what if we hadn't interfered?

Discussion on living for a better and more responsible future
Post Reply
User avatar
saint-spoon
Moderator
Posts: 9259
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 14:16
Gender: Male
Location: south coast

what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by saint-spoon »

As I often do I am watching a documentary on natural history; in this particular case it is on the Amazon basin. Apparently 10% of all species found on our planet live here. As often happens when making a documentary on the Amazon the problem of deforestation arose with some rather disturbing footage of hills stripped bare of all plant-life; up to 80% of logging there is apparently illegal which makes any legislation pretty ineffective. This got me thinking about an article I was reading the other day (sorry can’t remember what I was reading) where an Ecologist chap estimated that by 2100 up to 50% of all species may have become extinct. I wonder how the balance of extinction and speciation would have stood without interference by the human race? Obviously one is far more readily achieved than the other .

Sorry if this is a bit deep for a Sunday afternoon.
Bah Humbug
pavel131
Lively Laner
Posts: 101
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 16:23
Gender: Male
Location: Loughton, Essex

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by pavel131 »

My take on this is pretty multifarious.
On the one hand, nobody likes to see various life forms go to extinction. But, you cannot save all life forms. By natural selection; some life forms will become extinct, as mother nature depicts.
It is the old saying, as told by "Darwin" the strong survive. I do not disclude human life in this category either. We will become extinct, as all life forms do eventually. When the human race comes into that category, I could not honestly say. But safe to say, that eventually we will become extinct.
Mother nature, never never without exception allows the status quo to continue. She is our true ruler.
I am an Dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.
User avatar
LittleBrownFrog
Legendary Laner
Posts: 4477
Joined: 09 Jan 2012, 20:06
Gender: Female

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by LittleBrownFrog »

I've been thinking about this. Obviously there isn't an answer, or at least, not one that we will ever find out. I guess it is probably the case that by hastening the demise of some species, we have also paved the way for the success of others?
"Happiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder..." Thoreau.
pavel131
Lively Laner
Posts: 101
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 16:23
Gender: Male
Location: Loughton, Essex

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by pavel131 »

Life goes on. I am all for a certain amount of conservation, but you cannot save it all.Life evolves and we will evolve with it.
For pity sake, it would be a bad show, if everything stayed the same. We would never have got away from the caveman, middle ages, Victorian times and later. tempus aestusque neminem manent.(time and tide waits for no man)
I am an Dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.
User avatar
Stig
Lively Laner
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2008, 13:25
Location: North Wales

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by Stig »

Change is the only constant, as you say Pavel131. Humans are just a part of nature - we often see the world as if we were outside of it, & consider nature to be every other living thing but us. We're just another organism.

We can't stop the world from changing but as we are aware of the consequences of what we're doing to the planet, we should try our level best not to damage it. When we needlessly endanger the environment & ecosystems we should stop and consider alternatives.
User avatar
saint-spoon
Moderator
Posts: 9259
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 14:16
Gender: Male
Location: south coast

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by saint-spoon »

Funnily enough it appears that for close to 11,000 years the indigenous population of the Amazon basin have been systematically enriching the soil in and around their settlements; and there was me thinking that it was pristine and untouched. From the archaeological findings to date an area twice the size of Spain can be shown to be anthropogenic (made or adapted by humans). The discovery of terra preta wiki explanation (Portugese for black soil) and geoglyphs another wiki has changed the way that the scientific establishment looks at the Amazon. it just goes to show that we can have a posative effect. Unfortunately the enrichment of soil stopped after the Europeans arrived and bought with them western diseases which destroyed the population and their way of life with them.
I watched a BBC programme that I had recorded called unnatural histories. Fascinating stuff if you are into the natural world.
Bah Humbug
User avatar
lancashire lass
Legendary Laner
Posts: 6520
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 15:17

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by lancashire lass »

saint-spoon wrote:I wonder how the balance of extinction and speciation would have stood without interference by the human race?


Over the millenia there have been several extinction level events without the influence of man so that isn't so much an issue. When dominant species have died out, it has allowed the others to fill the gap and evolve. Mammals would not be among the dominant species today if it hadn't been for the asteroid of 65 Million years ago that was partly the demise of the dinosaurs (there is growing evidence that there was already significant stress and global change before then).

The main issue here is the destructiveness done by a single species. Previous extinctions were not sudden but over 1000s if not millions of years within a given event in a series of pulses. During that period, species either adapted, moved on or died out. However, the time frame of today's extinctions have nothing to do with adaptating to changes in environment brought on by climate change or otherwise but wanton destruction which does not allow for evolutionary progress.

The sad thing is, the loss of some unknown species may not mean anything to you and I directly, but its loss may affect other species - for example, some plants and animals have symbiotic relationships especially when it comes to pollination or spreading seed. Predators tend to be fewer in numbers so more vulnerable when there are significant changes to its habitat - the loss of that predator would allow its prey to breed in greater numbers without check than the habitat can cope with and so use up all of its resources more quickly. A classic example are rabbits or rats in Australia that have been allowed to breed without predators. There is also the bottle neck effect when genetic variation is reduced so much that they will most likely never recover properly even if some were saved for special breeding programme.

Man's interference has a much more pronounced effect on other species than any natural catastrophe. Extinction of species today are not based on their lack of evolutionary progress but loss of habitat, and more worryingly, the speed at which it is occuring is quite alarming. Sadly, when a species has become extinct, it is gone forever.
User avatar
saint-spoon
Moderator
Posts: 9259
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 14:16
Gender: Male
Location: south coast

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by saint-spoon »

A highly comprehensive answer LL; I would however argue that in the case of the meteor strike that has been accredited for wiping out the dinosaurs that the mass extinction was in fact quite rapid, over perhaps a couple of generations. In the case of the human race it is incomprehensibly more complicated because we have technology which allows us to dominate not only the natural world but each other. I am not saying that other species do not have technology, primates such as chimpanzees and capuchins use tools as do quite a few bird species such as the song thrush, some populations of crows; parallel evolution is fascinating; but as a species we can easily communicate our technology to each other, a skill not easily done in other species. That is why we are so dangerous to the planet. Life will continue until the planet dies, of that I am pretty certain, whether or not our species is still around is another matter IMO.

I enjoyed your post BTW LL )t'
Bah Humbug
User avatar
Richard
Lord Lane of Down...... Site Owner
Posts: 30037
Joined: 26 Apr 2007, 22:48
Gender: Male
Location: Ashford, Kent, UK

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by Richard »

I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge to answer with any facts, figures or other.

I just know that as custodians of this Planet, we're making a real pigs ear of it and have a lot to answer for.

It's not evolution, it's human greed.

Richard
New Member? Get more from the Forum and join in 'Members Chat' - you're very welcome
User avatar
saint-spoon
Moderator
Posts: 9259
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 14:16
Gender: Male
Location: south coast

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by saint-spoon »

Greed has definitely got a part to play, as has the need to survive; try telling the mother or father from a third world country that they shouldn’t be burning the insulation off the wiring from a scrap computer because it is damaging the environment, not a convincing argument if you can’t feed your family.
As a race we are also altering the path of evolution as we evolve ourselves. By the use of antibiotics we have forced bacteria to become tougher so as to resist our attack. We have also selectively bred animals and altered the food providing properties of plants so as to feed ourselves as well as eradicating species so as to eliminate the competition. We are not the only species to do this but I feel that our activities have had the biggest impact.
Bah Humbug
User avatar
Richard
Lord Lane of Down...... Site Owner
Posts: 30037
Joined: 26 Apr 2007, 22:48
Gender: Male
Location: Ashford, Kent, UK

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by Richard »

)t' )t' )t'

All the more reason for us to set a trend and do our bit at least Spoony.

I can't see reason in what some say, we are blessed to live in a moderate climate which would probably take longer to destroy than some places, you need to look further afield to see what we have coming
The argument of why should we do what we do when other's don't is like saying everyone else chucks litter on the Streets, so we may as well do as well.

Whatever the debate is for or against, there is no harm in protecting our nature's future and I don't mind paying a bit of extra tax or a few pence on a bill for environmental reasons. Rather on that than some of the stuff all Governments throw down the drain on pointless or vanity led missions.

I'm a bit strong on this one !!
New Member? Get more from the Forum and join in 'Members Chat' - you're very welcome
pavel131
Lively Laner
Posts: 101
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 16:23
Gender: Male
Location: Loughton, Essex

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by pavel131 »

Whatever the debate is for or against, there is no harm in protecting our nature's future and I don't mind paying a bit of extra tax or a few pence on a bill for environmental reasons. Rather on that than some of the stuff all Governments throw down the drain on pointless or vanity led missions.

I'm a bit strong on this one !![/quote]

I certainly do not mind paying extra for environmental reasons, as long as the money goes to "saving the environment"
What I do object to is having to pay this little extra, knowing full well that it is just another government con.
And I am very strong on this one Richard.
I am an Dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.
User avatar
Stig
Lively Laner
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2008, 13:25
Location: North Wales

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by Stig »

Do you mean the government have made the whole Amazon rainforest depletion and extinction of species thing up, as a cunning ploy to deprive us poor taxpayers of our money? >stir<
User avatar
saint-spoon
Moderator
Posts: 9259
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 14:16
Gender: Male
Location: south coast

Re: what if we hadn't interfered?

Post by saint-spoon »

Stig wrote:Do you mean the government have made the whole Amazon rainforest depletion and extinction of species thing up, as a cunning ploy to deprive us poor taxpayers of our money? >stir<

Stop >stir< Stiggy .ang.

I am not entirely sure that anyone has yet mentioned any specific ecological topic as being hijacked by governments, I this case I would suggest that as we haven’t seen week on week tax hikes on the import of wood from the rainforest that the government isn’t trying to make money out of it. Fuel on the other hand would be a good example where successive governments have tried to justify continual and excessive tax hikes on the environment.
Anyway government taxation is a relatively new consideration when we look at human history; we have been around much longer than that and have been having an effect on our environment for tens of thousands of years. The origins of modern farming go back at least 10,000 years with fire-stick gardening (which turns scrub into grass land) and forest gardening have roots that are even older. Pigs are known to have been domesticated for instance for over 12,000 years (possibly even 13,000 in the Tigris river basin area) and chickens are known to have existed in Southern China around 6,500 bc, these animals are still kept by hunter gatherer tribes in places like Papua New Guinea.
Bah Humbug
Post Reply