12 ms·

This is super depressing, it's crazy to see how much the flora/fauna have changed locally in my lifetime. It makes me wonder how much worse it actually is. Is

This is super depressing, it's crazy to see how much the flora/fauna have changed locally in my lifetime. It makes me wonder how much worse it actually is. Is looks like most of these were initially listed in the 80s, not too long after Endangered Species Act passed. Is there some sort of time limit before they officially declare something extinct?

prescriptivist 5y ago
Sounds like the limit is discretionary. From the NYT: "Scientists do not declare extinctions lightly. It often takes decades of fruitless searching. About half of the species in this group were already considered extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the global authority on the status of animals and plants. The Fish and Wildlife Service moved slower in part because it is working through a backlog, officials said, and tends to prioritize providing protection for species that need it over removing protection for those that don’t."
inter_netuser 5y ago
How come they don’t investigate WHAT is actually causing this exactly? Yes climate is changing but did it change that much since 80s? What if it’s some pesticide? or some food packaging or something
- lawrencevillain 5y ago
  From the article it sounds like invasive species, plus the fact that we have royally screwed up the local ecosystem. For instance — white-tailed deer are growing exponentially, eating all the underbrush and outcompeting other animals, and they have no/few natural predators left. I agree that not much has changed since the 80s, I think it's just catching up to us now.
  - techrat 5y ago
    Ripple effects. Humans have ruined a lot of ecosystems that had a natural balance. Wolf culling being one of the most obvious examples of our cause and effect. https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/ https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...
  - jakemauer 5y ago
    White-tailed deer have only recently recovered from over-hunting and returned to their pre-colonization population levels.[1] Do you have a source that frames their growth as exponential? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Population_and_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Population_a...
    - lawrencevillain 5y ago
      Apologies, I'm based in Pennsylvania and it's definitely more noticeable here. I expect it will become more apparent elsewhere too. We're at 3x the total population that existed when europeans started settling here, and without an appropriate way to cull the herd I don't see that changing. We have milder winters (so no starvation), less interest in hunting, and again a lack of natural predators. https://extension.psu.edu/white-tailed-deer https://extension.psu.edu/white-tailed-deer
    - rubylark 5y ago
      Deer population growth during that recovery period (of white tail deer at least) seems pretty exponential. [1] However in the absence of natural predators it seems that disease and human culling have pretty effectively kept their population to stay at about pre-colonial levels rather than continuing upward to the point of over population. [1] http://www.deerfriendly.com/decline-of-deer-populations http://www.deerfriendly.com/decline-of-deer-populations
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      The Hawaiian deer population follows boom and bust cycles. They were introduced for hunting purposes, have no natural predators, and tend to mess up the ecosystem so badly via overgrazing that they end up dying off and then recovering. https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/molokais-fabled-axis-deer-are-starving-to-death-in-droves/ https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/molokais-fabled-axis-deer-... I have no idea about exponential growth outside of Hawaii, though.
  - cultofmetatron 5y ago
    plus the parasites that they spread are decimating moose populations yearly
  - titzer 5y ago
    > white-tailed deer are growing exponentially Yes, and worse, some (uninformed people) see the growth of any species as a positive sign that nature is bouncing back, or whatever. When in reality, ecosystems are hugely out of balance and the vast growth of one species is just a spasm as the system shakes itself apart. The knock-on effect of one species's sudden growth spurt may take decades to play out in the shadows, but it is almost assuredly not a good thing.
- hanniabu 5y ago
  > What if it’s some pesticide? or some food packaging or something What if it was? I don't expect things to change much with corporate's death grip on the government.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > I don't expect things to change much with corporate's death grip on the government. Statements like this always imply that if the government ran the businesses (socialism) things like this wouldn't happen. But the evidence is it is worse. The USSR had major problems with their heavily polluting industries, which persist today.
    - jussij 5y ago
      The USSR was a communists country. There is a world of difference between Social Democratic (i.e. socialism) countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway for example and the USSR. The hint is right there in the title, democratic. The USSR never had a functioning democracy.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Democracy never made socialism competitive with free markets. Democracy in Seattle led to the government purchase of port-a-potties at $250,000 each and $12,000,000 per mile bike lane striping. All involved were comfortably re-elected. Norway pumps 20% of its GDP out of the ground.
        jussij 5y ago
        Firstly I was only pointing out your assertion that the USSR was a good model of socialism is wrong. As to being 'competitive in free markets', I would suggest that is more of a measure of capitalism than socialism. Socialism is about equality and a better measure of equality would be something like 'standard of living'. When you look at which countries lead the world on that measure it should come as no surprise Social Democratic nations dominate: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-...
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Over 20 species, so causes are as varied as the species. In several cases, it was a combination of human activity and (relatively) fragile initial population conditions. 11 of the species are native to Hawaii and Guam, and when human expansion puts pressure on your ecosystem, there's nowhere to move to. One of the fish species lived in one particularly slow-flowing section of one river. When your whole universe is one island, there's a lot of things humans can do that would render 100% of your habitat unusable.
  - daveslash 5y ago
    Yeah, I agree. To add onto your sentiment that it was a combination [of things]... I'd like to add that it's a bit reductionist for people to suggest an extinction is one thing (e.g. it was pesticides, it was climate change, etc...). Sure, sometimes it might be ONE thing, but I would guess that in most cases it's a combination of stresses coming together.
- justin66 5y ago
  > How come they don’t investigate WHAT is actually causing this exactly? Who exactly do you believe should be studying causes of species extinction but is not doing it?
  - 09bjb 5y ago
    Us!
- bparsons 5y ago
  It is usually just plain old development destroying their habitats. Suburbs, highways, logging etc. destroy their home and the species dies out.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  How many times have you heard the past government talking about the problem with Californian porpoise?
- openasocket 5y ago
  In the case of the ivory-billed woodpecker it was probably extinct in the 80s too. There hasn't been a universally accepted sighting of one since 1944, the few sightings made since then aren't really conclusive. For most of these creatures they only existed in one particularly small region or area. The San Marcos gambusia, for instance, historically only lived in a single 1km stretch of the San Marcos River. Species with that tiny of an area can be driven extinct by a single bad weather event or epidemic. Or because some real estate developer decides they want to build a couple apartments. It doesn't even necessarily have to be something big. It's unfortunate, but sadly something like the San Marcos gambusia would probably have gone extinct within a few centuries, human activity or not, unless it was able to adapt to expand its range. While climate change is definitely something to be concerned about, it is not, currently, the main driver of extinction events like this. The far bigger cause is more direct human activity, like poaching and land development.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    This fish lives in a single rock hole in Nevada. Fewer than 200 individuals alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Hole_pupfish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Hole_pupfish
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Hawaii had iirc 14 species of birds on the list that were all native to either one island or a portion of one, with some preferring certain altitudes or only living on certain plateaus, etc. The funny thing about Hawaii though, is that there are only two or three (extremely isolated) places that remain with any true Hawaiian plant habitat, because Polynesians brought their own plants with them that almost universally outcompeted the native plants. Birds on islands are some of the quickest animals to specialize and differentiate into new species. Which makes Hawaii incredibly interesting, from an island biogeography perspective. Something as simple as the fact that no mosquitos made it to Hawaii until Captain Cook accidently introduced them, means no native fish, frogs, birds, lizards, or anything that specialized in eating them. Now extrapolate that to wiping out all the native flora and replacing it. That so much biodiversity remains in Hawaii today ought to actually give us some comfort in nature's ability to quickly adapt to significant change.
- Taylor_OD 5y ago
  It's absolutely changed that much in since the 80s. For humans? Not that much. For tiny animals and bugs? Small change is massive change.
  - loonster 5y ago
    It seems like there were a lot more bugs that would get splattered on cars in the 90s than they do now.
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      That’s almost entirely aerodynamics. I recently drove a boxy truck from the 90s on the same stretch I’ve driven bug-free and had a deja vu from how bug-splattered the windshield was.
      - loonster 5y ago
        This news [0] article makes it seem like there was an 80% decline in bugs over the last 30 years. [0] https://apnews.com/article/insects-pa-state-wire-ap-top-news-plants-us-news-eccd411638994db6b5388c052c00dd3b https://apnews.com/article/insects-pa-state-wire-ap-top-news...
- SamBam 5y ago
  Far more extinction is caused (so far) by land development, logging, and things like that. Though probably in the next couple of decades we'll be seeing waves of extinctions caused by global warming.
- noselasd 5y ago
  Most of it is habitat loss. I.e. look at e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/d... , and it's just patches of fields no matter which way you go for hundreds of miles. Areas that once was wild forrest (or praerie), and housing numerous of of species having enough space to live and reproduce. Give it some more years, perhaps a few hundred, and e.g. this https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/d... , will look much like the above map, with fields for hundreds of miles in all direction. With it goes the home of many, many species.
laurent92 5y ago
I’m appalled by the housing codes (PLU in French). They do require to estimate and compensate the fauna and flora, by providing other shelters in another forrest for example, or manually moving individuals (butterflies, birds). But it will never be the same! Maybe that land was in the middle of a communication axis, maybe it had the right fungus. If you move all the species around, it’s like when you move all the humans around: They become unrooted, and, ultimately, stress on their lives shows up as obesity or as socially disordered! We need to stop colonizing more land. We need to limit population in a country.
- Retric 5y ago
  It’s less about structures than it is other modifications to natural habitats like pollution, cutting forests, draining swamps, introducing invasive species, and growing crops.
5faulker 5y ago
With the current development in climate change and resource exploitation, one can expect this to be the tip of the iceberg.
alistairSH 5y ago
From the article: Many of the species were likely extremely endangered or extinct before the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, meaning that possibly no amount of conservation would have been able to save them Most of these wouldn't have been around in any sustainable number well before most of us were born. The real question is whether or not conservation efforts are working on species IDed in the 48 years since. I suspect not, given climate change is bigger than any single species.
beerandt 5y ago
The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944. Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. ETA: If I'm remembering the stories right, either the last or one of the very last IBW sightings was doubted by officials, because the guy was a farmer or something and "not a scientist or expert". Not getting them to pay him any attention, he went home, shot the breeding pair, and returned to the officials office with proof.
- bluejekyll 5y ago
  Not the same species at all, but you just reminded me of the family of three Pileated Woodpeckers that I saw with my parents this summer in rural NY. They are really amazing looking (and bigger than I thought) birds. Hopefully more people will recognize the importance of saving our natural habitats and preserving species like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker btw, I'm not saying this particular bread is at risk, it is not, but for how long before they are in a similar situation?
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It's funny, because the number of people who regularly claim to have seen an IBW is really high. And 9 out of 10 times you can show them a picture of a pileated, and they instantly realize their mistake. Idk why people who can't ID fairly common birds get so certain in thinking they've ID'd a really really uncommon one, but they do.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.
  - 5y ago
shepherdjerred 5y ago
Climate is cyclical. Species come and go. We don't mourn the dinosaurs. We are too small and insignificant to make any true, lasting impact. Nature will heal itself given enough time, and new species will emerge. Humans will feel the effects of climate change. The Earth will be fine.
- ikiris 5y ago
  The naturalist fallacy, in a nutshell.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    Surely the same fallacy is the reason we care about these species in the first place? You can kind of make an argument from entropy, an extinction cuts off our access to information about a species. But if that were the reason, taking samples for DNA and then killing off the animals would be okay. We care about extinction because we like nature and want to preserve it.
    - shepherdjerred 5y ago
      It cuts both ways. Having more species is not inherently better. Climate change is a battle against ourselves, for ourselves. We will be the ones to pay the cost (potentially with our lives, or way of life at the very least); nature will persevere whether we win or lose. Life will always find a way no matter how much humans (or ice ages, or asteroids, or whatever) screw up this planet.
- ayushnix 5y ago
  > We are too small and insignificant to make any true, lasting impact. Holocene Extinction? I guess it depends on the scale we're talking about. If we're talking on a planetary scale and the grand scheme of things, humans are insignificant insects. However, if we stick closer to a relatively more tangible reality, humans are responsible for an ongoing mass extinction event and the climate change crisis.

prescriptivist 5y ago

Sounds like the limit is discretionary. From the NYT: "Scientists do not declare extinctions lightly. It often takes decades of fruitless searching. About half of the species in this group were already considered extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the global authority on the status of animals and plants. The Fish and Wildlife Service moved slower in part because it is working through a backlog, officials said, and tends to prioritize providing protection for species that need it over removing protection for those that don’t."

inter_netuser 5y ago

How come they don’t investigate WHAT is actually causing this exactly? Yes climate is changing but did it change that much since 80s? What if it’s some pesticide? or some food packaging or something

lawrencevillain 5y ago
From the article it sounds like invasive species, plus the fact that we have royally screwed up the local ecosystem. For instance — white-tailed deer are growing exponentially, eating all the underbrush and outcompeting other animals, and they have no/few natural predators left. I agree that not much has changed since the 80s, I think it's just catching up to us now.
- techrat 5y ago
  Ripple effects. Humans have ruined a lot of ecosystems that had a natural balance. Wolf culling being one of the most obvious examples of our cause and effect. https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/ https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...
- jakemauer 5y ago
  White-tailed deer have only recently recovered from over-hunting and returned to their pre-colonization population levels.[1] Do you have a source that frames their growth as exponential? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Population_and_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Population_a...
  - lawrencevillain 5y ago
    Apologies, I'm based in Pennsylvania and it's definitely more noticeable here. I expect it will become more apparent elsewhere too. We're at 3x the total population that existed when europeans started settling here, and without an appropriate way to cull the herd I don't see that changing. We have milder winters (so no starvation), less interest in hunting, and again a lack of natural predators. https://extension.psu.edu/white-tailed-deer https://extension.psu.edu/white-tailed-deer
  - rubylark 5y ago
    Deer population growth during that recovery period (of white tail deer at least) seems pretty exponential. [1] However in the absence of natural predators it seems that disease and human culling have pretty effectively kept their population to stay at about pre-colonial levels rather than continuing upward to the point of over population. [1] http://www.deerfriendly.com/decline-of-deer-populations http://www.deerfriendly.com/decline-of-deer-populations
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    The Hawaiian deer population follows boom and bust cycles. They were introduced for hunting purposes, have no natural predators, and tend to mess up the ecosystem so badly via overgrazing that they end up dying off and then recovering. https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/molokais-fabled-axis-deer-are-starving-to-death-in-droves/ https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/molokais-fabled-axis-deer-... I have no idea about exponential growth outside of Hawaii, though.
- cultofmetatron 5y ago
  plus the parasites that they spread are decimating moose populations yearly
- titzer 5y ago
  > white-tailed deer are growing exponentially Yes, and worse, some (uninformed people) see the growth of any species as a positive sign that nature is bouncing back, or whatever. When in reality, ecosystems are hugely out of balance and the vast growth of one species is just a spasm as the system shakes itself apart. The knock-on effect of one species's sudden growth spurt may take decades to play out in the shadows, but it is almost assuredly not a good thing.
hanniabu 5y ago
> What if it’s some pesticide? or some food packaging or something What if it was? I don't expect things to change much with corporate's death grip on the government.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > I don't expect things to change much with corporate's death grip on the government. Statements like this always imply that if the government ran the businesses (socialism) things like this wouldn't happen. But the evidence is it is worse. The USSR had major problems with their heavily polluting industries, which persist today.
  - jussij 5y ago
    The USSR was a communists country. There is a world of difference between Social Democratic (i.e. socialism) countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway for example and the USSR. The hint is right there in the title, democratic. The USSR never had a functioning democracy.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Democracy never made socialism competitive with free markets. Democracy in Seattle led to the government purchase of port-a-potties at $250,000 each and $12,000,000 per mile bike lane striping. All involved were comfortably re-elected. Norway pumps 20% of its GDP out of the ground.
      - jussij 5y ago
        Firstly I was only pointing out your assertion that the USSR was a good model of socialism is wrong. As to being 'competitive in free markets', I would suggest that is more of a measure of capitalism than socialism. Socialism is about equality and a better measure of equality would be something like 'standard of living'. When you look at which countries lead the world on that measure it should come as no surprise Social Democratic nations dominate: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-...
shadowgovt 5y ago
Over 20 species, so causes are as varied as the species. In several cases, it was a combination of human activity and (relatively) fragile initial population conditions. 11 of the species are native to Hawaii and Guam, and when human expansion puts pressure on your ecosystem, there's nowhere to move to. One of the fish species lived in one particularly slow-flowing section of one river. When your whole universe is one island, there's a lot of things humans can do that would render 100% of your habitat unusable.
- daveslash 5y ago
  Yeah, I agree. To add onto your sentiment that it was a combination [of things]... I'd like to add that it's a bit reductionist for people to suggest an extinction is one thing (e.g. it was pesticides, it was climate change, etc...). Sure, sometimes it might be ONE thing, but I would guess that in most cases it's a combination of stresses coming together.
justin66 5y ago
> How come they don’t investigate WHAT is actually causing this exactly? Who exactly do you believe should be studying causes of species extinction but is not doing it?
- 09bjb 5y ago
  Us!
bparsons 5y ago
It is usually just plain old development destroying their habitats. Suburbs, highways, logging etc. destroy their home and the species dies out.
pvaldes 5y ago
How many times have you heard the past government talking about the problem with Californian porpoise?
openasocket 5y ago
In the case of the ivory-billed woodpecker it was probably extinct in the 80s too. There hasn't been a universally accepted sighting of one since 1944, the few sightings made since then aren't really conclusive. For most of these creatures they only existed in one particularly small region or area. The San Marcos gambusia, for instance, historically only lived in a single 1km stretch of the San Marcos River. Species with that tiny of an area can be driven extinct by a single bad weather event or epidemic. Or because some real estate developer decides they want to build a couple apartments. It doesn't even necessarily have to be something big. It's unfortunate, but sadly something like the San Marcos gambusia would probably have gone extinct within a few centuries, human activity or not, unless it was able to adapt to expand its range. While climate change is definitely something to be concerned about, it is not, currently, the main driver of extinction events like this. The far bigger cause is more direct human activity, like poaching and land development.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  This fish lives in a single rock hole in Nevada. Fewer than 200 individuals alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Hole_pupfish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Hole_pupfish
- beerandt 5y ago
  Hawaii had iirc 14 species of birds on the list that were all native to either one island or a portion of one, with some preferring certain altitudes or only living on certain plateaus, etc. The funny thing about Hawaii though, is that there are only two or three (extremely isolated) places that remain with any true Hawaiian plant habitat, because Polynesians brought their own plants with them that almost universally outcompeted the native plants. Birds on islands are some of the quickest animals to specialize and differentiate into new species. Which makes Hawaii incredibly interesting, from an island biogeography perspective. Something as simple as the fact that no mosquitos made it to Hawaii until Captain Cook accidently introduced them, means no native fish, frogs, birds, lizards, or anything that specialized in eating them. Now extrapolate that to wiping out all the native flora and replacing it. That so much biodiversity remains in Hawaii today ought to actually give us some comfort in nature's ability to quickly adapt to significant change.
Taylor_OD 5y ago
It's absolutely changed that much in since the 80s. For humans? Not that much. For tiny animals and bugs? Small change is massive change.
- loonster 5y ago
  It seems like there were a lot more bugs that would get splattered on cars in the 90s than they do now.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    That’s almost entirely aerodynamics. I recently drove a boxy truck from the 90s on the same stretch I’ve driven bug-free and had a deja vu from how bug-splattered the windshield was.
    - loonster 5y ago
      This news [0] article makes it seem like there was an 80% decline in bugs over the last 30 years. [0] https://apnews.com/article/insects-pa-state-wire-ap-top-news-plants-us-news-eccd411638994db6b5388c052c00dd3b https://apnews.com/article/insects-pa-state-wire-ap-top-news...
SamBam 5y ago
Far more extinction is caused (so far) by land development, logging, and things like that. Though probably in the next couple of decades we'll be seeing waves of extinctions caused by global warming.
noselasd 5y ago
Most of it is habitat loss. I.e. look at e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/d... , and it's just patches of fields no matter which way you go for hundreds of miles. Areas that once was wild forrest (or praerie), and housing numerous of of species having enough space to live and reproduce. Give it some more years, perhaps a few hundred, and e.g. this https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9922189,-97.664741,145755m/d... , will look much like the above map, with fields for hundreds of miles in all direction. With it goes the home of many, many species.

laurent92 5y ago

I’m appalled by the housing codes (PLU in French). They do require to estimate and compensate the fauna and flora, by providing other shelters in another forrest for example, or manually moving individuals (butterflies, birds). But it will never be the same! Maybe that land was in the middle of a communication axis, maybe it had the right fungus. If you move all the species around, it’s like when you move all the humans around: They become unrooted, and, ultimately, stress on their lives shows up as obesity or as socially disordered! We need to stop colonizing more land. We need to limit population in a country.

Retric 5y ago
It’s less about structures than it is other modifications to natural habitats like pollution, cutting forests, draining swamps, introducing invasive species, and growing crops.

5faulker 5y ago

With the current development in climate change and resource exploitation, one can expect this to be the tip of the iceberg.

alistairSH 5y ago

From the article: Many of the species were likely extremely endangered or extinct before the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, meaning that possibly no amount of conservation would have been able to save them Most of these wouldn't have been around in any sustainable number well before most of us were born. The real question is whether or not conservation efforts are working on species IDed in the 48 years since. I suspect not, given climate change is bigger than any single species.

beerandt 5y ago

The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944. Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. ETA: If I'm remembering the stories right, either the last or one of the very last IBW sightings was doubted by officials, because the guy was a farmer or something and "not a scientist or expert". Not getting them to pay him any attention, he went home, shot the breeding pair, and returned to the officials office with proof.

bluejekyll 5y ago
Not the same species at all, but you just reminded me of the family of three Pileated Woodpeckers that I saw with my parents this summer in rural NY. They are really amazing looking (and bigger than I thought) birds. Hopefully more people will recognize the importance of saving our natural habitats and preserving species like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker btw, I'm not saying this particular bread is at risk, it is not, but for how long before they are in a similar situation?
- beerandt 5y ago
  It's funny, because the number of people who regularly claim to have seen an IBW is really high. And 9 out of 10 times you can show them a picture of a pileated, and they instantly realize their mistake. Idk why people who can't ID fairly common birds get so certain in thinking they've ID'd a really really uncommon one, but they do.
Johnny555 5y ago
Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.
- 5y ago

shepherdjerred 5y ago

Climate is cyclical. Species come and go. We don't mourn the dinosaurs. We are too small and insignificant to make any true, lasting impact. Nature will heal itself given enough time, and new species will emerge. Humans will feel the effects of climate change. The Earth will be fine.

ikiris 5y ago
The naturalist fallacy, in a nutshell.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  Surely the same fallacy is the reason we care about these species in the first place? You can kind of make an argument from entropy, an extinction cuts off our access to information about a species. But if that were the reason, taking samples for DNA and then killing off the animals would be okay. We care about extinction because we like nature and want to preserve it.
  - shepherdjerred 5y ago
    It cuts both ways. Having more species is not inherently better. Climate change is a battle against ourselves, for ourselves. We will be the ones to pay the cost (potentially with our lives, or way of life at the very least); nature will persevere whether we win or lose. Life will always find a way no matter how much humans (or ice ages, or asteroids, or whatever) screw up this planet.
ayushnix 5y ago
> We are too small and insignificant to make any true, lasting impact. Holocene Extinction? I guess it depends on the scale we're talking about. If we're talking on a planetary scale and the grand scheme of things, humans are insignificant insects. However, if we stick closer to a relatively more tangible reality, humans are responsible for an ongoing mass extinction event and the climate change crisis.