Is global warming serious enough to be a threat for mass extinction?

[Hooboy !!]

So, how bad do you think the problem is? How urgent is the situation we are in? How do you measure it? The way I look at it is, if global warming has been occurring for thousands of years, yet its been a while since we saw our last mass extinction, I figure the only reason to get worked up about global warming would be if we were on the brink of a mass extinction.

[Little Billy]

So, how bad do you think the problem is? How urgent is the situation we are in? How do you measure it? The way I look at it is, if global warming has been occurring for thousands of years, yet its been a while since we saw our last mass extinction, I figure the only reason to get worked up about global warming would be if we were on the brink of a mass extinction.

Google "Atlantic conveyor shutting down threshhold".

Enjoy!

[Hooboy !!]

You didn't vote.

[Little Billy]

You didn't vote.


That's because I hate America, and love terrorists.

:Cheeky:

[DNAReplicator]

Yes, of course. If the earth gets too hot, this will cause mass extinction.

'How likley do you think this is?' would have been a much better question.

And we are not on the brink of a mass extinction. A mass extinction has been underway for some time now.

[NonHomogenized]

According to a number of sources I've encountered, most notably famed biologist E.O. Wilson (as in, I don't remember offhand what the others I've seen with similar estimates are), according to current trends, by 2100, half of all species currently living on Earth will be extinct or endangered.

If that's not a "mass extinction", I don't want to know what is.

[Plognark]

According to a number of sources I've encountered, most notably famed biologist E.O. Wilson (as in, I don't remember offhand what the others I've seen with similar estimates are), according to current trends, by 2100, half of all species currently living on Earth will be extinct or endangered.

If that's not a "mass extinction", I don't want to know what is.

Well, I don't think this can really be attributed to global warming. Human activity, yes, global warming specifically, probably not.

Of course, the rapid shift in environmental conditions is going to push already strained populations over the edge. Permafrost thaw, species migration due to temperature band changes, desertification, loss of polar ice, etc.

Very bad things.

[slynki]

Yes, I don't think there is any doubt among those who try to stay informed.

The question really is, will it lead to human extinction? A warmer climate means warm-climate species like insects will thrive, while many of their predators may not. Insects will probably become a much greater threat than they are now. Malaria, West-Nile, Dhengi(sp) fever and many other insect borne diseases may run rampant. Even more dangerous diseases may start to infect the human population and food supply.

[David B]

I've done my vote.

David B (has a lot of respect for James Lovelock)

[fragment]

As noted, mass extinction due to global warming is a moot point, as we're already undergoing mass extinction due to other human activities. Warming will further stress and even deliver the coup-de-grace to many species.

Human extinction seems unlikely - we've survived some pretty bad times in the past.

[Hubble head]

Mass extinction, yes. Total extinction, no. We're like cockroaches that way.

With 6 billion plus we are so dependent on things like food if things keep going in the direction they are there will simply be too many people in too many places for the world to feed and shelter.

But I highly doubt anyone alive today will be alive to see the new ice age. The whole Hollywood scene of us cooking burgers in the backyard one day and 10 feet of snow the next with massive storms seems unlikely.

Last I heard some scientists thought all the increases in precipitous weather; hurricanes, showers, fog and thunderstorms fueled by warmer temperatures were helping to 'clean' the air and work against the greenhouse buildups. Not saying that will stop it, just that we are probably much farther from a total climate changing event than some suggest.

But even if thats true, it shouldn't give anyone the right to pullute. Filth is filth. You make a mess you clean it up. Yes, that includes everyone making their lives as carbon neutral as possible.

[Loren Pechtel]

My impression is that GW isn't going to lead to mass extinctions. Some things that are isolated and can't move will die but there aren't very many of those. The real threat of GW is the major dislocations it will cause.

That is not to say that man isn't causing a mass extinction. It's jut not via GW.

[Smohg]

Even if the planet heats up relatively quickly, are we even talking about the type of climate change that would require evolutionary adaptation? I wasn't under the impression that we were moving toward climate changes that drastically dynamic.

I suppose if we were moving to annual average temperatures above 50C in the next 1000 years, that might be too fast for a meaningful adaptation, but maybe not.

[Autonemesis]

So, how bad do you think the problem is? How urgent is the situation we are in? How do you measure it? The way I look at it is, if global warming has been occurring for thousands of years, yet its been a while since we saw our last mass extinction, I figure the only reason to get worked up about global warming would be if we were on the brink of a mass extinction.

Climate change is one of many mechanisms for human-induced mass extinctions. Though the causes of climate change are being debated, there is no debate over the fact that humans are responsible for one of the largest mass extinction of species in the history of the earth, and it is occurring now.

[premjan]

GW will lead to extinctions for mostly tropical animals and plants. We will be left with mongrel species that can survive over wider ranges of habitat. They will also be pests that will be hard to control. And the ecology will develop sharp discontinuous or chaotic features as compared to its tendency for homeostasis at present.

[rob117]

Yes, I don't think there is any doubt among those who try to stay informed.

The question really is, will it lead to human extinction? A warmer climate means warm-climate species like insects will thrive, while many of their predators may not. Insects will probably become a much greater threat than they are now. Malaria, West-Nile, Dhengi(sp) fever and many other insect borne diseases may run rampant. Even more dangerous diseases may start to infect the human population and food supply.

Human extinction? Probably not; there will always be some resistant to disease.

Will it lead to the collapse of civilization, or at least industrial and post-industrial civilization, would probably be a better question.

[Matt the Medic]

Global warming- natural or man-assisted- doesn't happen overnight and thusly we will have adequate time to adapt to whatever comes our way in this regard. By the time the planet is absolutely inhabitable to the point of mass-extinction, we will either have adequately colonized other planets or have been wiped out by extinction events that don't provide as much time to adapt.

Matt

[Hooboy !!]

I am a little curious about the posts asserting that we are in the middle of a mass extinction right, as a direct consequence of human activity. What is this assertion based on?

[Little Billy]

I am a little curious about the posts asserting that we are in the middle of a mass extinction right, as a direct consequence of human activity. What is this assertion based on?


It's based on a big pile of straw.

[Loren Pechtel]

I am a little curious about the posts asserting that we are in the middle of a mass extinction right, as a direct consequence of human activity. What is this assertion based on?

It's based on the number of species that have vanished or are on the way out.

[orac]

The way I look at it is, if global warming has been occurring for thousands of years, yet its been a while since we saw our last mass extinction
Loss of ozone has been measured over a substantially shorter period than "thousands of years".

The way I look at it, putting out more pollution than is necessary purely because we have yet to prove that pollution is going to directly cause "mass extinction" is stupid.

I can easily believe that the precise nature of the problem isn't well understood - but it's a fact that we're sticking a whole lot of chemicals into the environment that have measurable effects, and the idea that there'll never be any negative consequences is retarded.


I figure the only reason to get worked up about global warming would be if we were on the brink of a mass extinction.
So, if someone proved beyond any possible doubt that humanity would be exitinct in 200 years unless changes were made now, the fact that you personally would be dead in 200 years no matter what would lead you to concolude that changes to your way of life are unnecessary? Interesting.

The funny thing about the "brink" is that by the time you get there, it's generally too late to put the brakes on.

But a lot of people figure it'll be their grandkids in the car and they'll be dead and buried, so it's someone else's problem. Also, they never buy insurance until the day after they need it, and never seem to understand that sometimes the expense of planning for a possibility is advisable, even if "possibility" doesn't mean "certainty".

Global warming is sufficiently serious that ignoring it is stupid - even if it could be anywhere from a few decades to a few centuries before we're at the "brink".

(Also, even if it's "natural", I vote we at least consider trying to avoid mass global economic collapse caused by millions of refugees fleeing the rising oceans and fighting for access to the remaining dry land.)

[GenesisNemesis]

Global Warming is a lie! Scientists used to think that the world was cooling! Those damned scientists are always changing their theories...

*hint* scarcasm *hint hint*

[Vampyroteuthis]

Global Warming is a lie! Scientists used to think that the world was cooling! Those damned scientists are always changing their theories

Yeah! And before that it was the flat earth and the sun going round the earth! Let me know when there's a concession stand...I mean a consensus.

[fragment]

I am a little curious about the posts asserting that we are in the middle of a mass extinction right, as a direct consequence of human activity. What is this assertion based on?
Try this (http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/HTML-books/Red%20List%202004/completed/Executive%20Summary.html).
Recent extinction rates far exceed the rates of extinction in the fossil record. Extinction rates based on known extinctions of birds, mammals and amphibians over the past 100 years indicates that current extinction rates are 50 to 500 times higher than extinction rates in the fossil record. If Possibly Extinct species are included this increases to 100 to 1,000 times natural (background) extinction rates. This is an extremely conservative estimate, as it does not account for undocumented extinctions. Although the estimates vary greatly, it appears that current extinction rates are at least two to four orders of magnitude above background rates.

[LoneWolf]

I believe it could result in the extinction of MANY species. However, it will not lead to the extinction of humans. Unlike other animals we do not have to evolve to adapt. We just choose to do so. Even before technology humans were adapting to live in some of the hottest and coldest places on Earth. The transition will suck, no doubt, but we will survive.

[Gracchus]

I believe it could result in the extinction of MANY species. However, it will not lead to the extinction of humans. Unlike other animals we do not have to evolve to adapt. We just choose to do so. Even before technology humans were adapting to live in some of the hottest and coldest places on Earth. The transition will suck, no doubt, but we will survive.

Technology requires a population base. Famine and pestilence are going to seriously deplete the human population. That means that fewer man-hours can be devoted to technology and more must be devoted to basic survival: food production. Trying to keep as many as possible alive just means more mouths to feed. Of course population will eventually drop to levels that can be supported in spite of crop failures, and the over-exploited vanishing fisheries. Deserts will spread and coastal plains will be drowned. The mid-western US will revert to permanent dustbowl status. And that depleted population will not be able to support a high level of technology. Modern agriculture, for instance, requires fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, transportation, petroleum, and crops that can survive in changed conditions.

Already pollinators are vanishing, water tables are dropping precipitously under cities and prime agricultural land, and slash and burn agriculture is destroying rain forests faster than they can be replenished. The oceans are half-dead already, the land is dying, and all of this feeds the positive feedback cycle of extermination.

Maybe it won't happen, so I voted undecided. But I believe, with good reasons, that the human race is too greedy, to short-sighted, and too stupid to live.

:wave:

[Mack]

nut global warming is just a scare campaign
she'll be right

[MeinGeist]

Global warming will and does cause the extinction of a large number of species. That is an uncontroversial finding.
Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5oC. -IPCC SPM WGII 2007
That's the very, very low end of temperature increase.

Species respond to temperature increase by moving polewards or upwards to higher elevations. Species that already live on mountaintops or at the northern/southern edges of the continent will be pushed off the board.
(Of course, there are other, subtler effects.)
An example for this happening would be the American Pika:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Ochotona_princeps.jpg/200px-Ochotona_princeps.jpg
Pika! Pika! Aww... Such a cutie. Shame to see it go.

[MeinGeist]

Climate change is one of many mechanisms for human-induced mass extinctions. Though the causes of climate change are being debated, there is no debate over the fact that humans are responsible for one of the largest mass extinction of species in the history of the earth, and it is occurring now.

Well said.

It is a widely held belief among scientists that mankind is currently causing the sixth major extinction event. The previous one was 65 million years ago. During this so-called K/T event the dinosaurs disappeared.
Extinction event

More on the current extinction event:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Largest_mass_extinction_in_65_million_years_underway,_scientists_say
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4797

[Plognark]

I am a little curious about the posts asserting that we are in the middle of a mass extinction right, as a direct consequence of human activity. What is this assertion based on?

Um...I thought this was common knowledge? :confused:

Well, others have explained it above.

[MeinGeist]

It is a widely held belief among scientists that mankind is currently causing the sixth major extinction event.
Addendum:

The American Museum of Natural History and Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., in conjunction with the opening of the Museum's new Hall of Biodiversity, developed a nationwide survey titled Biodiversity in the Next Millennium.
[...]
Seven out of ten biologists believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things, and that this dramatic loss of species poses a major threat to human existence in the next century.
http://www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html

[Hooboy !!]

Um...I thought this was common knowledge? :confused:
Species come and go. The rate varies. Speciation may occur faster than extinction, or vice versa. I just do not see an entire genus or family disappearing any time soon. I do not think the conclusion that we are in a mass extinction, similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs for example, is justifiable. The simple fact of the matter is... scientists have no real way of knowing how many species there were a million years ago, for exmaple, or how fast speciation/extinction happens "normally".

That said...

There is no question that humanity is responsible for the extinction of other species, and on a regular basis, particularly in sensitive ecosystems where species are limited to a very narrow range and distribution. This is not unusual. Other species are likely responsible for the extinction of other species too. Humanity is not unique in this.

Interestingly, one means by which human beings are responsible for extinctions has little to do with global warming or industrialization, but are unintended consequences or accidental consequences as a result of foreign species introduction into an ecosystem that could not have happened without human help. How is this not "normal"?

I see this line of reasoning an "human bashing". We are what we are, as a result of evolution, just like every other living thing on this planet. Our existence may very well result in a profound mass extinction, but the planet has survived them before and it will survive the next one, no matter the source.

[Frikki]

Species come and go. The rate varies. Speciation may occur faster than extinction, or vice versa. I just do not see an entire genus or family disappearing any time soon. I do not think the conclusion that we are in a mass extinction, similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs for example, is justifiable. The simple fact of the matter is... scientists have no real way of knowing how many species there were a million years ago, for exmaple, or how fast speciation/extinction happens "normally".

That said...

There is no question that humanity is responsible for the extinction of other species, and on a regular basis, particularly in sensitive ecosystems where species are limited to a very narrow range and distribution. This is not unusual. Other species are likely responsible for the extinction of other species too. Humanity is not unique in this.

Interestingly, one means by which human beings are responsible for extinctions has little to do with global warming or industrialization, but are unintended consequences or accidental consequences as a result of foreign species introduction into an ecosystem that could not have happened without human help. How is this not "normal"?

I see this line of reasoning an "human bashing". We are what we are, as a result of evolution, just like every other living thing on this planet. Our existence may very well result in a profound mass extinction, but the planet has survived them before and it will survive the next one, no matter the source.

People die all the time. and allways have, but it does not excuse me for killing someone.

[Plognark]

Species come and go. The rate varies. Speciation may occur faster than extinction, or vice versa. I just do not see an entire genus or family disappearing any time soon. I do not think the conclusion that we are in a mass extinction, similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs for example, is justifiable. The simple fact of the matter is... scientists have no real way of knowing how many species there were a million years ago, for exmaple, or how fast speciation/extinction happens "normally".


I'm pretty sure this is the exact line of reasoning used by many evolution deniers.

That said...

There is no question that humanity is responsible for the extinction of other species, and on a regular basis, particularly in sensitive ecosystems where species are limited to a very narrow range and distribution. This is not unusual. Other species are likely responsible for the extinction of other species too. Humanity is not unique in this.

Interestingly, one means by which human beings are responsible for extinctions has little to do with global warming or industrialization, but are unintended consequences or accidental consequences as a result of foreign species introduction into an ecosystem that could not have happened without human help. How is this not "normal"?

I see this line of reasoning an "human bashing". We are what we are, as a result of evolution, just like every other living thing on this planet. Our existence may very well result in a profound mass extinction, but the planet has survived them before and it will survive the next one, no matter the source.

Hmm. This comes across as kind of a "fuck it, bad things happen anyways, so who gives a shit" answer.

We, as a species, have a heightened awareness of our impact on the environment. You don't think that awareness should impart any responsibility? If you know a certain action or type of action is going to result in death or destruction don't you think it would be a positive thing to take action to prevent it?

I'm not talking about any objective moral imperative or anything like that, I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

[ninewands]

Species come and go. The rate varies. Speciation may occur faster than extinction, or vice versa. I just do not see an entire genus or family disappearing any time soon. I do not think the conclusion that we are in a mass extinction, similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs for example, is justifiable.

Your empathy for your evolutionary cousins is somewhat underwhelming. Please bear in mind that when these various scientists talk about the "Holocene Mass Extinction" being three to four orders of magnitude greater than the background rate they are talking about an extinction rate considerably higher than the rate in the end-Permian extinction (which took out something like 95% of the species on earth. Comparing that to the K/T event is rather like comparing a nuclear weapon to a firecracker.

The simple fact of the matter is... scientists have no real way of knowing how many species there were a million years ago, for exmaple, or how fast speciation/extinction happens "normally".
Okay, let's go kill all the non-human animals on earth and see how long humans survive.
There is no question that humanity is responsible for the extinction of other species, and on a regular basis, particularly in sensitive ecosystems where species are limited to a very narrow range and distribution. This is not unusual. Other species are likely responsible for the extinction of other species too. Humanity is not unique in this.
I don't consider the American Bison to be a particularly sensitive species. It can live just about anywhere, but it was hunted damned near to extinction in less than a century for the fur trade and for sport. The passenger pigeon is another tough species we killed off in less than two hundred years of serious sport hunting pressure. What are you willing to sacrifice next? Migratory waterfowl? They're pretty damned tough too, but habitat loss is wiping them out. The non-Homo sapiens great apes are in trouble too, as are all the amphibians, worldwide. That doesn't even begin to address the way the human race is devastating the plant kingdom, which is probably our greatest potential resource for the development of future drugs. Oh yes ... humanity IS unique. It is the only species I know of that will knowingly foul its own nest for money ... and do it over and over and over again.
Interestingly, one means by which human beings are responsible for extinctions has little to do with global warming or industrialization, but are unintended consequences or accidental consequences as a result of foreign species introduction into an ecosystem that could not have happened without human help. How is this not "normal"?

I see this line of reasoning an "human bashing". We are what we are, as a result of evolution, just like every other living thing on this planet. Our existence may very well result in a profound mass extinction, but the planet has survived them before and it will survive the next one, no matter the source.
What we are is the ONLY species on the planet that has the intellectual and technological capability of changing our behavior toward the environment. I am not exactly what one would call a tree-hugger, but I believe in acting responsibly toward the only home world we have, and quite likely the only home world we will ever have. I do not think our asses will be saved by colonizing other planets because of the vast amount of time and resources it would take to move a genetically viable population across interstellar distances. It would make me quite happy if the nice folks at NASA would prove me wrong, but that's the way I see it.

We have ONE planet on which we know we can live. If we fuck it up TOO badly we will have NO planets on which we know we can live. We are talking about a life-and-death question here. The economic impact of taking drastic steps to reduce humankind's adverse effect on the environment will be substantial ... BUT ... can we afford NOT to pay it?

[Hooboy !!]

Your empathy for your evolutionary cousins is somewhat underwhelming.
We are all in the same boat. If there aren't enough life preservers, you gonna give yours up?

I don't consider the American Bison to be a particularly sensitive species.
They had no natural predators and walked like lambs to the slaughter. They were incredibly vulnerable. Consider pests such as the cockroach or sewer rat, which we have been ssystematically hunting and killing using the best tools that our intellect can imagine, yet they thrive.

Natural selection chose the bison to become exinct.

What we are is the ONLY species on the planet that has the intellectual and technological capability of changing our behavior toward the environment.
I am all for not shitting where I sleep, but I really do not see why there is so much angst over some tiny little fishy becoming extinct that can only be found in the middle of the fucking desert.

Did the thought ever occur to you that human intervention has also prevented species from becoming extinct that should have been? Would you be willing to sacrifice a human life to save a species?

[fragment]

Species come and go. The rate varies. Speciation may occur faster than extinction, or vice versa. I just do not see an entire genus or family disappearing any time soon. I do not think the conclusion that we are in a mass extinction, similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs for example, is justifiable. The simple fact of the matter is... scientists have no real way of knowing how many species there were a million years ago, for exmaple, or how fast speciation/extinction happens "normally".
Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Extinction_Intensity.png)

There is no question that humanity is responsible for the extinction of other species, and on a regular basis, particularly in sensitive ecosystems where species are limited to a very narrow range and distribution. This is not unusual. Other species are likely responsible for the extinction of other species too. Humanity is not unique in this.
Who said we were unique in causing the extinctions of other species? The issue isn't that, it's the rate at which our acts are directly or indirectly causing extinctions.

I see this line of reasoning an "human bashing". We are what we are, as a result of evolution, just like every other living thing on this planet.
You seem to be arguing that discussion of human impacts presupposes a separation between humanity and the rest of biology world and is thus invalid. This is incorrect. As an illustration, forget humans and consider a study of the impact of, say, elephants on the ecology of the African savannah. Would this line of reasoning be "elephant bashing"?

Our existence may very well result in a profound mass extinction, but the planet has survived them before and it will survive the next one, no matter the source.
Who here said anything about planetary survival? Species diversity recovers from mass extinctions, sure - in about 5 million years. Personally I'm more interested in the next couple of centuries.

[Hooboy !!]

Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Extinction_Intensity.png)
Really.

"Note that these data do not represent all genera that have ever lived, but rather only a selection of marine genera whose qualities are such that they are easily preserved as fossils."

Would this line of reasoning be "elephant bashing"?
Sure, if the argument then allowed intervention in elephant range, population, etc, and their impact on their environment.

Who here said anything about planetary survival? Species diversity recovers from mass extinctions, sure - in about 5 million years. Personally I'm more interested in the next couple of centuries.
Why? You won't be around to care one way or the other. 100 years from now is no more significant to you than 100 million years from now.

[fragment]

[Bison] had no natural predators
Seems unlikely. Cite please.

Consider pests such as the cockroach or sewer rat, which we have been ssystematically hunting and killing using the best tools that our intellect can imagine, yet they thrive.
Such pests are a very small percentage of the number of species that exist.

Natural selection chose the bison to become exinct.
Natural selection does not choose. Organisms die, or they live and leave descendants. That is all.

I am all for not shitting where I sleep, but I really do not see why there is so much angst over some tiny little fishy becoming extinct that can only be found in the middle of the fucking desert.
Perhaps it's a vital food source for people who live in the area, who knows? Obviously, some of the reasons why people care about such species aren't going to be shared by everybody else in the world. Were we talking about only a handful of species it wouldn't be very important. We're not, we're talking about mass extinction, remember?

Did the thought ever occur to you that human intervention has also prevented species from becoming extinct that should have been?
There is no should in natural selection. See above.

Would you be willing to sacrifice a human life to save a species?
Depends on the human and the species :p

[fragment]

Really.

"Note that these data do not represent all genera that have ever lived, but rather only a selection of marine genera whose qualities are such that they are easily preserved as fossils."

Your point being? Are you really going to suggest that we would need to itemise every genera that ever existed to come up with decent estimates of extinction rates? Have you never heard of statistics, sampling, extrapolation?

Sure, if the argument then allowed intervention in elephant range, population, etc, and their impact on their environment.
And, presumably, a study of the impacts on human health of malaria-carrying mosquitoes with a view to controlling them would be "mosquito-bashing". That your term "bashing" implies no useful distinction in the realms of science or policy, and is nothing other than an empty pejorative, is noted.

Why? You won't be around to care one way or the other. 100 years from now is no more significant to you than 100 million years from now.
I disagree. 100 years may be no more significant to you, but it is to me. Your complete avoidance of my point is also noted. Let's try again: who here said anything about planetary survival?

[Hooboy !!]

Seems unlikely. Cite please.
American Bison
"One of the bison's few natural predators is the wolf. Wolves will usually prey on the females and calves and will rarely attack healthy bulls."

"The hunter would customarily locate the herd in the early morning, and station himself about 100 meters from it... If done properly a large number of bison would be felled at one time. "

The animals simply had no clue they were being hunted.

Such pests are a very small percentage of the number of species that exist.
So?

[Hooboy !!]

Your point being?
I think I made my point pretty clearly.

And, presumably, a study of the impacts on human health of malaria-carrying mosquitoes with a view to controlling them would be "mosquito-bashing".
Yup.

I disagree. 100 years may be no more significant to you, but it is to me.
How? Please explain to me how events that occur 100 years from now, assuming that you will not survive, makes one bit of difference to you personally; and how you would be aware of it.

[fragment]

I think I made my point pretty clearly.
No, you really didn't. Your claim was 'The simple fact of the matter is... scientists have no real way of knowing how many species there were a million years ago, for exmaple, or how fast speciation/extinction happens "normally".'

In reply I pointed you to the sort of scientific study that can be used to investigate just these questions. I didn't say that particular study was the final word on the matter... I'm inviting you to, hopefully with reference to the scientific literature (this is S&S, not PD, after all), or at least with some decent reasoning, back up your assertion that scientists have "no real way of knowing" anything about speciation and extinction rates.

I'm really hoping you can come up with something better than what, so far, amounts to "were you there?"

How? Please explain to me how events that occur 100 years from now, assuming that you will not survive, makes one bit of difference to you personally; and how you would be aware of it.
Persistent avoidance of my point noted. Third time's the charm: who here said anything about planetary survival?

As for your question, it's getting far away from S&S material, but I'll respond briefly. First, awareness in 100 years time has no relevance. I'm talking about what I am aware of and care about now, not at some future point. Second, let me ask you something, why do people take out life insurance policies that will benefit their families in the event of their own death?

[fragment]

American Bison
"One of the bison's few natural predators is the wolf. Wolves will usually prey on the females and calves and will rarely attack healthy bulls."
So we've gone from "no natural predators" to "few". I'll consider this a retraction.

You missed this bit from wiki:
Due to its size and the protection afforded by living in a herd, the bison have few enemies besides humans. Grizzly bears and wolves may attempt to attack young calves or subadults, but only in the dead of winter when the herd cannot expend the energy to protect stragglers. A wolf pack can also take down an adult bison, wolves frequently test even the largest bison for weaknesses, usually several wolves may pursue a bison and attempt to bring it down after the bison has succumbed to exhaustion or wounds from the wolves' deadly jaws.

"The hunter would customarily locate the herd in the early morning, and station himself about 100 meters from it... If done properly a large number of bison would be felled at one time. "
So, despite having adaptations (size and herd-living) that protected them from "natural" predators, bison are particularly vulnerable to human hunting methods. That seems to back up ninewands original point, which was that bison are an example of a species which humans managed to decimate despite being widespread and not confined to sensitive ecosystems.

So?
So, if you recall, ninewands gave you some examples of formerly numerous species that have been decimated by human actions, and you replied with some which aren't. I pointed out that your examples represent only a tiny proportion of species that exist. The point of the exchange being the extent to which humans are capable of driving to extinction species to extinction that aren't otherwise especially rare or vulnerable.

[Hooboy !!]

So we've gone from "no natural predators" to "few". I'll consider this a retraction.
More like a clarification. The point was that bison are not all that well adapted to defend themselves.

So, if you recall, ninewands gave you some examples of formerly numerous species that have been decimated by human actions, and you replied with some which aren't. I pointed out that your examples represent only a tiny proportion of species that exist. The point of the exchange being the extent to which humans are capable of driving to extinction species to extinction that aren't otherwise especially rare or vulnerable.
The human animal has every right to be on this planet just like any other species. If the human animal were kill every other living thing on this planet... how is this a bad thing? (rhetorical)

The assumption are...

- Life on this planet should be preserved. Have you considered that the natural order of things is for life to destroy its self? The presence of human beings and human beings killing off all life on this planet could very well be an inevitable conclusion to natural selection. Every system fails in time. Most likely, including natural selection.

- Preserving species that are unable to adapt to coexist with human beings is beneficial.

- Human beings are worth preserving.

- Human beings would survive long enough to destroy all life and prevent re-speciation.

I guess I just don't care if the only living species on this planet left in 100 years are cockroaches and mosquitos. This might be the best thing that could happen in the long run.

[Hooboy !!]

No, you really didn't. Your claim was 'The simple fact of the matter is... scientists have no real way of knowing how many species there were a million years ago, for exmaple, or how fast speciation/extinction happens "normally".'

In reply I pointed you to the sort of scientific study that can be used to investigate just these questions. I didn't say that particular study was the final word on the matter... I'm inviting you to, hopefully with reference to the scientific literature (this is S&S, not PD, after all), or at least with some decent reasoning, back up your assertion that scientists have "no real way of knowing" anything about speciation and extinction rates.

I'm really hoping you can come up with something better than what, so far, amounts to "were you there?"
The fossile record represents maybe 10% of the species at any given point in time.

First, awareness in 100 years time has no relevance. I'm talking about what I am aware of and care about now, not at some future point. Second, let me ask you something, why do people take out life insurance policies that will benefit their families in the event of their own death?
You have zero stake in what happens after you die. Period. Whether you care about it or not is what is irrelevant. I have more news for you. No amount of planning and preparation is going to a) predict the future perfectly, and b) guarantee that the preparations and planning you make will ever materialize in the future. What is more, after you die, your ability to influence future diminishes profoundly. Very few people have the resources to continue to influence the future after they die.

[fragment]

More like a clarification. The point was that bison are not all that well adapted to defend themselves.
Other than being large and living in herds. Your statement should be "bison are not all that well adapted to defend themselves against a particular threat which they did not evolve in the presence of." Hardly surprising, and true of a great many species - and this doesn't diminish the fact that a previously numerous and widespread species was driven close to extinction by humans.

The human animal has every right to be on this planet just like any other species...<snip>
We're probably never going to agree on the ethical question about how to respond to human-caused extinctions, and I'm not even very interested in having that discussion. Discussing whether or not humans are causing mass extinction is the reason I'm participating here. Do you dispute that we are?

The fossile record represents maybe 10% of the species at any given point in time.
That 10% sample is enough to make some estimates of extinction rates. Do you disagree? Why?

You have zero stake in what happens after you die. Period. Whether you care about it or not is what is irrelevant.
You're getting confused, mate, that's your position, not mine. You're welcome to it. I'm not here to defend my ethics or get you to change yours. I'll just say that, for me, a "stake" is precisely that which I care about, for whatever reason. And trying to act on something one cares about does not require perfect predictability and control. Why does the life insurance industry exist?

And again (for the fourth time), who here said anything about planetary survival? This little digression began with me saying I care more about the near future than the distant future, and thus your "the planet will survive" statement was of no interest. That's true whether I care more about the next millenia, century, decade or minute than some time a few million years away. You may not care more about of those, but your planetary survival point is meaningless to anyone who does.

[Plognark]

More like a clarification. The point was that bison are not all that well adapted to defend themselves.


The human animal has every right to be on this planet just like any other species. If the human animal were kill every other living thing on this planet... how is this a bad thing? (rhetorical)

The assumption are...

- Life on this planet should be preserved. Have you considered that the natural order of things is for life to destroy its self? The presence of human beings and human beings killing off all life on this planet could very well be an inevitable conclusion to natural selection. Every system fails in time. Most likely, including natural selection.

- Preserving species that are unable to adapt to coexist with human beings is beneficial.

- Human beings are worth preserving.

- Human beings would survive long enough to destroy all life and prevent re-speciation.

I guess I just don't care if the only living species on this planet left in 100 years are cockroaches and mosquitos. This might be the best thing that could happen in the long run.

So this is just a valuation issue then? You, personally, don't value any of this enough to give a shit?

[Plognark]

<snip>

You have zero stake in what happens after you die. Period. Whether you care about it or not is what is irrelevant. I have more news for you. No amount of planning and preparation is going to a) predict the future perfectly, and b) guarantee that the preparations and planning you make will ever materialize in the future. What is more, after you die, your ability to influence future diminishes profoundly. Very few people have the resources to continue to influence the future after they die.

So, again, it's just another matter that you personally don't give a shit, so no one else should either?

Maybe I've been away from this site too long, but this isn't what I would have expected from you.

[lao tzu]

We, as a species, have a heightened awareness of our impact on the environment. You don't think that awareness should impart any responsibility? If you know a certain action or type of action is going to result in death or destruction don't you think it would be a positive thing to take action to prevent it?

I'm not talking about any objective moral imperative or anything like that, I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

I don't see any need to shy away from objective moral imperatives when they're there for the plucking, and this one's ripe. Awareness and responsibility be damned, think about how much freaking data we're losing! Every one of those species is a living endpoint of a biological experiment that's been running for about four billion years.

"Whoops, sorry, my smog ate my homework."

Okay, so we can recover some of the data by looking at recent common ancestors, but the particular combination of genes shown viable in this earthlab since speciation is gone forever.

Science fiction writers speak of Von Neumann machines. Handy as hell. See any around? Any we've created, that is? In the biological sciences, they're already sitting on the shelf, lined up like so many volumes of the book of life. Some of those books are off the shelf, making life itself for diabetics, not to mention making a lot of brewers rich.

Extinction of a species is like burning a book.

Now we can say we've got plenty of books left, so what if we lose a few? We've got plenty of neanderthal skeletons too, should we toss the extras? We know from long experience that our progress in the sciences, and with it, our ability to improve the quality of life for our species, is utterly reliant on our ability to comprehend the world around us and take advantage of that comprehension. That comprehension must feed on data. So long as we remain biological organisms, knowledge of the capabilities of viable biological organisms will always be important to every human.

We can go further. It could fairly be said that the biological sciences, perhaps more than any other field, lays direct claim upon moral imperatives. It is the knowledge of ourselves as biological organisms that allows us to become humane. How do we care for the sick and the wounded? How do we prevent birth defects? Are these not moral issues? If not, the word should be retired as an archaism.

Let's not let our disregard for the claims of moral objectivism among the theists prejudice us against taking the high ground when it is there to be taken.

Forgive me the heat of my response, Plognark. I can't say why, but something about your post just touched a nerve and I had to vent.

As ever, Jesse

[Plognark]

No problem, it's a good post, and I agree with you. I'm just not an objectivist.

I don't think anyone has to do anything as a moral imperative. I think people should do things as a moral imperative. And the choice makes the action all the more important.

Anyway, wrong forum for a moral debate. No worries, I just don't want someone jumping on my back for being an objectivist, when I'm nothing of the sort.

[Hooboy !!]

So long as we remain biological organisms, knowledge of the capabilities of viable biological organisms will always be important to every human.
Without the benefit of large caliber firearms, the American Bison would not have been at risk of extinction. Without the development of fossile burning technologies as an energy source, we would not be faced with the threat of anthropogenic climate change.

[American Hominid]

(edit - reply is a little late but I was responding to the last post on page 2)

I would add - not only does biodiversity matter in terms of scientific progress and development, but I actually feel a compulsion to care about the welfare of the other things that live on this planet.

Maybe it's because I understand that humans are only a small piece of the puzzle here. Not only can we not survive as the only species on earth, I'm not sure that we should consider ourselves to have the "right" to exterminate our genetic cousins and other relatives. Does might make right? I suppose in many cases, yes, it does, but we must also temper that attitude with this: "With great power comes great responsibility." (Thank you, Uncle Ben) Though we are not innately more powerful than any other species, we have made ourselves so, we have assumed the mantle of 'most powerful macroscopic lifeform on earth'... As such, I do feel we have a sort of imperative to "leave things as we found them," to the greatest degree possible. We've given ourselves the power over life; with it automatically comes the responsibility to be stewards of said life. It's the same reason why a king who doesn't protect his people and doesn't provide for them is considered a bad king. The difference is that we've made ourselves "kings," we are not necessarily "royalty" by birth.

Sound cheesy? Probably. Do I care? Not really.

[lao tzu]

So long as we remain biological organisms, knowledge of the capabilities of viable biological organisms will always be important to every human.Without the benefit of large caliber firearms, the American Bison would not have been at risk of extinction. Without the development of fossile burning technologies as an energy source, we would not be faced with the threat of anthropogenic climate change.

Greetings, Hooboy,

If there's a connection between the portion of my post quoted and your response, I can't see it.

You seem to be displaying a list of misused technology?

Now, as the OP, I think you should be allowed to direct the thread where you wish. My post was directed toward the meta-question behind this thread, "What is the cost of mass extinction?" I don't see how a list of misused technology can be squeezed into this topic. Are you sure you want to go there?

In any case, the list is irrelevant. It is an attempt to use anecdotal data to advocate a general principle. Should I respond with a larger list of techology used properly? Okay, I'll match you two for one. Weather satellites, tsunami warning systems, radiation detectors and water treatment plants.

Just as fallacious, and just as irrelevant to this thead, as far as I can see.

Your move.

As ever, Jesse

[Hooboy !!]

You seem to be displaying a list of misused technology?
You seem to have a high regard for technology, as if it is the answer to the problem of global warming and/or human caused mass extinctions. But, it is that same technology that has us in the pickle we find ourselves. I like the word choice though... "misused". Do you think that when gasoline was developed that the scientists and engineers that were finding new applications for the techynology had any ide what troubles they were unleashing? Here is the irony. Petroleum products were probably one of the leading factors in saving the whales.

I can imagine you then, using your same high regard for technology to promote the use of petroleum products to save the whales.

In any case, the list is irrelevant. It is an attempt to use anecdotal data to advocate a general principle. Should I respond with a larger list of techology used properly? Okay, I'll match you two for one. Weather satellites, tsunami warning systems, radiation detectors and water treatment plants.

Just as fallacious, and just as irrelevant to this thead, as far as I can see.

Your move.

As ever, Jesse
No, it is not irrelevant and be my guest provide as many examples of technology that has been used "properly", The simple fact of the matter is... you have no idea what is and what is not the "proper" use of technology. First it is too subjective, second, it is impossible to predict the future that accurately. For all you know, in a thousand years from now it will be discovered that weater satellites were responsible for the extinction of thousands of species.

What is fallacious is to speak about technology as if you are an expert and proprietor of what is and what is not "proper". When those buffalo hunters were slaughtering those bison, they were meeting the demand of a growing population. Providing food, clothing, jobs, keeping train tracks clear to make travel easier, and opening up land for human populations.

If the extinction of one species made it possible for millions of people to live... explain to me how this is not "proper".

[Wretchosoft]

I'm confused. I thought Hooboy was denying the current mass extinction but now he's saying it's happening but he doesn't give a shit?

What is fallacious is to speak about technology as if you are an expert and proprietor of what is and what is not "proper".

Nice ad hominem there.

Anyways, extinctions will certainly be a probably for humanity. Overfishing, anyone?

[lao tzu]

You seem to have a high regard for technology, as if it is the answer to the problem of global warming and/or human caused mass extinctions.

Hooboy, you've missed the point. You are the one who brought technology into this conversation. I was the one pointing out how it is irrelevant to this thread. Global warming? Mass extinctions? Sound familiar?

No, it is not irrelevant and be my guest provide as many examples of technology that has been used "properly" ... No, you can't just claim a discussion of proper use of technology is relevant to the question of whether global warming is serious enough to be a threat for mass extinction. You need to show some linkage here. For the life of me, it looks like you're either trying to hijack your own thread, or maybe you're just ducking.

Sorry, no thanks. That's not the discussion I signed up for.

If the extinction of one species made it possible for millions of people to live... explain to me how this is not "proper". Well, this looks to be back on track. We've actually done this, you know. Smallpox, polio ... a few others. But we did so on purpose. Yeah, I know, polio doesn't really qualify as a species, but it's a valid example of a "book" burning from my earlier analogy. What's interesting though, is how we did so. We did it by, guess what, reading the data out of its book, and figuring out how to take advantage of that data.

Now, seeing as this is the second time you've attempted the anecdotal to general linkage, it looks like it might be useful to expand on what's wrong with this argument. First, let's make sure you haven't shifted goal posts here. We're still talking about mass extinctions right? Good.

What you're attempting then, is to argue that because the continuing existence of some individual species might, or even will, result in millions of human deaths, we can safely assume that mass extinctions are justifiable. Put baldly, I'm not sure we need to go further. But let's drive it all the way home.

First, among the species involved in a mass extinction, the existence of individual species that might cause megadeaths among humans tells us nothing about the existence of other species that could prevent megadeaths. So, if we want to argue on the basis of saving human lives, picking individual species doesn't get us anywhere toward calculating the sum total effect. To do that, we'd have to either survey all species, or find some method of creating a statistical sample space.

In no case, however, should we depend upon anecdotal data, as it would be bound to mislead us. Can you see why? If not, I'll try to make it more clear. That's an important principle, Hooboy, worthy of study. It's a well understood principle, and in an academic setting, one need only characterize data as anecdotal to frame it's utility as extremely limited.

Just so you're clear here, let me repeat my earlier point. Losing data in any scientific investigation is inexcusable. There is no reason to except the biological sciences from this principle. More, losing the data in this instance makes even your anecdotal example moot. Without the data, you can't know what the effects of a species extinction might be, which would deny you your anecdotal premise.

Let's put it in gambling terms. Our environment is the hand we're dealt. Now, we can play the game like a chump, just letting the cards drop as they may. Or, by being clever, we can get a read on the opponent's hand. Preserving data gives us a chance to play it the smart way. It's no guarantee we will play it smart, but if we don't preserve the data, we will most certainly be playing like chumps.

Now the religious can take comfort in thinking there's some god up there reading the cards for us. The rest of us understand that even if there is a god, he's not sharing his read, so we're going to have to make do by ourselves.

So are you satisfied with the answers you've been given? That global warming can be a threat for mass extinction? And that mass extinction is a bad thing? I haven't seen any objections from you, or anyone else posting this thread. If we're done, that's good enough for me.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

I'm confused. I thought Hooboy was denying the current mass extinction but now he's saying it's happening but he doesn't give a shit? *checks post count

Welcome to IIDB, Wretchosoft,

I think we're still waiting for clarification on that.

Nice ad hominem there. No worries, if it's an ad hominem attack, it's one that cuts both ways. If no one else is allowed to dictate what makes up "proper" use of technology, then neither is he. I didn't see it as worth pointing out the obvious. Besides, it was decidedly off topic.

Anyways, extinctions will certainly be a probably for humanity. Overfishing, anyone? There's always a substitute for any one food source. This is the same anecdotal argument I just expanded upon for Hooboy.

Don't ask how, but that reminds me. It's my understanding that the vast majority of genetic diversity here on earth is contained within the bacteria. I think I've heard thy represent something like 90 percent of all the earth's biomass too.

So when we're talking about losing 50 percent of all species in a mass extinction, for example, what species are we talking about? Anyone?

As ever, Jesse

[youngalexander]

There's always a substitute for any one food source. This is the same anecdotal argument I just expanded upon for Hooboy.

It's my understanding that the vast majority of genetic diversity here on earth is contained within the bacteria. I think I've heard thy represent something like 90 percent of all the earth's biomass too.
, Jesse
So when the fish stocks collapse we can take to eating bacteria?:Cheeky:

[Hooboy !!]

I'm confused. I thought Hooboy was denying the current mass extinction but now he's saying it's happening but he doesn't give a shit?
Both.

I am just not convinced that it is a "mass" extinction on the same scale we have seen in the past. Even if it were... mass extinctions happen. If this one is a consequence of human activity, how is that any different than any other mass extinction? The assumptions are that...

- The mass extinction would not have happened regardless
- That mass extinctions are necessarily a "bad" thing.
- That the human species ability to facilitate mass extinctions is not "normal" or an inevitable conclusion of natural selection.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy, you've missed the point. You are the one who brought technology into this conversation. I was the one pointing out how it is irrelevant to this thread. Global warming? Mass extinctions? Sound familiar?
Without technology, human caused global warming could not have happened. Global warming is responsible for specie extinctions.

First, among the species involved in a mass extinction, the existence of individual species that might cause megadeaths among humans tells us nothing about the existence of other species that could prevent megadeaths.
Too bad, but you got off on the wrong foot. I do not care about saving human lives. The American Bison had as much a right to live as the human beings that are now living on their range. That was not my point. My point was the moral conclusion about what is and what is not the proper use of technology. You pointed out how beneficial technoogy is, I pointed out how bad it is. You then challenged me to show how technology is in the aggregate a bad thing, I then proceeded to show you how subjective the concept is and how pointless the entire exercise was.

Technology is neither the problem or the solution.

Just so you're clear here, let me repeat my earlier point. Losing data in any scientific investigation is inexcusable.
I am not denying the value of the lost data. But, we are not God and you cannot say that the "value" obtained, that would otherwise have been lost, would not be misused. For all you know, the knowlege gained could cause far more problems than we have now.

Your faith in mankind's ability and willingness to apply technology is far more optimistic than mine.

[Plognark]

<snip>


I am not denying the value of the lost data. But, we are not God and you cannot say that the "value" obtained, that would otherwise have been lost, would not be misused. For all you know, the knowlege gained could cause far more problems than we have now.

<snip>

You know, I don't mean any offense, but you seem to have a habit of throwing out these weird little fallacies. Some kind of loose appeal to consequences.

Anyway, without ever getting a chance to even look at the data we'd never be able to determine any value it may or may not have. It looks like we both agree that the data itself has value, so I don't really get where you're going with this.

ETA: It's kind of like you're saying "the information could wind up being bad! so it doesn't matter if we retain or lose it."

[Plognark]

Both.

I am just not convinced that it is a "mass" extinction on the same scale we have seen in the past. Even if it were... mass extinctions happen. If this one is a consequence of human activity, how is that any different than any other mass extinction?

It's different because of our awareness of it. And also our ability to chose to affect the outcome. A meteorite or a valcanic cataclysm aren't really capable of such things. That makes this different.


The assumptions are that...

- The mass extinction would not have happened regardless

I don't think many people assume this. I don't think it's relevant to the fact that we have the ability to affect the outcome of what's going on right now, and as a result of our actions.


- That mass extinctions are necessarily a "bad" thing.

They're a loss of irreplacable information, at the absolute least. That's enough to categorize them as bad, at least to me.

- That the human species ability to facilitate mass extinctions is not "normal" or an inevitable conclusion of natural selection.

It certainly could be. Hell, it probably is. However, Natural Selection also gave us the capacity to be aware of it, and the ability to take actions that lead to a different outcome. Kind of nullifies the appeal to nature you seem to be working up to.

[anders]

That is not to say that man isn't causing a mass extinction. It's jut not via GW.
Isn't the man causing mass extinction GW Bush?

[lao tzu]

So when the fish stocks collapse we can take to eating bacteria?:Cheeky: May the great Ebola god have mercy on this blasphemer and choose to eat someone else.

[Hooboy !!]

It's kind of like you're saying "the information could wind up being bad! so it doesn't matter if we retain or lose it."
More like, the human track record in how it applies technology is nothing to get excited about.

[lao tzu]

Without technology, human caused global warming could not have happened. Global warming is responsible for specie extinctions. Without the data, you would not be able to make this statement.

Too bad, but you got off on the wrong foot. I do not care about saving human lives. In your own words:If the extinction of one species made it possible for millions of people to live... explain to me how this is not "proper".
You are now saying that the very question you posed was irrelevant. You open yourself here to an accusation best placed within a reported post dialogue box.

The American Bison had as much a right to live as the human beings that are now living on their range. What holy text did you pick that up from? For the second time now, you cannot claim I have no right to make my value judgment while simultaneously making one yourself. Not without having the contradiction pointed out, anyway. Not that I plan to follow you around cleaning up the same mess indefinitely. Twice should be enough.

By any criterion I can think of, the American Bison do not have any rights we do not grant them.

We are able to constrain the behavior of other animals, but we do not ascribe "morality" to their behavior except in fables. Moral decisions are naturally constrained by their sphere of influence. For human morality, that sphere is humanity. If there is another species capable of creating, describing and implementing an abstract moral code, I am unaware of it.

That was not my point. My point was the moral conclusion about what is and what is not the proper use of technology. You pointed out how beneficial technology is, I pointed out how bad it is. This is false. You brought technology into my discussion of data loss. As I've said before:
You are the one who brought technology into this conversation.
If you wish to assert otherwise, it would be best if you provided some justification for your claims. I say it is a misrepresentation. The first time you misrepresented me could have been an innocent mistake. This one seems deliberate. Here is my original comment: In any case, the list is irrelevant. It is an attempt to use anecdotal data to advocate a general principle. Should I respond with a larger list of techology used properly? Okay, I'll match you two for one. Weather satellites, tsunami warning systems, radiation detectors and water treatment plants.

Just as fallacious, and just as irrelevant to this thead, as far as I can see.
Do not pretend this was a call to discuss misuse of technology. It is not. It is a practical illustration of your original fallacy, showing why I believe a discussion of technology is irrelevant to this thread.

You then challenged me to show how technology is in the aggregate a bad thing, I then proceeded to show you how subjective the concept is and how pointless the entire exercise was. I did no such thing. Rather I showed, using this particular example, how anecdotal support of general principles is fallacious.

Here is the challenge I posed:... you can't just claim a discussion of proper use of technology is relevant to the question of whether global warming is serious enough to be a threat for mass extinction. You need to show some linkage here.
You have yet to show this linkage.

Technology is neither the problem or the solution. This remains off topic until such time you can show a linkage.

I am not denying the value of the lost data. But, we are not God and you cannot say that the "value" obtained, that would otherwise have been lost, would not be misused. For all you know, the knowlege gained could cause far more problems than we have now. There are no gods. We certainly can speak of the value obtained, just watch me. What was the world population before the introduction of modern medicine? What is it today?

I'll go so far as to grant that the application of new data may even result in our species' extinction. Do you similarly grant that it may result in vastly greater viability? We do not know the future. To this point however, the evidence is to the contrary. As a species, we have vastly increased the range of our habitat, and could well be on our way to making ourselves independent of any single planetary body. As we write these words, humans are living in orbit.

Your faith in mankind's ability and willingness to apply technology is far more optimistic than mine. Your continued unsourced and unsupportable misrepresentations aside, there is a kernel of truth here.

Data itself expands our technological options. Among those options, some will naturally be more or less beneficial. There is an evolutionary paradigm at play here. As the mutation of our genomes over the past few million years has made it possible for us to discuss these questions, so does the "diversification" of our options make it possible to intelligently select out those we wish to build upon.

Selection among available options will occur regardless of whether data is preserved. If the data is lost, however, that selection will be made in ignorance, like dumb beasts, rather than humans.

As ever, Jesse

[Hooboy !!]

In your own words:If the extinction of one species made it possible for millions of people to live... explain to me how this is not "proper".
You are now saying that the very question you posed was irrelevant. You open yourself here to an accusation best placed within a reported post dialogue box.
I am not the one who decided to use the word "misused" to describe how technology was used to eradicate the Americn Bison. You are the one that began this business of associating value to human applications of technology. Not me. All I have been trying to do is expose how ridiculous the notion is.

What holy text did you pick that up from? For the second time now, you cannot claim I have no right to make my value judgment while simultaneously making one yourself.
I am not making any value judgement. I do not care one way or the other. If American Bison become extinct as a result of human activity. Fine. If millions of people die because American Bison prevent them from cultivating new crops or whatever. Fine. Like I said... I did not start this.

This is false. You brought technology into my discussion of data loss.
How is data not technology? How is data collected without technology? :rolleyes:

If you do not accept that data and the process of gathering data is not a component of technology, then there is no point proceeding any further.

There are no gods. We certainly can speak of the value obtained, just watch me. What was the world population before the introduction of modern medicine? What is it today?
Are you making a value judgement here? Are you claiming that the application of technology in this case, to increase human population is a good thing?

Selection among available options will occur regardless of whether data is preserved. If the data is lost, however, that selection will be made in ignorance, like dumb beasts, rather than humans.
We are "dumb beasts" and pretty much every application of all data gathered so far (technology) has been to the detriment of every other living thing on this planet.

[lao tzu]

I am not the one who decided to use the word "misused" to describe how technology was used to eradicate the Americn Bison. You are the one that began this business of associating value to human applications of technology. Not me. All I have been trying to do is expose how ridiculous the notion is. Again, this is unresponsive. It does not address any linkage between the use of technology and the question whether global warming is serious enough to be a threat for mass extinction.

Moreover, the above is a quote-mine. Here is its context:

Post #50, taoistSo long as we remain biological organisms, knowledge of the capabilities of viable biological organisms will always be important to every human.
Post #52, Hooboy's responseWithout the benefit of large caliber firearms, the American Bison would not have been at risk of extinction. Without the development of fossile burning technologies as an energy source, we would not be faced with the threat of anthropogenic climate change.
Post #54, taoistMy post was directed toward the meta-question behind this thread, "What is the cost of mass extinction?" I don't see how a list of misused technology can be squeezed into this topic. Are you sure you want to go there?
[Emphases added]

This was the "misused" you've taken out of its original context. In the original, it was directed toward removing "misused technology" from this conversation. In the quote-mine, it is represented as an opening to discuss the abuse of technology.

This is dishonest.

I think you've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy.

I am not making any value judgement. I do not care one way or the other. If American Bison become extinct as a result of human activity. Fine. If millions of people die because American Bison prevent them from cultivating new crops or whatever. Fine. This remains off topic.

Like I said... I did not start this. Yes you did, as is evident from the above exchange.

How is data not technology? How is data collected without technology? :rolleyes: How are men not women? How are men created without women?

If you do not accept that data and the process of gathering data is not a component of technology, then there is no point proceeding any further. Equivocations aside, data and technology are linked by a feedback chain. Data leads to technology leads to data ...

We certainly can speak of the value obtained, just watch me. What was the world [...] Are you making a value judgement here? Are you claiming that the application of technology in this case, to increase human population is a good thing? Yes, I am. Nor are these questions meaningful given my earlier response.

I am also making another value judgment. That judgment is on the question of utility, in particular the utility of continuing a conversation with a quote-miner. I have made my judgment. This discussion has no value.

The question addressed in the OP has been answered. As you, the OP, have nothing further to say on the topic, and indeed cannot be coaxed back onto the topic with repeated urgings, I will be asking the moderators to close this thread.

We are "dumb beasts" and pretty much every application of all data gathered so far (technology) has been to the detriment of every other living thing on this planet. If this is an issue of concern to you, then I suggest you begin another thread. It is not the issue I posted this thread to discuss.

As ever, Jesse

[Hooboy !!]

Again, this is unresponsive. It does not address any linkage between the use of technology and the question whether global warming is serious enough to be a threat for mass extinction.
Yes, it does. Technology is responsible for anthropogenic global warming.

This was the "misused" you've taken out of its original context. In the original, it was directed toward removing "misused technology" from this conversation.
No, it was not taken out of context and no, you cannot remove "misued technology from this discussion".

Equivocations aside, data and technology are linked by a feedback chain. Data leads to technology leads to data ...
Equivocation? And then proceed to explain just how data, data gathering, and the application of data is a part of technology. :rolleyes:

The question addressed in the OP has been answered. As you, the OP, have nothing further to say on the topic, and indeed cannot be coaxed back onto the topic with repeated urgings, I will be asking the moderators to close this thread.
The OP was a poll. Once everyone has had a chance to participate, then its usefullness will have concluded. Not before.