10 ms·

> the sixth mass extinction event, the only one caused not by some cataclysm but by a single species—us. Not so sure. IIRC there are reasons to believe that t

> the sixth mass extinction event, the only one caused not by some cataclysm but by a single species—us. Not so sure. IIRC there are reasons to believe that the big one, the Permian-Triassic extinction, was due to methanosarcina, an archaean genus. OK, that's not a species but a genus, but still. It's a bit naive to think that all extinctions events happen because of some geologic or celestial event. Sometimes, evolution goes terribly wrong and sh.t hits the fan. Either it is by releasing nefarious gazes in the atmosphere, or creating a Primate intelligent enough to rule and consume most of biosphere.

hyperbovine 12y ago
Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction, is I think the point of this article.
- grondilu 12y ago
  That may be the point of the article, but I was commenting on a very specific assertion.
- wyager 12y ago
  >Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction There is no reason to believe that a mass extinction of other species would effect a human extinction. Even now, with only a few decades of genomics under our belt, we could probably replace every single food source humans currently rely on with genetically engineered algae/fungi/etc. That is the worst-case scenario for mass extinction caused by habitat shift, and doesn't result in the extinction of humans.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them.
    - wyager 12y ago
      >I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them Why not?
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Good point, but if the goal is to avoid extinction, the fortunate few who make it into the biodome might not require "massive scales".
  - wldcordeiro 12y ago
    How about sources of oxygen? What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels.
    - wyager 12y ago
      >How about sources of oxygen? Algae produce oxygen. >What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? Whatever simple dependency chains algae may have, we can engineer them away (or maintain them). >I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels. You're wrong on both counts. If the demand was there, we could switch to solar power now. We have the production capacity.
      - wldcordeiro 12y ago
        If I'm wrong, can you provide evidence that we have all the capabilities that you claim? I find it hard to believe we're at all prepared for potential cataclysmic situations.
        grondilu 12y ago
        It's hard to believe only if you understand it as "everybody would be fine". A cataclysm would probably kill or starve many people, but what is hard to believe is that there would be no survivor at all. Consider a nuclear submarine for instance. This facility is capable of remaining totally autonomous during half-a-year (it even produces its own oxygen). It's not too hard to imagine that something similar could protect a fair amount of men and women from basically anything, and for a longer period, if it only is modified to do so. Consider also this non-exhaustive list of underground bunkers: http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-511609185 http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-51160... You could probably store enough food and other resources to survive during decades in these. Certainly enough time to figure out how to eventually survive outside, regardless of what exactly happened there. And finally, remember that there are already thousands of survivalists all over the world, actively preparing for the end-of-the-world. What is hard to believe is that a few environmental factors would cause the death of absolutely all human beings on Earth.
protonfish 12y ago
The largest environmental impact the Earth has ever seen was caused by its original life form (probably some type of cyanobacteria.) They depleted most of the atmosphere's CO2 and replaced it with toxic gas. (O2) It caused the oceans to rust. It is hard to know the exact scope of the effects, but they were significant.
- Retric 12y ago
  The earliest life forms where not photosynthetic. Further the change was slow enough to give life plenty of time to adapt. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis
  - NotAtWork 12y ago
    We're watching a second family of mammals adapt and speciate a bunch of new winners in this domain of man, in in our own homes! Even the human mass extinction has given life time to adapt, by way of crops, farm animals, pets, etc. We've even helped make sure that hundreds or thousands of species across many different kinds of life are 100% going to survive along with us if it's remotely in our power. There are likely hundreds or thousands of other species like raccoons, pigeons, rats, jellyfish, various kinds of insects, etc that are going to thrive in our cities and continue to coevolve as parasites. I'm not entirely convinced a human caused mass extinction is really all that much worse than other kinds, because we provide some guaranteed survival routes to animals that can coevolve with us, and be useful in some way.
    - bane 12y ago
      I always think it's useful to think of species, like humans, less as an individual organism, and more of a menagerie. The human menagerie stretches from gut bacteria all the way to elephants, with homo sapiens lodges somewhere in the middle of the bunch.
    - frandroid 12y ago
      We're approaching an ecological collapse that will wipe us out, too.
DodgyEggplant 12y ago
These kind of arguments were used not only for the animals issue, but also among humans, to justify killing by the most monstrous regimes in history. Taking out any moral stand, and classifying these issues as a given "scientific" or "force of nature" phenomenon, is wrong. Very wrong. Living elephants are more important than ivory jewels. Although it's a possible (devastating) path, it's our duty to avoid consuming of the biosphere.
- grondilu 12y ago
  I'm not trying to justify anything and if other people did, it's not my fault. I was merely questioning an assertion made in the article. It is not necessarily true that the current extinction is the only one caused by a particular species, and anyway it's almost certainly not the only one with a biotic cause.
  - DodgyEggplant 12y ago
    > Either it is by releasing nefarious gazes in the atmosphere, or creating a Primate intelligent enough to rule and consume most of biosphere. This sentence says that consuming the biosphere is natural as gas release. This colours a choice as an unavoidable step, and thus justify it. And this kind of logic was used by nations against other (as a side issue, disagree with other opinion is OK, downvote it - no. unless it's a Parimate evolution thing).
    - grondilu 12y ago
      > This sentence says that consuming the biosphere is natural as gas release. This colours a choice as an unavoidable step, and thus justify it. You don't even have to see it as a choice. I mean, even if we ignore the present and the future, thus avoiding any kind of moral issues, we can look at the past and see what Homo Sapiens has already done. It did provoke the extinction of a whole bunch of large mammals and insular birds, deforested extremely large areas and many other things. To a large degree, most of the impact of our species on nature is already done, so we should be able to look at it objectively, as if we were talking about an other species (to some extent we are, considering how different we are from say our Mammoth-hunting ancestors). And when we do, we should not let someone say that this was the only extinction to occur because of a biological species, because that is just not true. You can't pretend to protect nature if you refuse to look at it for what it is.
manifestsilence 12y ago
Regardless of what is natural or has occurred before, reduction of biodiversity is dangerous to our own safety as a species - monocultures are more easily wiped out. If there were a terrible cow virus, we might be thankful to have emus around for example. Edit: and far more pertinent, particularly in the American Midwest, is our reliance on large quantities of single strains of corn...
- gizmo686 12y ago
  Hopefully our seed vaults, and cataloging DNA of species before they die off, will let us re-introduce biodiversity into our agriculture. Of course, I doubt we will attempt to do so until after the first monoculture collapse, but that is a (relativly) short term catastraphy.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Dessert bananas aren't a super important food, but the first monoculture collapse arguably already happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana
DennisP 12y ago
There are also reasons to think the Permian-Triassic was caused by volcanic activity burning a lot of coal. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110123131014.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110123131014.ht...

hyperbovine 12y ago

Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction, is I think the point of this article.

grondilu 12y ago
That may be the point of the article, but I was commenting on a very specific assertion.
wyager 12y ago
>Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction There is no reason to believe that a mass extinction of other species would effect a human extinction. Even now, with only a few decades of genomics under our belt, we could probably replace every single food source humans currently rely on with genetically engineered algae/fungi/etc. That is the worst-case scenario for mass extinction caused by habitat shift, and doesn't result in the extinction of humans.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them Why not?
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Good point, but if the goal is to avoid extinction, the fortunate few who make it into the biodome might not require "massive scales".
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  How about sources of oxygen? What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >How about sources of oxygen? Algae produce oxygen. >What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? Whatever simple dependency chains algae may have, we can engineer them away (or maintain them). >I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels. You're wrong on both counts. If the demand was there, we could switch to solar power now. We have the production capacity.
    - wldcordeiro 12y ago
      If I'm wrong, can you provide evidence that we have all the capabilities that you claim? I find it hard to believe we're at all prepared for potential cataclysmic situations.
      - grondilu 12y ago
        It's hard to believe only if you understand it as "everybody would be fine". A cataclysm would probably kill or starve many people, but what is hard to believe is that there would be no survivor at all. Consider a nuclear submarine for instance. This facility is capable of remaining totally autonomous during half-a-year (it even produces its own oxygen). It's not too hard to imagine that something similar could protect a fair amount of men and women from basically anything, and for a longer period, if it only is modified to do so. Consider also this non-exhaustive list of underground bunkers: http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-511609185 http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-51160... You could probably store enough food and other resources to survive during decades in these. Certainly enough time to figure out how to eventually survive outside, regardless of what exactly happened there. And finally, remember that there are already thousands of survivalists all over the world, actively preparing for the end-of-the-world. What is hard to believe is that a few environmental factors would cause the death of absolutely all human beings on Earth.

protonfish 12y ago

The largest environmental impact the Earth has ever seen was caused by its original life form (probably some type of cyanobacteria.) They depleted most of the atmosphere's CO2 and replaced it with toxic gas. (O2) It caused the oceans to rust. It is hard to know the exact scope of the effects, but they were significant.

Retric 12y ago
The earliest life forms where not photosynthetic. Further the change was slow enough to give life plenty of time to adapt. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  We're watching a second family of mammals adapt and speciate a bunch of new winners in this domain of man, in in our own homes! Even the human mass extinction has given life time to adapt, by way of crops, farm animals, pets, etc. We've even helped make sure that hundreds or thousands of species across many different kinds of life are 100% going to survive along with us if it's remotely in our power. There are likely hundreds or thousands of other species like raccoons, pigeons, rats, jellyfish, various kinds of insects, etc that are going to thrive in our cities and continue to coevolve as parasites. I'm not entirely convinced a human caused mass extinction is really all that much worse than other kinds, because we provide some guaranteed survival routes to animals that can coevolve with us, and be useful in some way.
  - bane 12y ago
    I always think it's useful to think of species, like humans, less as an individual organism, and more of a menagerie. The human menagerie stretches from gut bacteria all the way to elephants, with homo sapiens lodges somewhere in the middle of the bunch.
  - frandroid 12y ago
    We're approaching an ecological collapse that will wipe us out, too.

DodgyEggplant 12y ago

These kind of arguments were used not only for the animals issue, but also among humans, to justify killing by the most monstrous regimes in history. Taking out any moral stand, and classifying these issues as a given "scientific" or "force of nature" phenomenon, is wrong. Very wrong. Living elephants are more important than ivory jewels. Although it's a possible (devastating) path, it's our duty to avoid consuming of the biosphere.

grondilu 12y ago
I'm not trying to justify anything and if other people did, it's not my fault. I was merely questioning an assertion made in the article. It is not necessarily true that the current extinction is the only one caused by a particular species, and anyway it's almost certainly not the only one with a biotic cause.
- DodgyEggplant 12y ago
  > Either it is by releasing nefarious gazes in the atmosphere, or creating a Primate intelligent enough to rule and consume most of biosphere. This sentence says that consuming the biosphere is natural as gas release. This colours a choice as an unavoidable step, and thus justify it. And this kind of logic was used by nations against other (as a side issue, disagree with other opinion is OK, downvote it - no. unless it's a Parimate evolution thing).
  - grondilu 12y ago
    > This sentence says that consuming the biosphere is natural as gas release. This colours a choice as an unavoidable step, and thus justify it. You don't even have to see it as a choice. I mean, even if we ignore the present and the future, thus avoiding any kind of moral issues, we can look at the past and see what Homo Sapiens has already done. It did provoke the extinction of a whole bunch of large mammals and insular birds, deforested extremely large areas and many other things. To a large degree, most of the impact of our species on nature is already done, so we should be able to look at it objectively, as if we were talking about an other species (to some extent we are, considering how different we are from say our Mammoth-hunting ancestors). And when we do, we should not let someone say that this was the only extinction to occur because of a biological species, because that is just not true. You can't pretend to protect nature if you refuse to look at it for what it is.

manifestsilence 12y ago

Regardless of what is natural or has occurred before, reduction of biodiversity is dangerous to our own safety as a species - monocultures are more easily wiped out. If there were a terrible cow virus, we might be thankful to have emus around for example. Edit: and far more pertinent, particularly in the American Midwest, is our reliance on large quantities of single strains of corn...

gizmo686 12y ago
Hopefully our seed vaults, and cataloging DNA of species before they die off, will let us re-introduce biodiversity into our agriculture. Of course, I doubt we will attempt to do so until after the first monoculture collapse, but that is a (relativly) short term catastraphy.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Dessert bananas aren't a super important food, but the first monoculture collapse arguably already happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana

DennisP 12y ago

There are also reasons to think the Permian-Triassic was caused by volcanic activity burning a lot of coal. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110123131014.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110123131014.ht...