diversity is an acceptable consequence. It isn't because ecosystems relie on all constituents to remain healthy and productive, so each species that is lost has direct consequences for human survival.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

That makes many unreasonable assumptions. Firstly your guestimate assumes that all of the planet is of equal productivity. In northern Siberia the survival area needed would be many square kilometers. Much of the planet has even lower carrying capacity than that. It actually works out at a generous 2hectares of land each as been available for all our survival needs. Without fossil fuels then almost all of that would have to be allocated to sustainable fuel forestry. A single cow takes up about 1 hectare on its own so the figures just don't add up. We survive at the population densities we do because of industrial farming which is predicated on cheap fossil fuels (machinery + fertilizers), take that away and we quickly starve. The down side of industrial farming is that it degrades the soils and depletes the water aquifers leading to desertification.

Of course this all assumes that the whole of the planets resources are soley here for our exploitation and the loss of species diversity is an acceptable consequence. It isn't because ecosystems relie on all constituents to remain healthy and productive, so each species that is lost has direct consequences for human survival.

Br Cornelius

i guess you didnt read my post correctly. i stated we could use africa, or south america to produce food. that doesnt mean those are the only two that we could use. the usa's and canada's great plains are big enough to produce food for the whole planet including cattle, chicken, pigs and what ever else we needed. as for fuel your right we are based on oil, but we wont be forever. there is also the idea of growing food hydroponically. this would require no land and the water could come from human waste. and in the end we end up with clean water and plant foods.

[SlimJim22]

That makes many unreasonable assumptions. Firstly your guestimate assumes that all of the planet is of equal productivity. In northern Siberia the survival area needed would be many square kilometers. Much of the planet has even lower carrying capacity than that. It actually works out at a generous 2hectares of land each as been available for all our survival needs. Without fossil fuels then almost all of that would have to be allocated to sustainable fuel forestry. A single cow takes up about 1 hectare on its own so the figures just don't add up. We survive at the population densities we do because of industrial farming which is predicated on cheap fossil fuels (machinery + fertilizers), take that away and we quickly starve. The down side of industrial farming is that it degrades the soils and depletes the water aquifers leading to desertification.

Of course this all assumes that the whole of the planets resources are soley here for our exploitation and the loss of species diversity is an acceptable consequence. It isn't because ecosystems relie on all constituents to remain healthy and productive, so each species that is lost has direct consequences for human survival.

Br Cornelius

There is some evidence that there was more of a cooperative culture in pre history. the rice paddy structures in the Phillipines being the best example. More could be done to repair that system and extend it into other fertile areas.

The route that I would really like to see us going down, and quick is biospheres in in hospitable places and use cutting edge science and thought to make the areas not just inhabitable but prosperous in the long run. When I read the Celestine prophecy it made a lot of sense. That was before I did any research on EM or anything but only a few months ago I heard Icke talking up the idea of using EM farming in the Sahara. Maybe he is not so crazy.

I found this article and would value opinions on the feasability of such projects.

http://www.compasnet.org/afbeeldingen/Books/Moving%20worldviews/Kieft.pdf

[Guest]

i guess you didnt read my post correctly. i stated we could use africa, or south america to produce food. that doesnt mean those are the only two that we could use. the usa's and canada's great plains are big enough to produce food for the whole planet including cattle, chicken, pigs and what ever else we needed. as for fuel your right we are based on oil, but we wont be forever. there is also the idea of growing food hydroponically. this would require no land and the water could come from human waste. and in the end we end up with clean water and plant foods.

I read your post and understood it. My estimate was based on about half the land on the planet been usefully habitable by humans which I feel is probably an overestimation of the exploitable agricultural land. Agriculture is at about its max potential for existing technology, and fossil fuels are dropping out of the equation. New developements may free up more land, but there is always a cost and it always require either energy or good quality soils - both currently in short supply.

Away for the day so no more posts.

Br Cornelius