11 ms·

Is it just me or does the biodiversity crises seem a bit blown out of proportion? I mean, I think it's true that humans are causing faster species loss than the

Is it just me or does the biodiversity crises seem a bit blown out of proportion? I mean, I think it's true that humans are causing faster species loss than the historical average. But I think it's hard to suggest we're an historical anomaly in this regard compared to Yellowstones and meteors and such. I mean, I know that ecology is very complex and small changes can have big impact. But the world isn't really much different having lost mammoths and dodo birds. And if ecosystems do collapse in catastrophic ways, I find it difficult to believe that the gap wouldn't be filled by other creatures after the previous distribution of life changed dramatically. There's nothing particularly balanced or normal or good about the ecology we had yesterday. It merely is. Like... If you cut down the Amazon, hypothetically, it's not like that land will necessarily become a barren lifeless wasteland. Other life will move in after the culling, right? I pretty much always get downvoted for these posts where I bounce heterodox ideas of y'all. And it's totally worth it. I'd like to understand why I don't understand the biodiversity concern. WRT that guy who's going to post about the medical breakthroughs from rainforest specimens... That's cool and all, but why wouldn't we expect a similar thing to happen with the life that moves in after the hypothetical clear cutting of the Amazon? After all, such events tend to be catalysts for punctuated equilibrium which appears to be responsible for much of the biodiversity we have today.

mavhc 7y ago
After 1000 years or more it'll be back to something useful. But if you cut down a forest you're going to use the land for monoculture farming. Problem is meteors happen once every million years, we're doing this every year.
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  So replacing the Amazon with monoculture farming, as you say, increases the number of humans the planet can support, right?
fhars 7y ago
The problem is not so much that we are causing species loss at a higher than average rate, it‘s more the we are causing species loss at a higher rate than the end-permian extinction event (which no land animal with an adult body mass over 25kg survived). Life will recover from the anthropocene over the next few million or so years even if we continue business as usual. It will just not be a world I want to die out in.
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  So that's the jump I don't understand. Why would dramatic decreases in biodiversity cause any dying off of humans at all?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Because they're caused by changes to the ecosystem, and some of those changes are going to kill us off. They also cause further changes to the ecosystem in weird complex feedback loops, which will also kill us off. They'll also collapse some food chains which will kill off many humans.
    - squirrelicus 7y ago
      What changes and what food chains? Your statement is just false. We don't live off the wild. We're long past that point, and the developing world is increasingly past that point.
      - djmips 7y ago
        I see your point. If we can survive on Mars without bringing along a huge amount of biodiversity then we can survive on Earth after turning it into Mars. Awesome. But maybe we can't survive on Mars after all.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        > We don't live off the wild. You don't eat fish? You don't eat food that requires pollinators?
        squirrelicus 7y ago
        I think all the fish I eat is farmed... Now I'm curious, because that's a partial counterpoint. Doesn't defeat the message, but it's certainly a gap.
tempguy9999 7y ago
Well, smells like a troll but it's a well-phrased one! :) So let's try... > Other life will move in after the culling, right? Not necessarily. I can't speak for the amazon, where burning down a small patch (traditional agricultural practice for millennia) will leave a hole surrounded by life that will move in, but ecospheres disrupted in the large may break what's supporting that ecosphere. I read an article about cloud forests being disrupted. A cloud forest gets its humidity from mist, which flows in from the ocean a small (18 inches/50cm?) above the ground. This condenses on anything there, trickles down to the ground, waters the plants. But the plant life had been razed, so there was nothing for the mist to settle on; the soil stayed dry so nothing could grow after. The author of the article was requesting ways to restart that (I made a suggestion, he wasn't too impressed). Also thin soil can be stabilised by plants so it stays. Kill the plants, the soil blows away. Not sure this is 100% relevant but to some extent it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl "With insufficient understanding of the ecology of the plains, farmers had conducted extensive deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains during the previous decade; this had displaced the native, deep-rooted grasses that normally trapped soil and moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. The rapid mechanization of farm equipment, especially small gasoline tractors, and widespread use of the combine harvester contributed to farmers' decisions to convert arid grassland (much of which received no more than 10 inches (~250 mm) of precipitation per year) to cultivated cropland.[4] During the drought of the 1930s, the unanchored soil turned to dust, which the prevailing winds blew away" Related to that I've heard of similar happening, poss. in the amazon, where a thin skin of soil is left in some areas, and gets washed away when the plants are not there to fix it - but I can't provide a reference, so treat that as hearsay. Disruption can also be astonishingly subtle. This does not answer your question but FYI!: https://www.environmental-research.ox.ac.uk/long-shadow-megafauna-amazon/ https://www.environmental-research.ox.ac.uk/long-shadow-mega... to summarise, now-extinct megafauna are thought to have moved lots of phosphorous around in their poo, benefitting amazonian plants ("For [the plants] the only input of essential phosphorus comes from dust blown from the Sahara and from the dung of animals that had foraged on the fertilised flood plain."). Humans killed them starting ~12,000 years ago, consequence: "Nonetheless, the huge amounts of phosphorus that were moved by the collective action of the megafauna has left a long legacy and their calculations suggest that the Amazon is only 2/3 of the way through a transition towards a low nutrient state. Today’s trees are still benefiting from the actions of the prehistoric beasts, but as time is progressing the forests are losing fertility." > 's cool and all, but why wouldn't we expect a [medical breakthroughs from rainforest specimens] to happen with the life that moves in after the hypothetical clear cutting of the Amazon? AFAUI, no. Varied biochemicals are what produces these breakthroughs, which is linked to varied plant life. If that gets wiped out then it will take millions of years for that diversity to re-emerge, so except in the longest timescale, it's gone. However I am not an expert on this. (But frankly do us humans have to be such tosspots towards anything that doesn't immediately benefit us?[0] These things are jewels in their own right, why can't we value them for what they are) > I pretty much always get downvoted for these posts where I bounce heterodox ideas of y'all. And it's totally worth it. I'd like to understand why I don't understand the biodiversity concern. Well, HTH? [0](Edit: this summarises it nicely https://i.pinimg.com/736x/18/bd/4d/18bd4d5fe4dc42f7a0b01f4c7b3d8ef2--farm-animals-climate-change.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/18/bd/4d/18bd4d5fe4dc42f7a0b01f4c7...)
csin 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovbF0D2wySI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovbF0D2wySI People don't wanna be fcked.
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  For what it's worth, clear cutting the Amazon and replacing it with farms is probably better for humanity when it comes to Maslow needs
DougN7 7y ago
What you’re describing is basically Iceland. It used to be richly forested. It lost its forests and then its topsoil. Essentially an ecological disaster brought on by the vikings. But life finds a way.

mavhc 7y ago

After 1000 years or more it'll be back to something useful. But if you cut down a forest you're going to use the land for monoculture farming. Problem is meteors happen once every million years, we're doing this every year.

squirrelicus 7y ago
So replacing the Amazon with monoculture farming, as you say, increases the number of humans the planet can support, right?

fhars 7y ago

The problem is not so much that we are causing species loss at a higher than average rate, it‘s more the we are causing species loss at a higher rate than the end-permian extinction event (which no land animal with an adult body mass over 25kg survived). Life will recover from the anthropocene over the next few million or so years even if we continue business as usual. It will just not be a world I want to die out in.

squirrelicus 7y ago
So that's the jump I don't understand. Why would dramatic decreases in biodiversity cause any dying off of humans at all?
- DanBC 7y ago
  Because they're caused by changes to the ecosystem, and some of those changes are going to kill us off. They also cause further changes to the ecosystem in weird complex feedback loops, which will also kill us off. They'll also collapse some food chains which will kill off many humans.
  - squirrelicus 7y ago
    What changes and what food chains? Your statement is just false. We don't live off the wild. We're long past that point, and the developing world is increasingly past that point.
    - djmips 7y ago
      I see your point. If we can survive on Mars without bringing along a huge amount of biodiversity then we can survive on Earth after turning it into Mars. Awesome. But maybe we can't survive on Mars after all.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > We don't live off the wild. You don't eat fish? You don't eat food that requires pollinators?
      - squirrelicus 7y ago
        I think all the fish I eat is farmed... Now I'm curious, because that's a partial counterpoint. Doesn't defeat the message, but it's certainly a gap.

tempguy9999 7y ago

Well, smells like a troll but it's a well-phrased one! :) So let's try... > Other life will move in after the culling, right? Not necessarily. I can't speak for the amazon, where burning down a small patch (traditional agricultural practice for millennia) will leave a hole surrounded by life that will move in, but ecospheres disrupted in the large may break what's supporting that ecosphere. I read an article about cloud forests being disrupted. A cloud forest gets its humidity from mist, which flows in from the ocean a small (18 inches/50cm?) above the ground. This condenses on anything there, trickles down to the ground, waters the plants. But the plant life had been razed, so there was nothing for the mist to settle on; the soil stayed dry so nothing could grow after. The author of the article was requesting ways to restart that (I made a suggestion, he wasn't too impressed). Also thin soil can be stabilised by plants so it stays. Kill the plants, the soil blows away. Not sure this is 100% relevant but to some extent it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl "With insufficient understanding of the ecology of the plains, farmers had conducted extensive deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains during the previous decade; this had displaced the native, deep-rooted grasses that normally trapped soil and moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. The rapid mechanization of farm equipment, especially small gasoline tractors, and widespread use of the combine harvester contributed to farmers' decisions to convert arid grassland (much of which received no more than 10 inches (~250 mm) of precipitation per year) to cultivated cropland.[4] During the drought of the 1930s, the unanchored soil turned to dust, which the prevailing winds blew away" Related to that I've heard of similar happening, poss. in the amazon, where a thin skin of soil is left in some areas, and gets washed away when the plants are not there to fix it - but I can't provide a reference, so treat that as hearsay. Disruption can also be astonishingly subtle. This does not answer your question but FYI!: https://www.environmental-research.ox.ac.uk/long-shadow-megafauna-amazon/ https://www.environmental-research.ox.ac.uk/long-shadow-mega... to summarise, now-extinct megafauna are thought to have moved lots of phosphorous around in their poo, benefitting amazonian plants ("For [the plants] the only input of essential phosphorus comes from dust blown from the Sahara and from the dung of animals that had foraged on the fertilised flood plain."). Humans killed them starting ~12,000 years ago, consequence: "Nonetheless, the huge amounts of phosphorus that were moved by the collective action of the megafauna has left a long legacy and their calculations suggest that the Amazon is only 2/3 of the way through a transition towards a low nutrient state. Today’s trees are still benefiting from the actions of the prehistoric beasts, but as time is progressing the forests are losing fertility." > 's cool and all, but why wouldn't we expect a [medical breakthroughs from rainforest specimens] to happen with the life that moves in after the hypothetical clear cutting of the Amazon? AFAUI, no. Varied biochemicals are what produces these breakthroughs, which is linked to varied plant life. If that gets wiped out then it will take millions of years for that diversity to re-emerge, so except in the longest timescale, it's gone. However I am not an expert on this. (But frankly do us humans have to be such tosspots towards anything that doesn't immediately benefit us?[0] These things are jewels in their own right, why can't we value them for what they are) > I pretty much always get downvoted for these posts where I bounce heterodox ideas of y'all. And it's totally worth it. I'd like to understand why I don't understand the biodiversity concern. Well, HTH? [0](Edit: this summarises it nicely https://i.pinimg.com/736x/18/bd/4d/18bd4d5fe4dc42f7a0b01f4c7b3d8ef2--farm-animals-climate-change.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/18/bd/4d/18bd4d5fe4dc42f7a0b01f4c7...)

csin 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovbF0D2wySI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovbF0D2wySI People don't wanna be fcked.

squirrelicus 7y ago
For what it's worth, clear cutting the Amazon and replacing it with farms is probably better for humanity when it comes to Maslow needs

DougN7 7y ago

What you’re describing is basically Iceland. It used to be richly forested. It lost its forests and then its topsoil. Essentially an ecological disaster brought on by the vikings. But life finds a way.