Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is Humanity Creating the Sixth Extinction?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Konglishman



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:54 am    Post subject: Is Humanity Creating the Sixth Extinction? Reply with quote

People have been so incredibly focused on global warming? But right or wrong, global warming is really just a small part of a bigger picture... And that bigger picture is the sixth extinction. I suppose that it is accurate to say that this extinction can be classified in three phases.

Hunter/Gather Phase:
The sixth extinction started perhaps 100 thousand years ago people first left their original habitat for other places around the world. Needless to say, everywhere that people appeared, many of the large game species such as mammoths, mastodons, ect. went extinct.

Agricultural Phase:
With the advent of agriculture, people proceeded to cultivate just a few species of plants and actively got rid of anything else considered to be a weed. In many places, this led to a great deal of deforestation.

Industrial Phase:
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the human population has soared especially in the last century. As a result, the rate of extinction has greatly accelerated. From oil spills to plastic waste, the damage to the environment has been immense.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html


But of course, we already knew all of this. It is just something that we rarely wish to admit to ourselves. After all, if this sixth extinction goes far enough, our own species Homo Sapiens may well go extinct as well in the not too far distant future.

So, the real question is not whether we are the cause, but rather, what are we going to do about it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Underwaterbob



Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who how in the what now?

See this from the quote unquote Global Warming thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Senior



Joined: 31 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no doubt that humans are driving many species to extinction.

However it is impossible to tell which species wouldn't have died out anyway. Further more, humans have probably saved many species. Can you imagine sheep surviving without human intervention? They are pretty much walking meat bags.

Extinction is a sucky thing, and we should try our best to stop it. But honestly, I would trade 1000 Madagascar pygmy marmosets for one starving African (or any continent's human) child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konglishman



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Underwaterbob wrote:
Who how in the what now?

See this from the quote unquote Global Warming thread.


Yes, I first learned about that a little over three years ago on a television documentary. Regardless of our previous endangerment as a species, it does not change the facts about the immense damage that we have caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Senior



Joined: 31 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Underwaterbob wrote:
Who how in the what now?

See this from the quote unquote Global Warming thread.


Oh yea, I read some where that cheetahs went through a similar "bottle neck" not that long ago.

The same article said there were less than 5000 people remaining alive some time around 100,000 years ago, but I believe your article more.

The moral of the story? We have an obligation to protect species, but sometimes, it is beyond our control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Junior



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senior wrote:
I would trade 1000 Madagascar pygmy marmosets for one starving African


If you preserve the forests those marmosets need to survive (and thus, the marmosets), then you will be saving thousands of African/Malagasy children at the same time.
Think about it: that forest provides oxygen, collects and stores rainwater, prevents erosion, controls the local climate, provides food for indigenous tribes, harbours potential medicinal values, is a storehouse of biodiversity.

Its not an "either-or" ("people vs nature") equation. Thats a very outdated belief.

Its that protecting the natural environment is beneficial for everyone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
itaewonguy



Joined: 25 Mar 2003

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All things come to AN END!

Quote:
So, the real question is not whether we are the cause, but rather, what are we going to do about it?

We can't do anything about it.. because our race is hardwired for greed!
and the greedy pig gets slaughtered!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Senior



Joined: 31 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Junior wrote:
Senior wrote:
I would trade 1000 Madagascar pygmy marmosets for one starving African


If you preserve the forests those marmosets need to survive (and thus, the marmosets), then you will be saving thousands of African/Malagasy children at the same time.
Think about it: that forest provides oxygen, collects and stores rainwater, prevents erosion, controls the local climate, provides food for indigenous tribes, harbours potential medicinal values, is a storehouse of biodiversity.

Its not an "either-or" ("people vs nature") equation. Thats a very outdated belief.

Its that protecting the natural environment is beneficial for everyone.


I 100% agree that it isn't always an either/or equation. However, often we have people fighting to save habitat (which they are entitled to do) that if exploited, would bring gains to the people in the area.

A real world example if you will. My homeland NZ. A recent case is, the govt was going to open some national park land for exploration. Not necessarily exploitation, mind you, just exploration. There is believed to be at least 60billion dollars worth of just gold under that land. That doesn't even include other minerals. The greens and metro-liberals caused such a stink that the plan had to be abandoned.

That money could have funded the corrupt welfare state for another generation, but they decided to leave that cash in the ground instead. All for the sake of a few hundred acres that nobody visits anyway, because it is so remote!

Another case from a few years ago. NZs only coal company (I think it might even be state owned) wanted to dig some coal out of a fetid swamp. This was literally as fallow land as you could find. Nothing grew there, so the greens had to act quick to find a reason to stop it. What they found was a rare snail, which actually wasn't that rare at all, and probably would have survived amongst the mining operation. The decided solution was to relocate the snails away from the mining operation. However, that wasn't good enough, the snails' habitat had to be moved as well, or else (despite the fact that this area was thousands of acres of homogeneous hell.

The total cost came to $400,000 per snail. So, the company moved the snails, then flagged the whole thing as it was too much trouble.

I'm not even against mining companies having to repair the damage they do. In fact, they absolutely should have to, if they are mining on public land. However, destroying productivity and with it human happiness for some snails is abhorrent and absurd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are already doomed to extinction according to these guys:

Two eminent scientists say the human race is likely to become extinct at its own hand within the next 100 years as it exhausts resources through a population explosion and unbridled consumption.

�It�s an irreversible situation. I think it�s too late,� said 95-year-old Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner, who helped eradicate smallpox from the planet. �I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.�

Britain�s astronomer-royal and president of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, questions whether humans are smart enough to use what they have learned to save themselves.

He warns that the promise of extended life-spans through medicine, and prosperity through economic growth, could easily lead to oblivion by using up Earth�s resources and changing the planet�s climate.

The planet has existed for 45 million centuries, Lord Rees said on BBC radio. �But this is the first when one species, ours, can determine � for good or for ill � the future of the entire biosphere.�

----------------------------------------------------------

And another article:

As the scientist who helped eradicate smallpox he certainly know a thing or two about extinction.

And now Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years.

He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and 'unbridled consumption.�
Fenner told The Australian newspaper that 'homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.'
'A lot of other animals will, too,' he added.
'It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'
Since humans entered an unofficial scientific period known as the Anthropocene - the time since industrialisation - we have had an effect on the planet that rivals any ice age or comet impact, he said.

Fenner, 95, has won awards for his work in helping eradicate the variola virus that causes smallpox and has written or co-written 22 books.
He announced the eradication of the disease to the World Health Assembly in 1980 and it is still regarded as one of the World Health Organisation's greatest achievements.

He was also heavily involved in helping to control Australia's myxomatosis problem in rabbits.

Last year official UN figures estimated that the world�s population is currently 6.8 billion. It is predicted to exceed seven billion by the end of 2011.
Fenner blames the onset of climate change for the human race�s imminent demise.
He said: 'We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island.
'Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing remarkable changes in the weather already.'
'The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years.
�But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as many of the species that we've seen disappear.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html#ixzz0vEAtoxD8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Junior



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senior wrote:
However, often we have people fighting to save habitat (which they are entitled to do) that if exploited, would bring gains to the people in the area.


Usually short-term gains, but more costly in the long term.

Quote:
A recent case is, the govt was going to open some national park land for exploration. Not necessarily exploitation, mind you, just exploration. There is believed to be at least 60billion dollars worth of just gold under that land.


A necessarily large mining operation does not sound like "mere explortion" to me. More like total environmental devastation for that area.
Your national park would look like this:
http://www.oretracker.com/imageLibrary/OpenPit.jpg

Quote:
All for the sake of a few hundred acres that nobody visits anyway, because it is so remote!

Do you have a link?
Your explanation sounds very simplistic to me..

Quote:
a fetid swamp. This was literally as fallow land as you could find. ,

You've just described what sounds like a natural paradise of biodiversity. Swamps are in short supply, about 90% of them have been drained and built on across the globe. They might appear "dead" to you at first glance, but in reality the last few swamps serve as remnant islands of biodiversity for hundreds of species.

Quote:
Nothing grew there

or: nothing that you know about/ nothing of immediate commercial value to humans.

If I were you Senior I'd be proud to come from a country that focusses on protecting its natural heritage. The alternative is an overdeveloped industrial wasteland like Korea which has lost 85% of its biodiversity in the last 60 years. And is accelerating the drive to finish off what little remains.
Perhaps thats why Koreans are so thrilled to go to NZ and breathe clean iar for a change...instead of having to take their summer picnics under motorway bridges.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seoulio



Joined: 02 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's not though hes more proud of humanity's right to exploit and make money for personal gain, he makes no secret of it.

He's a guy who thinks he knows a lot, but he understands very little. (he'd accuse me of the same thing, but whatever)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Underwaterbob



Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senior wrote:
However it is impossible to tell which species wouldn't have died out anyway. Further more, humans have probably saved many species. Can you imagine sheep surviving without human intervention? They are pretty much walking meat bags.


Wild sheep are a different story. The current mild mannered common sheep wouldn't even exist without mankind's intervention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Senior



Joined: 31 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Junior wrote:
Senior wrote:
However, often we have people fighting to save habitat (which they are entitled to do) that if exploited, would bring gains to the people in the area.


Usually short-term gains, but more costly in the long term.


Would you like to expand on this? It's a nice platitude, and if I had ever seen any evidence to prove it, I would love to agree with it.

Do you think there is any piece of land or habitat on which it is OK to develop? Or is the Earth free of humans your ideal state?
Quote:

Quote:
A recent case is, the govt was going to open some national park land for exploration. Not necessarily exploitation, mind you, just exploration. There is believed to be at least 60billion dollars worth of just gold under that land.


A necessarily large mining operation does not sound like "mere explortion" to me. More like total environmental devastation for that area.
Your national park would look like this:
http://www.oretracker.com/imageLibrary/OpenPit.jpg


About 75,000 KM2 of NZ's total landmass 270,000 square kilometers is designated national park land. The proposal would have opened a few hundred square K's to exploration. It would not have been 75,000 KM2 of open cast mines.

Quote:
Quote:
All for the sake of a few hundred acres that nobody visits anyway, because it is so remote!

Do you have a link?
Your explanation sounds very simplistic to me..


Large swathes of NZ are completely inaccessible. Mining would actually open these areas, as they would have to build infrastructure in order to get there.

Quote:

Quote:
a fetid swamp. This was literally as fallow land as you could find. ,

You've just described what sounds like a natural paradise of biodiversity. Swamps are in short supply, about 90% of them have been drained and built on across the globe. They might appear "dead" to you at first glance, but in reality the last few swamps serve as remnant islands of biodiversity for hundreds of species.


There are hundreds of miles of these areas in NZ. We aren't talking about draining it, as it is uneconomical. SOME of these areas have coal deposits.


Quote:
Quote:
Nothing grew there

or: nothing that you know about/ nothing of immediate commercial value to humans.


Actually, plenty of mosquitos grew there. So you could say these areas are actually a net loss to humans as they breed disease.
Quote:

If I were you Senior I'd be proud to come from a country that focusses on protecting its natural heritage. The alternative is an overdeveloped industrial wasteland like Korea which has lost 85% of its biodiversity in the last 60 years. And is accelerating the drive to finish off what little remains.


I am incredibly proud that we have clean beaches and native forest where people can enjoy themselves. I could care less about back country that less than a few dozen people have EVER seen.

Koreans were starving to death 60 years ago. It is a shame that some plant and animal life had to perish in order for them to stop starving, but I think the trade off was fair.

You say that Korea is "accelerating the drive to finish off what little remains" of its biodiversity, or whatever. I think the opposite is the case. Korea is actually doing a lot to protect it's natural environs. Richer people tend to value that stuff much more than starving people.

Quote:
Perhaps thats why Koreans are so thrilled to go to NZ and breathe clean iar for a change...instead of having to take their summer picnics under motorway bridges.


Where have you been where Korean people do this? I have been to dozens of scenic, if not some what crowded, holiday locations. I've eaten gimbap on mountain tops, and, much more enjoyable for me, exquisite lunches in restaurants surrounded by nature and majestic views.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Junior



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senior wrote:
Junior wrote:

Usually short-term gains, but more costly in the long term.


Would you like to expand on this? It's a nice platitude, and if I had ever seen any evidence to prove it, I would love to agree with it.


Sure.
*Clearing rainforest provides grazing land for a few years. After which it becomes eroded and nutrient deficient before becoming useless for anything.
*Clearing hillside forest provides an immediate return in the form of profits from timber. Later it results in deadly mudslides and the silting-up of rivers.
http://www.terrain.org/articles/16/wellner_bird.htm
* Mining provides immediate return in profits from minerals. Later the area becomes unusable land with an unusable poisoned water problem.
http://ecorestoration.montana.edu/mineland/guide/problem/impacts/default.htm
* Clearance of land for agriculture has increased salinity, rendering the land useless.
http://www.environment.gov.au/land/pressures/salinity/index.html

How many more examples do you want?

Quote:
Do you think there is any piece of land or habitat on which it is OK to develop?

Of course, if done with environmentally friendly principles and sustainable methods.

Quote:
Or is the Earth free of humans your ideal state?

Considering that 98% of all land suitable to agriculture on earth is already in use or degraded beyond repair, and that humans have already adversely impacted every natural habitat on earth, shouldn't the question you should be asking be: "When will humans actually stop destroying and overexploiting the earth?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction
[quote]

Quote:
Large swathes of NZ are completely inaccessible. Mining would actually open these areas, as they would have to build infrastructure in order to get there.


By "opening" these areas and building "construction" what you're actually saying is that the area would become urbanised and damaged.
Ever seen one of those arterial roads injecting into the amazon? within years it has dozens more roads leading off it, all lined with freshly cleared forest and squatter communities springing up...later the place is a dustbowl and they move on to trash the next section.


Quote:
Actually, plenty of mosquitos grew there. So you could say these areas are actually a net loss to humans as they breed disease.


Dude there is way more to swampland than mosquitoes. Birds, insects, mammals, plants, reptiles, amphibians, fish...life and biodiversity. You appear to lack basic observational skills as to what is around you.

Quote:
I could care less about back country that less than a few dozen people have EVER seen.

So..something is only valuable if you personally can exploit it?

Quote:
Koreans were starving to death 60 years ago. It is a shame that some plant and animal life had to perish in order for them to stop starving, but I think the trade off was fair.

Some? You're talking a wholesale wiping out of the country's natural heritage with nothing preserved.
Sure development can be a good thing, but its also possible to develop while still preserving your most ecologically important habitats at least.

Quote:
I have been to dozens of scenic, if not some what crowded, holiday locations. I've eaten gimbap on mountain tops


The national parks here are designed as hiking and exercise grounds for people at the weekends. Thats entirely different to parks designed to safeguard biodiversity- nature reserves- where people go to observe and be educated about the natural world. That act as carefully-managed sanctuaries for threatened species.
ie, the sort of places where you don't get armies of thousands of screaming hikers in flourescent T-shirts on the rampage with loudspeakers.

Wildlife is a proud part of the character of any country. What would New Zealand be without Kiwis? China without pandas?
Did you realise that Korea used to have bears, tigers, leopards, lynx, dugong, deer, and a host of other species that have simply been extinguished and replaced with tower blocks? Its called ecocide, and the character of the people is that much poorer because of it IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Senior



Joined: 31 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Junior wrote:
Senior wrote:
Junior wrote:

Usually short-term gains, but more costly in the long term.


Would you like to expand on this? It's a nice platitude, and if I had ever seen any evidence to prove it, I would love to agree with it.


Sure.
*Clearing rainforest provides grazing land for a few years. After which it becomes eroded and nutrient deficient before becoming useless for anything.
*Clearing hillside forest provides an immediate return in the form of profits from timber. Later it results in deadly mudslides and the silting-up of rivers.
http://www.terrain.org/articles/16/wellner_bird.htm
* Mining provides immediate return in profits from minerals. Later the area becomes unusable land with an unusable poisoned water problem.
http://ecorestoration.montana.edu/mineland/guide/problem/impacts/default.htm
* Clearance of land for agriculture has increased salinity, rendering the land useless.
http://www.environment.gov.au/land/pressures/salinity/index.html

How many more examples do you want?


These are all examples of govt neglect. Generally, no one owns the areas you refer to. Therefore it is possible to bribe govt officials so that you can exploit that area. This stuff doesn't happen on private land.

Quote:
Quote:
Large swathes of NZ are completely inaccessible. Mining would actually open these areas, as they would have to build infrastructure in order to get there.


By "opening" these areas and building "construction" what you're actually saying is that the area would become urbanised and damaged.
Ever seen one of those arterial roads injecting into the amazon? within years it has dozens more roads leading off it, all lined with freshly cleared forest and squatter communities springing up...later the place is a dustbowl and they move on to trash the next section.


Urbanised doesn't automatically mean damaged. Don't humans have as much right to happiness as any other of God's creatures?

The Amazon is a socialist clusterfluck. It isn't owned by anyone, so there is no incentive to protect it, nor to manage it carefully. The squatters can squat as there is no one to boot them off the land. Tragedy of the commons writ large.

Quote:
Quote:
I could care less about back country that less than a few dozen people have EVER seen.

So..something is only valuable if you personally can exploit it?


What do you mean by exploit? If human happiness can be derived from it, I think we have an obligation to put it to use. Of course that doesn't mean open cast mine the whole place. That means let people choose. It might be best used for farming, for mining, heaven forbid, it might actually be worthwhile for nothing. In which case it should be held in trust by a guardian (not the state), who has the right to choose what happens with it. Most likely as a nature reserve.

Quote:
Quote:
Koreans were starving to death 60 years ago. It is a shame that some plant and animal life had to perish in order for them to stop starving, but I think the trade off was fair.

Some? You're talking a wholesale wiping out of the country's natural heritage with nothing preserved.
Sure development can be a good thing, but its also possible to develop while still preserving your most ecologically important habitats at least.


Come off it. Have you ever been to Gangwon do or Jeolla? The whole of Korea doesn't look like central Seoul. What about the DMZ? Apparently that is an area teeming with life.

Quote:


Quote:
I have been to dozens of scenic, if not some what crowded, holiday locations. I've eaten gimbap on mountain tops


The national parks here are designed as hiking and exercise grounds for people at the weekends. Thats entirely different to parks designed to safeguard biodiversity- nature reserves- where people go to observe and be educated about the natural world. That act as carefully-managed sanctuaries for threatened species.
ie, the sort of places where you don't get armies of thousands of screaming hikers in flourescent T-shirts on the rampage with loudspeakers.


This is your own personal preference. Korea has made its choice and seems happy with it.

Quote:
Wildlife is a proud part of the character of any country. What would New Zealand be without Kiwis? China without pandas?
Did you realise that Korea used to have bears, tigers, leopards, lynx, dugong, deer, and a host of other species that have simply been extinguished and replaced with tower blocks? Its called ecocide, and the character of the people is that much poorer because of it IMO.


Are you saying that Koreans are bad people because they chose their children over bears? Do you think Korea would be a better place if they had bears, but a higher infant mortality rate? I realize the trade off isn't that simple, but a certain amount of environmental change is necessary if economic growth is to happen. We simply have to make sure the trade off is efficient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International