Snorkelson
Footballguy
I think he said one of the best in the county for the record. I haven’t gone back to look.But do you teach every high school (one of the best in the nation) subject?
I think he said one of the best in the county for the record. I haven’t gone back to look.But do you teach every high school (one of the best in the nation) subject?
To be honest, I can't think of a single wild animal species that if I heard went extinct I'd believe would cause a drastic lasting effect to myself or to humanity.There may be examples of wild animals that have become extinct and didn't affect the world in a drastic way but would you admit that there are some that would cause drastic affects.
There isn't a single wild species that humanity needs to survive. The hyperbole doesn't help your argument.We need them to survive.
HTH
Bees are pretty important to the survival of a lot of other species.To be honest, I can't think of a single wild animal species that if I heard went extinct I'd believe would cause a drastic lasting effect to myself or to humanity.
Apis mellifera likely is the closest, but I believe these are a domesticated species.
There are definitely orders of wild animals and plants that humanity would be in a pickle without.
Any wild loss though pales in comparison to the damage done to humanity if Oryza sativa went extinct overnight.
There isn't a single wild species that humanity needs to survive. The hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
Thank you, Dr. Snorkleson PhD.I think he said one of the best in the county for the record. I haven’t gone back to look.
Even simply containing the last of the aurochs led to massive physical changes - when the last of the European version of the species went to Sicily and the land bridge was swallowed by the sea, they immediately started changing. They developed to be smaller and weaker as a result of the reduced land mass they could cover, until they ultimately died out.Consider the aurochs vs the domesticated cow.
The adult aurochs in Northern Europe would have been a near-predatorless herbivore. Imagine what that does to biodiversity and evolution of species, to have an animal that won’t eat other animals and isn’t hunted and killed by many (if any) other animals. Small species would hang around the aurochs for protection. Wandering herds would fertilize huge tracts of land (unnecessary python and Dentist references) and track plant species across Europe. All kinds of craziness.
One need only look at the massive deregulation in the energy sector to know that Trump doesn't care at all about the environment.Yet Trump seems hell bent on destroying it. He just eliminated the safety standards put in place after the BP disaster. I'm guessing he has a "who cares about clean water, air, soil, I'll be dead in less than 30 years" attitude.
Hasn't been a world war.70 years and half-a-trillion dollars later....what has the UN achieved?
Sure, but in the 30 years before it was created there were onlyHasn't been a world war.
That's why I put the European honeybee, Apis mellifera, in my reply. However, this is a domesticated insect. Any evolutionary pressures we're putting on the Western honeybee are artificial, not natural. I'm already pressing my wife to let me get a hive or two once we get off Long Island. But, if CCD or Varroa carries off the honey bee, there are tons of native species waiting to fill the pollinator vacuum. For example, the role that mason bees play in blueberry pollination in Maine is artificially suppressed by our use of the European honeybee.Bees are pretty important to the survival of a lot of other species.
How is my life better if our great-great... hadn't killed off the Aurochs? How is it different? Not to be Panglossian, but it appears the death of the Aurochs didn't negatively impact Europe over the next couple hundred years. Moreover, it appears the Aurochs live on in domesticated cattle today.The adult aurochs in Northern Europe would have been a near-predatorless herbivore. Imagine what that does to biodiversity and evolution of species, to have an animal that won’t eat other animals and isn’t hunted and killed by many (if any) other animals. Small species would hang around the aurochs for protection. Wandering herds would fertilize huge tracts of land (unnecessary python and Dentist references) and track plant species across Europe. All kinds of craziness.
In my opinion the two worst Trump takes/policiesYet Trump seems hell bent on destroying it. He just eliminated the safety standards put in place after the BP disaster. I'm guessing he has a "who cares about clean water, air, soil, I'll be dead in less than 30 years" attitude.
this took me 30 seconds and there's a lot more where this came from..In my opinion the two worst Trump takes/policies
1) Environment
We're talking mass extinction, not loss of a single wild species. That's what biodiversity is about. Also, "humanity needs to survive" is a value assumption you're making that I don't think is a primary consideration for others posting here.There isn't a single wild species that humanity needs to survive. The hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
I know we’ve been at odds on a couple things here but we strongly agree here. I just hate how some people are so tribal about politics that they will bend to defend anything.In my opinion the two worst Trump takes/policies
1) Environment
2) Ripping immigrant families apart that have already been living in the US
No. Only you can answer that question.Someone's going to have to answer the question of why wild animals are more valuable than those that live on a preserve or sanctuary.
I feel like you skipped the first post.That's why I put the European honeybee, Apis mellifera, in my reply. However, this is a domesticated insect. Any evolutionary pressures we're putting on the Western honeybee are artificial, not natural. I'm already pressing my wife to let me get a hive or two once we get off Long Island. But, if CCD or Varroa carries off the honey bee, there are tons of native species waiting to fill the pollinator vacuum. For example, the role that mason bees play in blueberry pollination in Maine is artificially suppressed by our use of the European honeybee.
So, while I agree with your statement that bees are important to the survival of a lot of other species, I can't agree that a specific bee is that important and I'd advance the idea that there are other bees that could fill the void if we lost Apis mellifera.
How is my life better if our great-great... hadn't killed off the Aurochs? How is it different? Not to be Panglossian, but it appears the death of the Aurochs didn't negatively impact Europe over the next couple hundred years. Moreover, it appears the Aurochs live on in domesticated cattle today.
That's the human condition in a nutshell.A consequence of unbridled greed, self-interest and focus on short term benefits.
Hey man, that chit is good for the ECONOMY (that's an all caps worthy word, right?).Yet Trump seems hell bent on destroying it. He just eliminated the safety standards put in place after the BP disaster. I'm guessing he has a "who cares about clean water, air, soil, I'll be dead in less than 30 years" attitude.
It boggles the mind. The examples are literally staring people in the face. You literally don't even need a scientific background to see it. Scientific studies are obviously extremely important to figure out how to address problems...but they're entirely unnecessary to see the problems.Given that we've:
Gone on massive deforestation sprees all over the planet over the last couple hundred years, reducing huge amounts of natural carbon sinks.
Burned up fossil fuels accumulated and sequestered for 10s of millions of years in the space of about 150 years, releasing all that C02 into the environment.
Engaged in animal husbandry industries that have resulted in increased methane emissions on a massive scale.
How could someone think that these things wouldn't have an impact on the environment?
So a bit like what's hurting the moose population of New England:Insects who have evolved to live in the fur of animals that have few or no predators and cannot remove them (like on the haunches of an aurochs) may be uniquely suited to survive outside the fur when temperatures rise a few degrees.
If you take the mainland North America north of Mexican border, for which there’s good data, and mainland Europe, we know of more hybrid plant species in both of these regions that have come into existence over the last 300 years than we know of plant species that have become completely extinct.
It's a bit Jeffersonian to think that nothing created was meant to disappear. The below isn't a bad argument and it's what I was pointing to with the Bige Mike / Cavendish banana distinction. If we were wiping out Orders, I'd agree. But when we look at vulnerable populations, it's genus and species. We're not losing all ruminants, we are losing Dutch Belted cattle.The replacement of species is a normal operation of our biological planet. Species survive by moving from one place to another, not necessarily by surviving in exactly the same place in the long term. Yet many of our environmental strategies are about trying to keep things as they are. The way nature survives is often by moving around, not by staying as it is.
@Gawain
I think the best answer is this:
Why is biodiversity important? Because when crisis hits, only some of the animals and plants will survive. If the things that would survive are already dead, nothing will survive. And then we will have to eat soylent green.
And it’s people, Gawain. It’s made of people.
I don’t think that. I think that the current rate of disappearance is significantly faster than at all but a very select number of times in history. Each of which was kind of a big deal.So a bit like what's hurting the moose population of New England:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/ticks-can-take-down-800-pound-moose/583189/
Chris Thomas addresses the shrinking biodiversity argument in, Inheritors of the Earth: How Nature Is Thriving in an Age of Extinction.
It's a bit Jeffersonian to think that nothing created was meant to disappear.
This false equivalency is as bad as those that say “it was a cold winter so how can there be global warming“...only wars all around the world.
Really? Yes there have been skirmishes, but a war to annihilate the planet?...only wars all around the world.
Teehee.Really? Yes there have been skirmishes, but a war to anailite the planet?
No
That is one of those words that I can't even get close so auto-correct can fix itTeehee.
I don’t have kidsSo besides pointing fingers and expecting government to solve the problem, what's everybody here doing on an individual level to help?
Back in my acting days I did Shakespeare’s The Tempest. The actor playing Sebastian was.... shiny. Not so sharp. One of his lines was “What if he had said Widower Aeneas too?!”That is one of those words that I can't even get close so auto-correct can fix it
I walk and bike as much as possibleSo besides pointing fingers and expecting government to solve the problem, what's everybody here doing on an individual level to help?
This question always strikes me as absurd. It’s as if, after JFK announced the moon project people said “forget about the government; what are YOU doing to get us to the moon?”So besides pointing fingers and expecting government to solve the problem, what's everybody here doing on an individual level to help?
Were you seriously directing this at me? Defense of the GOP? Are you high?If you truly understand the urgency of this issue you cannot logically argue that other issues have priority; therefore your support of the GOP is indefensible.
On this issue, the Republicans consistently block all attempts to get anything accomplished, and when in power they roll back any previous accomplishments. Do you deny this?Thinking this problem has any chance of being solved without individuals taking the initiative is the only thing that's absurd. And blaming the Republican party, lol. Yep it's all the Repulican party's fault. If we elect noting but Democrats, the planet will be saved!
You probably type this from your gas guzzling SUV while eating a hamburger for dinner. B-b-b-b-b-but RepublicansIf you truly understand the urgency of this issue you cannot logically argue that other issues have priority; therefore your support of the GOP is indefensible.
I don’t have an SUV and I don’t eat hamburgers (I love them but I’m trying hard to lose weight). But again you’re missing the point. This has to be a big government effort.You probably type this from your gas guzzling SUV while eating a hamburger for dinner. B-b-b-b-b-but Republicans
I believe it’s spelled “hamberder”You probably type this from your gas guzzling SUV while eating a hamburger for dinner. B-b-b-b-b-but Republicans
I gotta apologize. I totally forgot when Dems had the planet rescued via holding both chambers of Congress and the Presidency in Obama's first two years. They used that time to get all of those Earth-saving measures passed and we had this problem licked. Get outta here with this it's all one side's fault. Keep expecting Dems to do the work for humanity and see how far that gets you. They can't even bother to use mass transit or ground their private jets.
Thinking this problem has any chance of being solved without individuals taking the initiative is the only thing that's absurd. And blaming the Republican party, lol. Yep it's all the Repulican party's fault. If we elect noting but Democrats, the planet will be saved!
High? Because those two posts above can easily be seen as defense of the GOP.Were you seriously directing this at me? Defense of the GOP? Are you high?
Tim's already clarified it was meant for someone else, chief.High? Because those two posts above can easily be seen as defense of the GOP.