Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
Bill, We have recombined, through introduction of exotics, many species that were once separated by continental drift and other geography. Fish species come immediately to mind - the salmoninds, tilapias, etc,. We are also introducing species and then isolating them with human development. Thus rainforset species are brought together over mountain ranges and then isolated by roads, towns, industry. That being said, isolation and stress are the two main speciation forces, as Darwin himself identified. Of course I also said that we are wiping out species far, far faster than we are helping to foster their creation. peace
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
so 'globalisation' has destroyed diversity, which is an alternative way of saying capitalism demands conformation and destroys individuality. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
C. Coleman, The rate of species extinction is probably unprecedented since whatever caused the Cambrian extinction happened. New species will be created but novel combinations of DNA will be lost and it is very unlikely that they will ever be found again. Fortunately there is enough redundancy in much DNA not to cripple the process of scientific understanding, however, losing these plants is like throwing away lottery tickets before the drawing. Their value is inestimable and it's a stinking shame that we have destroyed these plants. In so many cases the processes that destroyed them were like knocking down the Louvre to build a parking lot - and not removing the paintings first. It's true that species die out all the time, but not so fast. peace
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
To whom, Lou P.s posts go too far, leaving science behind and drawing the issue of plant extinction into a dystopian vision of the world. The conditions that create new species are isolation, stress and novel combinations of closely related species. In that way we are actually creating an environment for *faster* species creation. Witness the rapid changes in bacteria as a result of antibiotics. However, the process for species formation among all but the simplest of creatures is very slow and our speeding up the process is a drop in the ocean compared to our direct species destruction. peace
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
On Fri, April 10, 1998 at 03:09:02 (EDT) boddhisatva writes: ... Lou P.s posts go too far, leaving science behind and drawing the issue of plant extinction into a dystopian vision of the world. The conditions that create new species are isolation, stress and novel combinations of closely related species. In that way we are actually creating an environment for *faster* species creation. Witness the rapid changes in bacteria as a result of antibiotics. However, the process for species formation among all but the simplest of creatures is very slow and our speeding up the process is a drop in the ocean compared to our direct species destruction. And deforestation of the Amazon to make way for parking lots will step up the formation of new bacteria? Species don't emerge only at the bottom. If you wipe out entire forests, all of the genetic material therein is lost for speciation purposes. What would happen to your bacteria if we suddenly eliminated their human hosts? Bill
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
At 05:51 PM 4/9/98 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Forgive me, but this is really a dumb question. The disappearance of plant and wildlife species has an impact ultimately on what we eat and drink, and on the air we breathe. We are part of the ecospheres that are being destroyed. The loss of rainforest foliage exacerbates global warming, which is deadly threat to humanity. C'mon Louis, lighten up, can't you take a joke? I am NOT questioning the need to preserve the wildlife. The whole posting had a different angle: philosophical realism (espoused, inter alia, in the concept of the species) vs. philosophical nominalism (which tend to be buried nowadays under mass produced reified abstractions). Regards, Wojtek
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
On Fri, April 10, 1998 at 15:04:56 (EDT) boddhisatva writes: C. Bill, As I wrote: "our speeding up the [speciation] process is a drop in the ocean compared top our direct species destruction." So I have to say I don't understand your question. As to eliminating the human hosts of bacteria, I think that is a non-issue. I was challenging your claim that "we are actually creating an environment for *faster* species creation". I challenged you based on your own words: viz, speciation relies on, "combinations of closely related species". Simple combinatorial math suffices to show that the wholesale destruction of "closely related species" could very easily suffice to drive down speciation rates. I'm not saying that this necessarily outweighs the increase in speciation due to "isolation [and] stress", but it seems like a reasonable concern to me, not dystopic paranoia. Bill
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
C. Bill, As I wrote: "our speeding up the [speciation] process is a drop in the ocean compared top our direct species destruction." So I have to say I don't understand your question. As to eliminating the human hosts of bacteria, I think that is a non-issue. peace
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
In a message dated 98-04-09 18:03:49 EDT, you write: Again, this is part and parcel of a wrong-headed approach to the whole problem. Capitalist livestock breeding is not just cruel to the animal, it creates all sorts of environmental and health problems that ultimately can kill us. The separation of chicken and beef stockyards from feedlots means that natural fertilizer is not being recycled. This leads to loss of soil fertility, water pollution from inorganic nitrogen-based fertilizers, diseased animals filled with steroids and antibiotics, and risk of exposure to mad cow disease. also, limiting the separations between animals and the reduction of species enables the wiping out of our entire food supply. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
At 03:26 PM 4/9/98 EDT, you wrote: I am not disputing that many plant species are dieing. However (not really knowing shit about botany) it was my understanding that new species are also created on a regular basis. Is this true? ALSO, is the current RATE of specie disappearance greater than it was say 10-20-30 years ago? If species constantly disappear and get created, then the bad thing is species disappearing at an increasing rate. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the consensus is that new species are not being created at anywhere near the same rate. The reason for this is the same as that causing extinction: capitalist development is wiping out the objective basis for new plant creation. When the Amazon rainforest has been completely turned into toilet paper or toothpicks, it is unlikely that new types of flowers or trees will be spawned. Here is more background information on species extinction and the risks attached from World Resources Institute. It is interesting that they mention the disappearance of Indian languages since this problem was reported on in today's NY Times in an article adjacent to the one on plantlife extinction. I attach it below. --- Species Extinctions: Causes and Consequences Documenting extinctions The number of documented species extinctions over the past century is small compared to those predicted for the coming decades. This difference is due, in part, to the acceleration of rates of habitat loss over recent decades but also to the difficulty of documenting extinctions. The vast majority of species has not yet even been described, and many may disappear before they are even known to science. Moreover, species are generally not declared to be extinct until years after they have last been seen--so figures for documented extinctions are highly conservative. Finally, some species whose populations are reduced by habitat loss below the level necessary for long-term survival may hang on for several decades without hope of recovery as their population dwindles--these are the "living dead." Still, evidence of extinction, especially of distinct populations of species, is only too plentiful. In 1990, the otter died out in the Netherlands, and in 1991 Britain declared the mouse-eared bat extinct. In the eastern Pacific, elevated sea temperatures in the 1980s caused the extinction of a hydrocoral. In the past decade, at least 34 species or unique populations of plants and vertebrates have become extinct in the United States while awaiting federal protection. Worldwide, over 700 extinctions of vertebrates, invertebrates, and vascular plants have been recorded since 1600. How many species went extinct elsewhere, unnoticed? Habitat loss not only precipitates species extinctions, it also represents a loss of biodiversity in its own right. In many countries, relatively little natural vegetation remains untouched by human hands. In Bangladesh, only 6 percent of the original vegetation remains. Forests around the Mediterranean Sea probably once covered 10 times their current area, and in the Netherlands and Britain, less than 4 percent of lowland raised bogs remain undamaged. Loss of genetic diversity The dramatic loss of species and ecosystems obscure equally large and important threats to genetic diversity. Worldwide, some 492 genetically distinct populations of tree species (including some full species) are endangered. In the northwestern United States, 159 genetically distinct populations of ocean-migrating fish are at high or moderate risk of extinction, if they have not already slipped into oblivion. Loss of genetic diversity could imperil agriculture. How much the genetic base has already eroded is hard to say, but since the 1950s, the spread of modern "Green Revolution" varieties of corn, wheat, rice, and other crops has rapidly squeezed out native landraces. Modern varieties were adopted on 40 percent of Asia's rice farms within 15 years of their release, and in the Philippines, Indonesia, and some other countries, more than 80 percent of all farmers now plant the new varieties. In Indonesia, 1500 local rice varieties have become extinct in the last 15 years. A recent survey of sites in Kenya with wild coffee relatives found that the coffee plants in two of the sites had disappeared, three sites were highly threatened, and six were possibly threatened. Only two were secure. The impact of such losses of genetic diversity often registers swiftly. In 1991, the genetic similarity of Brazil's orange trees opened the way for the worst outbreak of citrus canker recorded in the country. In 1970, U.S. farmers lost $1 billion to a disease that swept through uniformly susceptible corn varieties. Similarly, the Irish potato famine in 1846, the loss of a large portion of the Soviet wheat crop in 1972, and the citrus canker outbreak in Florida in 1984 all stemmed from reductions in genetic diversity. In such countries as Bangladesh, where some 62
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
At 03:26 PM 4/9/98 -0400, maggie coleman wrote: I am not disputing that many plant species are dieing. However (not really knowing shit about botany) it was my understanding that new species are also created on a regular basis. Is this true? ALSO, is the current RATE of specie disappearance greater than it was say 10-20-30 years ago? If species constantly disappear and get created, then the bad thing is species disappearing at an increasing rate. I have another question: why is the disappearance of species more sinister than that of the individual? Suppose that the salamander or the tree frog cannot find breeding grounds anymore because wetlands have been transformed into suburbs, malls and parking lots (yuk!!!). Consequently, their species become extinct. But the salamander or the frog may not even know about it since they do not track the well being of their eggs they laid last year. They might be nonplussed by seeing less and less salamenders or tree froggs around every year, they may say to themselves "Hmm... I wonder what happened to the folks I used to know, I do not see them around anymore" or even get nostalgic. But contrast that to other capitalistic practices that not only do not threaten the extinction of a species, but on the contrary, guranatee their survival, of a sort -- industrial breeding. Is subjecting animal breeding to 'rational control' in the form of force feeding, geometric cages and kindred products of ECONOMIC RATIONALITY of which every individual animal is painfully conscious (Rene Descartes notwithstanding) until its miserable death, but guranteeing their survival as a species because of their utility, is less or more reprehensible than the extinction of a species described above? Just wondering but fuck capitalism and its rationality anyway. Regards, Wojtek Sokolowski
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
Wojtek: I have another question: why is the disappearance of species more sinister than that of the individual? Suppose that the salamander or the tree frog cannot find breeding grounds anymore because wetlands have been transformed into suburbs, malls and parking lots (yuk!!!). Consequently, their species become extinct. Forgive me, but this is really a dumb question. The disappearance of plant and wildlife species has an impact ultimately on what we eat and drink, and on the air we breathe. We are part of the ecospheres that are being destroyed. The loss of rainforest foliage exacerbates global warming, which is deadly threat to humanity. But the salamander or the frog may not even know about it since they do not track the well being of their eggs they laid last year. They might be nonplussed by seeing less and less salamenders or tree froggs around every year, they may say to themselves "Hmm... I wonder what happened to the folks I used to know, I do not see them around anymore" or even get nostalgic. This sort of philistinism really turns my stomach. Anybody who has seen a red-tailed hawk in flight or a Redwood tree is benefiting from the splendors of nature. Their disappearance would diminish us as much as the destruction of great architecture or paintings. Is subjecting animal breeding to 'rational control' in the form of force feeding, geometric cages and kindred products of ECONOMIC RATIONALITY of which every individual animal is painfully conscious (Rene Descartes notwithstanding) until its miserable death, but guranteeing their survival as a species because of their utility, is less or more reprehensible than the extinction of a species described above? Again, this is part and parcel of a wrong-headed approach to the whole problem. Capitalist livestock breeding is not just cruel to the animal, it creates all sorts of environmental and health problems that ultimately can kill us. The separation of chicken and beef stockyards from feedlots means that natural fertilizer is not being recycled. This leads to loss of soil fertility, water pollution from inorganic nitrogen-based fertilizers, diseased animals filled with steroids and antibiotics, and risk of exposure to mad cow disease. Just wondering but fuck capitalism and its rationality anyway. Capitalism is not rational. It is irrational, especially in the environmental sphere. Louis Proyect
Re: 1 in 8 plant species threatened with extinction
I am not disputing that many plant species are dieing. However (not really knowing shit about botany) it was my understanding that new species are also created on a regular basis. Is this true? ALSO, is the current RATE of specie disappearance greater than it was say 10-20-30 years ago? If species constantly disappear and get created, then the bad thing is species disappearing at an increasing rate. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
