The bells didn't ring when the last pupfish (of the Naveite family) died. The newspapers did not tell when the last pipistrelle bat disappeared forever. On average, two vertebrates go extinct each year without publication, perhaps because the pace seems relatively slow and does not emphasize the immediate risk to the environmental systems on which we depend
Biologists claim that in the disappearance of species we see only part of the human impact on animals in our environment. This is according to researchers from Stanford University in the abstract which is published in PNAS.
In a worldwide assessment, biologists found a decrease of about 30% in all vertebrate populations, which requires immediate attention. The bells didn't ring when the last pupfish (of the Naveite family) died. The newspapers did not tell when the last pipistrelle bat disappeared forever. On average, two vertebrates go extinct each year without publication, perhaps because the pace seems relatively slow and does not emphasize the immediate risk to the environmental systems on which we depend.
According to the researchers, the overall picture indicates extreme damage to the animal population, which shows a severe situation of extinction at an increasing rate. According to Professor Rodolfo Dirzo: "A situation in which the destruction of biological species occurs worldwide, even when the species concerned are in remote areas."
A 2015 study conducted by Prof. Paul Ehrlich and colleagues showed that the Earth is in a period of global extinction, an extinction on a larger scale than the extinction of the dinosaurs (66 million years ago).
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the risk of extinction hangs over the heads of 41% of amphibian species, and 26% of mammal species. The global disaster is also manifested in the loss of habitats, overexploitation of resources, invasion of invasive species, pollution, poisoning and climate change, all of which are the direct responsibility of the human race.
In a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences status analysis that looks beyond species extinction to provide a clear picture of population depletion and habitat reduction, researchers mapped the habitats of 27,600 species of birds, amphibians, mammals and reptiles. These species make up almost half of the terrestrial vertebrate species known to science.
Based on these data, an analysis of population loss was conducted on 177 mammal species studied between 1990 and 2015. It was found that populations of more than 30% of vertebrate species are shrinking and losing habitats.
Of the data collected on 177 mammal species all have lost about 30% or more of the geographic areas they lived in, more than 40% have lost more than 80% of their habitat. The leading regions in quantitative loss are the equatorial regions. The leaders in habitat loss are the temperate zones. More affected are mammals in South America and Southeast Asia, areas where large mammals have lost more than 80% of their habitat.
According to the authors of the study, all this amounts to a huge dilution of the greatest variety of biological species in the history of the earth.'
"The huge loss of populations and species reflects a lack of empathy for all wild animals that have been in our society since the dawn of our existence." "This is a prelude to the disappearance of more species and the deterioration of the natural environment that enables the existence of civilizations"
The question arises, why is the loss of populations and species important? Apart from what scientists define as "a prelude to mass extinction", the loss deprives us of important environmental services, such as for example bees' disappearance harms crop pollination; loss of the natural environment's ability to purify water and eliminate pests; The loss of a complex environmental system of animals, plants and microorganisms leads to a rigid environmental system without flexibility and the ability to repair; Loss of genetic information that may be essential to the existence of species.
Ehrlich says that: "It is unfortunate that our descendants will miss the aesthetic pleasure and the source of imagination that the animal world provides."
In the meantime, the extensive scope of the loss of species and populations makes it clear that we must never wait to treat the damage to the variety of species. The authors call for curbing the main causes of extinction: the explosion of the human population and overconsumption. The researchers continue and call for "getting away from the wrong assumption that constant growth is possible on a finite sphere".
Or as I often write: the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
19 תגובות
do not worry. The animal called man will also become extinct. It will take about a million years to 5 million. No animal survived anymore. don't believe We will wait and see.
Asaf
You are arguing with a stubborn and bored troll
Really cool
To assemble
If there is no knowledge of the past, and there is no knowledge, (see my answer to L) there cannot be such statistics (and if there is, it is not reliable). Not according to grade XNUMX and not according to grade XNUMX.
Among the arthropods there are those that man actually makes efforts to exterminate, from mosquitoes and flies that transmit diseases to butterflies and beetles that cause damage to agriculture.
In bacteria, only about 5% of those that exist in theory are known to science today, and their classification and their names change every few years.
L - L
We don't write, because we don't know how many species became extinct or how many species even lived during the dinosaur era.
And they would probably never know that, because what they find is only the fossils of only a few animals that benefited from drowning in some kind of egg that contains substances that cause them to digest or preserve.
After all, evolution is a gradual development and therefore each of the dinosaur fossils found by chance should have very many (hundreds of thousands) of intermediate stages of pre-dinosaurs that went extinct before this particular species was created.
First of all, the knowledge that man has about the species today is much more than the knowledge we have about the extinction of the dinosaurs and in general about the species that existed then and that were extinct then, and it is possible that the impression of a faster extinction today is only because there is more knowledge and monitoring.
Secondly, man is also a part of nature and evolution, so it is natural that there is extinction because of man just as there is extinction because of any other species that occupies the top of the food chain and reproduces.
Thirdly, man protects man's interests, it is not certain that we need this pistrella bat that is extinct, there are many other species of bats.
And in addition there is also conservation by man that would not have happened without man, and there are animals that would not exist if not for man.
All the farm and pet animals that would not exist without man and all the plants that are developed by man through genetic engineering and artificial selection would not exist if it were not for man.
It is possible that in the near or distant future man will be able to reproduce species that did not exist or that have become extinct (Jurassic Park is not so much science fiction anymore)
When man will have to leave the earth, due to the likelihood of a global disaster, etc. as Hawking says, he will not take the bat with him and probably not the whales and sharks either because it will not be so comfortable for everyone in the comfort box / spaceship, but it will be possible to take DNA of these creatures or It will be enough just to know their code.
In any case, I am not in favor of exterminating species and I think it is important to preserve the species and their natural environment as much as possible, but the proportions should be such that the person should first think about himself and the welfare of the person.
Since the budgets are limited, as long as people are dying of hunger and dying from epidemics, it should be a higher priority than some bat, with all due respect to nature lovers, including myself.
L - the extinct species are counted in numbers (not in percentages) since we know how to count vertebrate species or gram fish that have gone extinct, it is more difficult to count arthropods and it is even more difficult to count tiny and single-celled creatures, and after all the numbers are indeed scary, (see the answer to my father .
Avi - surveys and studies have shown that the extinction due to humanity is a thousand (1000) times faster than the natural process of extinction of species, if you think that a thousand times is "gradual" then we should probably all go back to the third grade...
You should write down the percentage of species that went extinct with the extinction of the dinosaurs compared to since the industrial revolution. An article without numerical data (insiders) is seen as baseless intimidation.
At least for me it makes me not take seriously all the seers of blackness and the prophets of wrath.
my father
What do you say about the fact that the rate of extinction following man is much faster than the rate of extinction of the dinosaurs?
But, as usual with you, don't let the facts change your mind!
gatekeeper
Maybe from fish to fish!?
You are confusing the gradual extinction of animal species throughout evolution with global extinction events such as the extermination of all dinosaurs due to a global cataclysm.
Even during the development of man himself, there are several species of primates close to humans that became extinct, for example the Nardtals Australopithecus and more.
Among other animals there are masses of species that became extinct during evolution without any connection to man and find fossils and skeletons that do not exist today. .
For Greps, the species do not "go extinct so easily" but as the human race exterminates them,
The causes of diseases or insects have a huge breeding capacity compared to sandflies,
Cultivation capacity also means many rapid changes, i.e. adaptation to conditions / poisons, etc.
Therefore, their durability and survival links are much greater.
To my father - five extinctions are noted, the last of which was about 65 million years ago
known as the extinction of the dinosaurs,
All five occurred due to natural events,
The sixth extinction is the one directly caused by the negative activity of humanity,
That is, it can be stopped by stopping the negative human activity,
Negative human activity is not "windmills" and certainly not an evolutionary necessity...
Capish?
Before man developed, many different species also became extinct.
This is the mechanism of evolution in nature and the war against it is a war against windmills.
Grapes
To be precise - even smallpox was not completely eradicated.
Of course, thanks to the respondents.
A:
A. Man has eradicated one disease and that is smallpox, he contains the others with the help of vaccines and maintaining hygiene, but in the meantime they are here to stay and they break out from time to time in poor areas.
Raphael
The rate of extinction we are responsible for is much higher than the rate of formation of new species. As A said, it is clear in the Holitanim. Think about the mammals - there are less than 6000 species of mammals today, and it takes hundreds of years (at best) to develop a new species. About a quarter of the mammal species are today on the verge of extinction!
Grapes
There are of course other differences between the species that are extinct and those that you would like to see extinct.
For example, many become extinct because they are pushed out of living areas, of course the animals you want extinct in advance are the kind that can also live in the human environment (otherwise most likely they wouldn't bother you at all) such as mosquitoes and rats for example.
greps
A. Man has eradicated much more than one disease.
B. It is much "easier" to exterminate sand dunes. Because their adaptability is lower and they need more time for evolutionary change because the length of each generation is longer. Of course, they are also more sensitive to poachers because they are larger and are initially found in smaller numbers in the wild.
third. To exterminate invasive species you need a selective method that will not harm the species they are trying to protect. Not an easy task at all.
On the other hand, new species are constantly developing thanks to evolution...
Question for understanders:
If species are so easily extinct, so vulnerable, why has man only eradicated one disease since the beginning of history? Why aren't malaria and Zika mosquitoes exterminated? Why aren't invasive species exterminated in the invaded areas?