Brendan, Unfortunately, in my experience, "most" people don't seem too concerned that 95% of the species on Earth might be wiped out by global warming. Why? Because they believe that (A) humans will be among the 5% that survive [we are, after all, the "intelligent" species], (B) as long as humans survive, we don't need the 95% that don't [they must have been too weak, and so are expendable anyway], (C) the geologic record shows that the Earth has experienced [and survived] major warming and cooling trends before, so we will experience/survive them again [not realizing that humans didn't survive the major warming and cooling epochs, only cockroaches and other lowly species did], (D) we have [or can/will develop] the technological know-how to deal with/handle any threat [natural or manmade] that comes our way, and (E) in all of human history, no catastrophe has ever wiped out the human race, so why should I believe it could happen now [it's nothing more than a liberal scare tactic to raise taxes or socialize services].
And it always comes down to money --- people think that they shouldn't have to pay more - or make a sacrifice - if there is any chance that the "doomsayers" are wrong (because someone else – maybe the people in India, or China, or across the RR tracks) aren't paying more or making that same sacrifice. And that's why the fear-mongers always paint it as "jobs vs the environment" -- if we do what these tree-huggers want, it's going to COST us more20in lost jobs and a lower quality of life. We won't be able to HAVE IT ALL. "Most" people do not understand that "we are connected to the Earth", that "we are all in this together", that "what we do affects other people", that "we live in a limited, fragile Earth", and that we actually have the power/ability to destroy our habitat/world. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Brendan Rogers <brog...@gmail.com> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Fri, 22 May 2009 9:38 pm Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Why should I care about mass extinciton? Okay, I'm the average Joe or Jane, concerned with my kids' educations, ortgage payments, a failing economy, crime, and sometimes endangered pecies. When the media warns of global warming, they most often cite three easons why I should care: 1) more heat waves ) more storms ) sea level rise I'm thinking, 100 years ago we hadn't flown a plane, landed on the moon, or ought off the Nazis. We didn't have computers, cell phones, or the nternet. Why is everyone so up-tight about global warming if all we have to onquer in the next 100 years are some more heat waves, a few more urricanes, and some lost shoreline?? Sounds like a fairly short order. Now, I know. I'm a graduate student studying climate change. I understand he interconnected ecology of the natural world and how rapid climate change an be detrimental to its fabric in the geologic short-term. What I don't nderstand is why hardly anybody mentions mass extinctions when they warn of lobal w arming. Here's what I can gather: as far as we know, there have been ive major mass extinctions in Earth's history where up to 95% of all pecies vanish. Most believe all five were either directly or indirectly esults of rapid climate change. Right now, today, when the effects of limate change are beginning to be felt but pale in comparison to those ikely ahead of us, extinctions are occurring at a rate orders of magnitude bove the pre-historical "background rate". This is mainly from habitat estruction and invasive introductions. However, add to this rapid climate hange where even mobile species must negotiate a patchwork landscape of oads, agriculture, and cities. Can you imagine an Earth with 95% of its pecies lost? I can't. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something or maybe my information is off. If t's not, then maybe mass extinction just isn't that big a deal. If it is a ig deal, and I'm pretty sure of that one, then maybe Joe and Jane just on't care that much. But if we can get the general public to care about andas and koalas and spotted owls, surely we can get them to care about the est. The truth is, I think I know the answer. People need consequences that an directly relate to them, someone they know, or for the slightly more nlightened, some other group of people. But the rest of the environment ecomes a bit more removed and theoretical. Plus, climate change isn't an ssue that can be solved by the preservation of some wildlands or even by ildly altered behaviors. It requires20a whole-sale restructuring of our lobal energy grid, and if we succeed, there will be significant short-term conomic repercussions. But I'm still left wondering why no one TRIES to ommunicate this threat to the public. Any opinions are greatly welcomed. Humbly, Brendan Rogers
