3 ms·

> Also, "up to 500 times higher" means, the expected rate is less than 1 plant going extinct out of 330,000 species, which sounds way too good to be true. Spec

> Also, "up to 500 times higher" means, the expected rate is less than 1 plant going extinct out of 330,000 species, which sounds way too good to be true. Speciation does not occur in human timespans. If 3 species of seed bearing plants out of 330,000 went extinct per year, we could expect to live on a barren planet within 110,000 years. This is a very rapid rate, given that plant life has existed for 5,000 times longer than that.

radicalbyte 7y ago
We literally breed new subtypes of plants, constantly, to improve our food crops. Those are new species being created within a human life span.
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  This seems disingenuous. Genetically modified organisms created in a lab have no bearing on the proliferation of biodiversity outside the lab.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I wouldn't say "no bearing". But if current trends continued, there wouldn't be much left except people, livestock, pets, crop plants (including trees), insect pests, and microorganisms. And stuff in zoos and botanical gardens. However, that's unlikely. Well before that, human society and population will likely collapse, due to climate change.
  - Thev00d00 7y ago
    I think he was referring to boring old selective breeding
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    GP likely isn't talking about lab-grown experimental GMOs, but regular farming. Many if not most of the food we eat is completely unlike it was before humans invented agriculture.
  - toss1 7y ago
    Whoever is downvoting this comment is ignorant. GMOs and cultivars grown in labs not only have no positive effect on biodiversity, they have significant negative effects. See more detailed post above.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Naturally evolved unknown or little studied species are a rather different proposition to 100 new varieties of well studied apple and wheat etc, created by and for industrial agriculture. Who knows what chemical and medicinal discoveries we shut ourselves away from as species are dying out. Consider a single poppy species that gave medicine 4 or 5 chemicals that turn out to be the basis of the vast majority of medicine's strong pain relief repertoire.
- toss1 7y ago
  Yes, humans breed new cultivars. This is far more of a problem than a solution. 1) Many of the bred/GMO cultivars are sterile and/or unable to survive in the wild. They actively work against biodiversity. 2) Many of the bred/GMO strains are used in monocultures either in agriculture or gardens. These both displace the native plants, steal resources, and are also far more vulnerable to pests, disease, etc. Again, not improving, but destroying biodiversity. 3) Much of human activity in addition to breeding new species/cultivars is also deliberately or inadvertently moving species into new ecosystems. Some of these become rapidly spreading invasives that damage or destroy the local ecosystem, both plants and insects, animals, and birds that feed on the now damaged ecosystem (& no, they usually cannot just eat the new plant, nevermind if it's not toxic). 4) Many of the bred/GMO variants, even if planted in their native habitat, are incapable of providing sustenance to native insects & birds. While they may still have the external characteristics to attract them (odor, UV spectrum colors, etc.), they lack the actual nutrients, e.g., because they are sterile. So, not only do the human breeding/GMO activities damage biodiversity in plants, they are also damaging the other ecosystems. So, if you are going to count human bred/GMO'd cultivars, they need to be counted against biodiversity. Between these disruptions of the plant ecosystem, pesticides, habitat destruction, climate change, and other effects, we are much more dangerously close to breaking the food chain than people imagine. This is invisible because of ignorance, normalcy bias, and the fact that these are enormously complex ecological webs, and they are very resilient until they aren't -- at which point the system collapses and it is too late to repair. Numerous civilizations and indeed ecosystems have collapsed because of this sort of problem (see e.g., Permian Extinction which nearly extinguished life on the planet). We are now causing this on a global scale and, except for the asteroid ~65MM years ago, at a pace unprecedented in geologic history.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Yes, and that's the problem. We breed new subtypes of plants for human consumption. The problem from a mass extinction of plants is that we don't know what the reverberating effects of those eradications can mean. There are many animal, insect etc species which may be reliant on said plants for primary nutrition which then percolates all the way up the food chain and potentially decimating other animal populations. It is not hard to imagine the potential side effects of say, the resulting plant extinction resulting in massive bee population losses for example. But that's just one prominent example of what lost biodiversity can potentially cause. This lost biodiversity can then further contribute to the rise of invasive species and the result is a destabilization of multiple biomes which have been relatively stable for a long period of time.
irrational 7y ago
I imagine humans would die off and plants would rebound and diversify before the planet became barren.
roenxi 7y ago
> Speciation does not occur in human timespans. I'm no biologist, but surely that is a Pandora's Box of a claim. There isn't even one clear definition of what a 'species' actually is [0]. I can't find a source, but I'm guessing most species are small, short lived creatures with a lifespan of ~1 year; such as mice or insects. That is 70+ generations per human lifespan - 70 generations probably is long enough to get a new species if there is evolutionary pressure. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition

radicalbyte 7y ago

We literally breed new subtypes of plants, constantly, to improve our food crops. Those are new species being created within a human life span.

jniedrauer 7y ago
This seems disingenuous. Genetically modified organisms created in a lab have no bearing on the proliferation of biodiversity outside the lab.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I wouldn't say "no bearing". But if current trends continued, there wouldn't be much left except people, livestock, pets, crop plants (including trees), insect pests, and microorganisms. And stuff in zoos and botanical gardens. However, that's unlikely. Well before that, human society and population will likely collapse, due to climate change.
- Thev00d00 7y ago
  I think he was referring to boring old selective breeding
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  GP likely isn't talking about lab-grown experimental GMOs, but regular farming. Many if not most of the food we eat is completely unlike it was before humans invented agriculture.
- toss1 7y ago
  Whoever is downvoting this comment is ignorant. GMOs and cultivars grown in labs not only have no positive effect on biodiversity, they have significant negative effects. See more detailed post above.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Naturally evolved unknown or little studied species are a rather different proposition to 100 new varieties of well studied apple and wheat etc, created by and for industrial agriculture. Who knows what chemical and medicinal discoveries we shut ourselves away from as species are dying out. Consider a single poppy species that gave medicine 4 or 5 chemicals that turn out to be the basis of the vast majority of medicine's strong pain relief repertoire.
toss1 7y ago
Yes, humans breed new cultivars. This is far more of a problem than a solution. 1) Many of the bred/GMO cultivars are sterile and/or unable to survive in the wild. They actively work against biodiversity. 2) Many of the bred/GMO strains are used in monocultures either in agriculture or gardens. These both displace the native plants, steal resources, and are also far more vulnerable to pests, disease, etc. Again, not improving, but destroying biodiversity. 3) Much of human activity in addition to breeding new species/cultivars is also deliberately or inadvertently moving species into new ecosystems. Some of these become rapidly spreading invasives that damage or destroy the local ecosystem, both plants and insects, animals, and birds that feed on the now damaged ecosystem (& no, they usually cannot just eat the new plant, nevermind if it's not toxic). 4) Many of the bred/GMO variants, even if planted in their native habitat, are incapable of providing sustenance to native insects & birds. While they may still have the external characteristics to attract them (odor, UV spectrum colors, etc.), they lack the actual nutrients, e.g., because they are sterile. So, not only do the human breeding/GMO activities damage biodiversity in plants, they are also damaging the other ecosystems. So, if you are going to count human bred/GMO'd cultivars, they need to be counted against biodiversity. Between these disruptions of the plant ecosystem, pesticides, habitat destruction, climate change, and other effects, we are much more dangerously close to breaking the food chain than people imagine. This is invisible because of ignorance, normalcy bias, and the fact that these are enormously complex ecological webs, and they are very resilient until they aren't -- at which point the system collapses and it is too late to repair. Numerous civilizations and indeed ecosystems have collapsed because of this sort of problem (see e.g., Permian Extinction which nearly extinguished life on the planet). We are now causing this on a global scale and, except for the asteroid ~65MM years ago, at a pace unprecedented in geologic history.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Yes, and that's the problem. We breed new subtypes of plants for human consumption. The problem from a mass extinction of plants is that we don't know what the reverberating effects of those eradications can mean. There are many animal, insect etc species which may be reliant on said plants for primary nutrition which then percolates all the way up the food chain and potentially decimating other animal populations. It is not hard to imagine the potential side effects of say, the resulting plant extinction resulting in massive bee population losses for example. But that's just one prominent example of what lost biodiversity can potentially cause. This lost biodiversity can then further contribute to the rise of invasive species and the result is a destabilization of multiple biomes which have been relatively stable for a long period of time.

irrational 7y ago

I imagine humans would die off and plants would rebound and diversify before the planet became barren.

roenxi 7y ago

> Speciation does not occur in human timespans. I'm no biologist, but surely that is a Pandora's Box of a claim. There isn't even one clear definition of what a 'species' actually is [0]. I can't find a source, but I'm guessing most species are small, short lived creatures with a lifespan of ~1 year; such as mice or insects. That is 70+ generations per human lifespan - 70 generations probably is long enough to get a new species if there is evolutionary pressure. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition