Biologist warn of early stages of Earth's sixth mass extinction event

a reply to: combatmaster

Meaning you'd rather live with bedbugs, flies and mosquitoes?

....Everything is connected. Be careful what you wish for.

a reply to: loam

Its always the case when you introduce a superior species in an unconditioned and unprepared environment, but to say thats its all due to human changes is a lie. Planet earth has changed a lot since even the species we have today were walking around even a few hundred years ago, much less thousands and thousands of years or hundreds of thousands. But yes many animal die offs have been due to human expansion, and not only species of bugs or elephants or tigers, but other types of humans as well.

For instance how many Homo habilis do you see walking around today? Or how about how many neanderthals do you see around today? Those that have not integrated into the home sapiens gene pool have either been killed off or died off. There are many types of humans which are not around today. And if tomorrow a more better species of human were to be introduced or even an alien species, the same fate in time would follow for home sapiens. Even if a hybrid human were to be introduced into this ecosystem you call earth, and it were more successful then homo sapiens, even if it were just a bit more smarter or faster or stronger or able to think in a bit different way, in time you can beat you all will go extinct by the mere fact that it will be able to survive and thrive were you all will just run against the same walls over and over again. Like before no wars or tribal warfare need be fought, you all will literally kill each other off in your ignorance. But enough about hybrids, that's probably another thread.

It is the way of things, there have been countless species of all kinds of animals, insects, fish, even microbes, you name it at one point it was walking, crawling, swimming or flying on or in this planet, and in its time it was thriving. Life in all, is a zero sum game, and while now humanity may be in its so called golden age, that will not always be so, just like at some point in time for some species of those spiders which are going extinct today, they had there golden age. But for every species of spider that goes extinct there are others which are thriving, and if you dont believe me go out sometime. You would not even have to go far, just go to your backyard on a full moon and your likely to see all kinds of critters which are getting along just fine with humans and everything humanity has built, in fact many are thriving on our wastes as we speak, and will likely be here long after were gone.

But yes, things need to change, one way or another with humans still around or without. Things will change, you can count on it. After all what is a mere few thousand years in the eye and timescale of this planet? Its not even a drip in the bucket. And the only constant in the whole of this world, or even this universe, is change.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
From link in the op

So humans are causing the sixth great extinction event, yet how many will deny this?

Drill baby drill!!!!

You do know that such possible extinction would also be the result of using "green energy sources" such as wind farms because of the low frequency and infrasound produced by wind farms. That's without mentioning the detrimental health effects on humans and animals caused by wind farms...

Of course, you are going to deny that part since wind farms have been labeled as "green technology" despite the fact that they cause more harm than good...

If people want to find solutions they need to understand that many so called "green sources" are not environmentally friendly.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: loam

Its always the case when you introduce a superior species in an unconditioned and unprepared environment, but to say thats its all due to human changes is a lie. Planet earth has changed a lot since even the species we have today were walking around even a few hundred years ago, much less thousands and thousands of years or hundreds of thousands. But yes many animal die offs have been due to human expansion, and not only species of bugs or elephants or tigers, but other types of humans as well.

For instance how many Homo habilis do you see walking around today? Or how about how many neanderthals do you see around today? Those that have not integrated into the home sapiens gene pool have either been killed off or died off. There are many types of humans which are not around today.
...

Trust me, unfortunately among most members of ATS you have found an audience that would not listen to reason. Most ATS members are good people but even good people can be blind to facts and cause massive environmental problems because they think that "all can be blamed on oil"...

BTW, I just noticed something from the op that has probably escaped a lot of people.

...
Since 1500, more than 320 terrestrial vertebrates have become extinct. Populations of the remaining species show a 25 percent average decline in abundance. The situation is similarly dire for invertebrate animal life.
...

Since the 1500s... Humm, during the 1500s many areas of the Earth were still undergoing the effects of the LIA (Little Ice Age) which would have been in part responsible for the deaths of many animals. So it appears just by that comment from the OP, that they did not even mention that a lot of those species that have been going extinct was because of natural changes which had been occurring for over 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution.

Why we choose to ignore people which dedicated all their life studying ecosystems and impact on our life?
I believe that these people come with actual verifiable data before they state something like this and before it is published in Science magazine or something similar a series of labs all over the world review the findings...
So again, why we choose to believe that it is all normal and it will pass or if is not our fault?
The fact that you keep throwing garbage in a box day by day and it seems it is always empty the next day doesn't mean it cleaned itself... some poor guy had to do it for you... but in our case who will clean the air, waters and environments really if not us ? Aliens have probably more important things to do

a reply to: soficrow

Good point!!!

I give up! :-)

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Can't disagree with much of what you have written, other than to clarify we are supposed to have the intelligence to avoid demise by our own hand.

At least, I hope that is the case.

a reply to: loam

Besides being linked to prions (prions being a "how it works" mechanism), fungal infections cause fibrosis, not just in the lungs but throughout the body from joints to the heart - fibrosis being a key element in virtually ALL the chronic diseases causing the NCD Pandemic.

...Sometime before my Mom died of lung cancer, she told us her doctor said she had a fungal infection in her lung that could turn into cancer. We all thought she was just being overly dramatic...

Fungal Lung Infections

Fungi may cause lung disease through direct infection of pulmonary tissue, through infection of pulmonary air spaces/lung cavities, or through their ability to trigger an immunological reaction when fungal material is inhaled. The latter mechanism is involved in cases of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, aspergillus-induced asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis due to fungi (eg, maltworker's lung, farmer's lung). This article will concentrate on those diseases caused by direct fungal infection of the lung (fungal pneumonias).

Complications

Dissemination of fungal infection to other sites such as the brain, meninges, skin, liver, kidneys, adrenal glands, heart, eyes, spleen.

Progressive respiratory failure.

Systemic fungaemia and septic shock.

Blood vessel invasion causing massive haemoptysis, pulmonary infarction, myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction/embolism.

Associated rheumatological complex/pericarditis with endemic fungal pneumonias.

Lung cavitation.

Development of mycetoma in a lung cavity.

Local pulmonary damage causing bronchopleural or tracheo-oesophageal fistulas, mediastinal fibrosis, calcification in pulmonary tree, chronic pulmonary symptoms.

Immunological reaction to fungal antigens.

Fungal endocarditis.

a reply to: loam
And while previous extinctions have been driven by natural planetary transformations or catastrophic asteroid strikes, the current die-off can be associated to human activity, a situation that the lead author Rodolfo Dirzo, a professor of biology at Stanford, designates an era of "Anthropocene defaunation."

originally posted by: LDragonFire
So humans are causing the sixth great extinction event...?

Here is a thought. What if some of the previous extinctions* are the result of an earlier unknown earthbound sapient species destroying the environment, thereby inadvertently killing most of the life on the planet?

It sure fits nicely with Drake's equation.


Maybe we are just human version 4.0.

Now if only the archaeological record showed any hints of that.

a reply to: Xtraeme

What about Giza?

The Indus Valley?

I think it has happened before, and will happen again.

a reply to: loam

In the past, extinction events were caused by massive changes in climate or quality of climate (so to speak).

Meteors, volcanic eruptions that make a yellowstone eruption look like a pimple, and other lesser confluence of multiple events, ice age glacial growth and so on.

This time, man's influence is what makes it different. Many of the disappearances are due to insecticides etc. That is supported somewhat minimally by the description of what is disappearing. It cannot be "global warming" since the greatest period of biodiversity existed during a much warmer climate and significantly higher co2 levels.

So...bottom line is I question if what we are seeing really is a prelude to a mass extinction. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing mosquitoes join the extinct list. Perhaps what we are seeing is the extinction of marginally successful experiments by nature that are helped along the path to extinction by pollution or insecticide use.

I am all about reducing the amount of pollution we are dumping into the atmosphere and particular fresh water supplies. On the other hand, we do need to be logical and methodical in our methodology and not toss out the baby with the bath water.

a reply to: superfly4ever

Actually, to print an article in a science magazine, the professional kind, one does not need your thesis tested in labs throughout the world. You just have to provide enough supporting documentation to, in effect, prove you are not a fraud or quack. Lots of competing theories are published... doesn't mean they are all the gospel, nor does it mean they are proven.

a reply to: soficrow

I would rather (than live with bedbugs, mosquitoes and flies) bring back DDT for limited applications. The only real insecticide that can kill bedbugs effectively is DDT. Which is why we are having such problems with bedbugs in major metro areas.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Or how about how many neanderthals do you see around today?

Ooo! Ooo! *waves hand excitedly* Oo!

I see some every day!

On a more serious note: I agree wholeheartedly. We do need to clean up our act with regards to pollution but I do not see this (personally) as an extinction level event. Read my post above for more clarification on why I question this as being the prelude of an extinction level event.

Loam:

Hopefully, we can get our heads out of our collective backsides and begin meaningful changes to ensure our survival.

As much as I support your sentiment, I don't believe it is possible to ensure our species' survival, let alone that of other species on the way out. If anything, I think we have walked ourselves into a cul-de-sac of addictive consumerism, and by that addiction we are seeking what Mike Ruppert described as 'infinite growth from a finite planet'.

If every nation on earth had the same quality and level of lifestyle as the UK, it would take the resources of 3 extra earths to meet and sustain our current levels of existence. Professor Frank Fenner stated in an interview 5 months before he passed away in 2010, that he considered our fate sealed, and that we ourselves will be extinct within 100 years due to the population explosion and 'unrestrained consumerism'. After considerable thought, and after reading comments from other less candid and forthright eminent scientists, I agree with his thinking.

It may seem quite negative, but it isn't, it's not negativity, it's simply an acceptance of the reality of our situation. To achieve the right ideas and commit ourselves to them for our survival would require extreme changes to current socio-politco systems, and there is neither the 'want' or the 'will' for this commitment. Very few people will be willing to give up their addiction. They would rather party like it is the 'end of the world' and go out saying "Well, we had a good run, but all things must end." We are going to consume ourselves to the extinction we deserve.

We are now coming or have arrived at the limits of resource extractions. Fracking is evidence of this. It is a token gesture of desperate needs. This desperation to feed our voracious energy appetite will not allow us to slow down, but we will be forced to simply by the lack of resources, or the inability to reach those that are still around.

It hasn't escaped the attention of those controlling the powerful countries that the simplest and most effectively efficient way of lowering our carbon footprint and energy appetite is to reduce the populations around the world. The ideas have already been discussed, the plans already drawn up. They will implement them incrementally, slowly and gradually, and eventually speed things up proportionately to the crises as they arise. They will use wars, diseases and remain aloof to natural disasters...the incompetency of the disaster control of Katrina was a short run through to gauge the public's reaction.

Governments will become increasingly totalitarian and draconian, and will implement laws that would normally only ever be used during crises, so as to maintain control on ever increasingly desperate populations. The gap between rich and poor is not being widened for no reason. Once the social fabric starts to properly tear in various countries simultaneously, they will resort to nuclear weapons as the final means to reduce the population. There is no other realistic way our species can survive this cul-de-sac. There is no other way we can extricate ourselves from it.

The thinking will arrive where it will be seen as better to save the 'few' and condemn the 'many'. You may resist this scenario with all your philosophy and world view, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. Governments will continue to allow unbridled consumerism, even at the expense of dwindling resources. All the food that is left is on the table, there is no more to be brought to it, and we are eating it like we have an infinite supply...but we don't.

Our own extinction is the apex of this current and undergoing 6th extinction. It is irrelevant whether or not you accept this. It is real, it is unfolding, and we will be the last to go. Apart from a few mitigating actions that might extend our presence on earth, we have no more than 100 to 200 years left. In the interim to our exit, things will get very uncomfortable indeed.

Is anyone here going to attempt to do something about this, or just sit here and blame others, like the government, for the worlds ills? Talk about externalizing blame.


a reply to: loam

Most people who are concerned about climate change are also concerned about a variety of other environmental issues. And usually those who do not support action against climate change do not care about other environmental issues. Instead of complaining about the climate change debate, how about you increase awareness to other issues and solutions to those problems that you have (or rather, have not) written about.

a reply to: neo96

If you find yourself in the middle of the road about to be hit by a truck, do you just stand there because you will eventually die? Or do you move out of the way and live another day?

a reply to: elysiumfire

I get what you are saying and agree about much, however I think you give too much credit to the govt's of the world.

For instance: "the incompetency of the disaster control of Katrina was a short run through to gauge the public's reaction."

The incompetency was on the part of the state and local govt, not so much the federal govt (I hate having to support the fed govt). Prior to Katrina the first responders were ALWAYS local and state authorities and FEMA would arrive and set up and provide assistance well after the fact.

For some reason Louisiana reacted... well, didn't react at all. They did not do much and waited too late to try to evacuate people. They did not call in the National Guard until ... way way too late. Police and other authorities were awol in significant numbers. In a nutshell the local and state govt's reaction was a total clusterfunk. I was there... Not in NO, but farther north by about 100 miles. There was a total breakdown in local state authority.

The blame for the chaos and breakdown was directed at FEMA and Bush but FEMA, who was a third level and third responder in the past had to suddenly step in and deal with a total breakdown of local and state control.

My point is that Katrina was a classic case of govt clusterfunk... there was nothing planned about it and to claim so is just embracing ignorance. Not everything is a conspiracy. This was nothing more than an example of incompetent local (the Mayor has been convicted of corruption), incompetent state (the Governor was clearly not a leader at all) and the rest was a classic example of a bloated, stinkingly large, bureaucratic federal govt too ponderous to be able to respond quickly when needed.

Oh, and to provide an example of appropriate local response: Mississippi. The gulf coast in MS was hit by the worst of Katrina. In LA they got some flooding.. in MS it looked like nukes had gone off.

You didn't hear about MS whining, you didn't hear about chaos in MS, and MS rebuilt much quicker (even though they had more to recover from) without the whining, without demanding aid from the feds, without being general douchebags like those in New Orleans.

Compare the 2 and tell me that this was a planned event to gauge public reaction. BS.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: soficrow

I would rather (than live with bedbugs, mosquitoes and flies) bring back DDT for limited applications. The only real insecticide that can kill bedbugs effectively is DDT. Which is why we are having such problems with bedbugs in major metro areas.

Maybe a bit more information might help change your mind.

Endocrine (Hormone) Disruptors

There is mounting concern in the scientific, environmental, private, and governmental sectors on a wide range of substances, known as endocrine disruptors, that may interfere with the normal functioning of a living organism's hormone system. Endocrine disruption has the potential to cause:

reproductive
behavioral
immune system, and
neurological problems, and
tumors.

...DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) is probably the most notorious pesticide ever. DDT and its breakdown product DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity; meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals.

(DDT) exposure promotes epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of obesity

DDT Exposure Linked to Obesity Across Generations

...Previous research has linked DDT to increased rates of diabetes, developmental problems, reproductive harm, miscarriages, and certain cancers. In the 1970s, it was also shown to have impacted bald eagle and peregrine falcon populations.

...During the 1950s, the U.S. obesity rate was below three percent. Now, more than one third of Americans are considered obese, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

...Because DDT was such a prominent insecticide in the 1950s and 60s, it is still present in lakes and rivers in the U.S., and continues to affect the ecosystem.

“Literally, DDT is around for hundreds of years,” Skinner said. “This is something that just doesn’t go away.”

Skinner hopes that his research will spur policy makers to reconsider the use of DDT in Africa and other developing countries because other pesticides with a shorter half-life are available.

“Now we need to concern ourselves and reevaluate using DDT,” he said.

It is inconceivable at this point in history to actually assess how, why or even if the sixth extinction will occur; and if it occurs is it because of human activities of the recent past and present. Most of the research these scientists are doing is based on the desire to teach science education surrounding climate change with the attitude to also include the mass extinctions the earth has experienced. A lot of the assessment is simply made by looking at the factors and occurrences of the past extinctions - making hypotheses and conjectures. Something that is hardly an overall appreciation of the scientific method. The thing about climate science is that you can essentially look at a current time instance, analyze it and obtain pretty convincing arguments on the surface. If the apparent loss of half of all plants by 2100 along with great losses of insects, reptiles and flowering plants does occur then we must consider how we are going change this.