|
Post by BNC Moderator on May 3, 2012 16:49:55 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 3, 2012 17:28:08 GMT 9.5
What we can do to halt the process would depend on why a given species is going extinct (yes, I know that's a tautology but I think it needs to be said, there won't be a one size fits all answer). It's also worth noting that we've largely solved the ozone hole problem (though we still have to wait a bit for those chlorine (and bromine) radicals to leave the stratosphere).
Habitat destruction is a major part of extinction so returning unused agricultural land to nature could help some species, introduced species can also cause problems so removing the new species could help there (though I do think the problem those extinctions will cause us is overstated, personally I'm also glad we've driven a couple of species to extinction, see if you can guess which two).
Zoos and captive breeding may well be the only hope for some species (and we may even need cloning technology, once we get the bugs worked out of course).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 4, 2012 4:45:50 GMT 9.5
One contributor to the degrading of biodiversity is introduced species that lack any natural limits in their new environment. I recall this piece from George Monbiot.Some of these examples sound a little embellished but it doesn't detract from the basic point.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 29, 2012 19:12:16 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 30, 2012 7:07:49 GMT 9.5
David M: You still have yet to provide any evidence that it's the size of human population which is the problem and not merely a refusal to use the best available technology (not to mention that in the first world we've been returning farmland to nature, while increasing food production which is something you'd expect to make things better on the habitat loss front). Even if a large population must lead to mass extinction that's better than your alternative of a smaller population size, especially when we consider what it'd take to reduce population. Introduced species happen regardless of population size, all you need is for people to move around and wittingly or unwittingly bring animals with them (it can even happen naturally). I should also note that it appears that estimates of extinction rates from 1999 and 2005 are larger than reality (though we've still got a problem on our hands).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 30, 2012 10:49:47 GMT 9.5
I have a feeling Anon that you are going to continue to make the argument one of overpopulation vs. best environmental use. It is obviously both. Read through my link. The point is made redundantly and I might add it seems a little odd to have to prove the obvious.
As for your link I'll leave you with this quote.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 30, 2012 13:21:51 GMT 9.5
I have a feeling Anon that you are going to continue to make the argument one of overpopulation vs. best environmental use. You're the one who keeps bringing up 'overpopulation', I'm just noting that it doesn't really exist, whatever problems you claim from it come from other causes (and tend to be amenable to technofixes). It is obviously both. Read through my link. The point is made redundantly and I might add it seems a little odd to have to prove the obvious. A lot of things which seem obvious are also wrong.
|
|