2

8/11/2008 11:37:39 PM

fuck you, flood control

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 11:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 11:37:53 PM

this is fucking sickening

absolutely sickening

8/12/2008 12:18:23 AM

The number of posts in this thread with incorrect grammar or oddly unfinished sentences is staggering.

8/12/2008 1:34:39 AM

holy shit...my post from fucking july of 07...over a year ago...

8/12/2008 11:49:04 AM

hopefully these new changes can be wrapped up in the courts until we can get a real administration in there who will not take every opportunity to gut the ESA.

8/12/2008 11:56:57 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, why can't other animals be more like humans and just spread all over the earth even into places that aren't feasible habitat. Fuck Bush."

I can't get over how much HockeyRoman wants humans to disappear from the planet and let it return to it's rightful owners...the animals.

8/12/2008 11:58:56 AM

habitats

And why are they not "feasible"? They are clearly feasible as a habitat since they are being used as such, "sustainable" may have been a better word choice. I give an English of grade of D.

I considered replying to his claim before, but it's extremely difficult (or just pointless) to rely to half-thoughts. The meaning isn't clear to start out with, so how can I point out a case where crows expanded into an infeasible habitat where we don't know what an infeasible habitat is? Also, the red tides where plankton flourish far beyond the carrying capacity, or simple algae blooms could have provided constructive counter examples to the claim that other animals do not expand into environments lacking the capacity to support the organisms. But that claim was never coherently made, so none of this is applicable.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 12:07:05 PM

^ It is unfortunate that sarcasm is largely lost on you but there is a fair amount of truth in what I said. The issue of feasibility pertained to humans and their constant viral infestation of the planet. The first example that comes to mind are swamps and wetlands. These areas are amazingly abundant in rich biodiversity yet in order for humans to inhabit these areas they must first blight the landscape by draining the life-giving water. The humor and irony comes when these newly paved over areas or lands adjacent become flooded by precipitation events that would have otherwise been absorbed by the presence of the wetland.

^^ The thing that bothers me the most about modern day humans is the mentality that they are somehow dissociated from the rest of the natural world. Once we can again learn to live in balance with nature then our outlook will be much brighter.

8/14/2008 2:05:16 AM

^ But, hockey, we do not live separate from nature. We go out of our way to make nature a part of our urban environments. Afterall, tree-lines streets require a lot of effort on our part. But it is in our nature to alter our evironment to make it more suitable, and while this means less non-human life in swamp areas, it usually means more non-human life follows us in other areas (making deserts bloom). As such, to find a disaster humerous because it kills humans is to imply that we are deserving of punishment for doing what is in our nature. I guess you laugh when the ant-eatter from happy tree friends gets tortured to death for half an hour by his prey the ants.

8/14/2008 9:50:16 AM

Quote :

"Once we can again learn to live in balance with nature then our outlook will be much brighter"

What does this even mean?

8/14/2008 10:23:36 AM

waaaah if there are no more protected areas, where am i going to grow my pot

8/14/2008 4:38:08 PM

This thread makes me smile.

Mostly because of how much anguish and hand-wringing Bush has caused for Hockeywoman

Quote :

"The issue of feasibility pertained to humans and their constant viral infestation of the planet. ... ^^ The thing that bothers me the most about modern day humans is the mentality that they are somehow dissociated from the rest of the natural world."

"They"? What the fuck do you think you are, a wood nymph?

[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM. Reason : 2]

8/14/2008 5:03:53 PM

Quote :

"It is unfortunate that sarcasm is largely lost on you but there is a fair amount of truth in what I said. The issue of feasibility pertained to humans and their constant viral infestation of the planet. The first example that comes to mind are swamps and wetlands. These areas are amazingly abundant in rich biodiversity yet in order for humans to inhabit these areas they must first blight the landscape by draining the life-giving water. The humor and irony comes when these newly paved over areas or lands adjacent become flooded by precipitation events that would have otherwise been absorbed by the presence of the wetland."

More sporadic flow through rivers and the water table is characteristic of nearly all human development. The simple act of paving, anywhere, goes a long way to induce flash floods. But the reason things work this way is because those effects (whether known, unknown, or plain ignored) had about squat of an influence on the design of current infrastructure.

Someday people will internalize these costs, build urban rainwater collection, put cooling towers in Manhattan to eliminate the urban heat island, and keep scalable bioalgae reactors on their roof. But we have to expand absolutely everywhere we can and use all the oil before we do that.

8/14/2008 5:13:41 PM

Rockies' Gray Wolves Come Off Endangered List
February 21, 2008

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19234286

Pelican May Get Off Endangered List
February 11, 2008

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080211-ap-brown-pelican.html

Mouse jumps off the threatened list, except in Colorado
July 10, 2008

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/rodents/index.html

8/14/2008 6:15:56 PM

It isn't as though this is just, as it seems to some people, some sort of moral issue, people. There are significant ecological factors surrounding our need to protect species that we're endangering.

8/14/2008 11:39:22 PM

To some people here if you can't harvest it for food or oil then it has no significance and is expendable.

8/15/2008 12:12:14 AM

Quote :

"There are significant ecological factors surrounding our need to protect species that we're endangering."

Some species moreso than others. I would still favor "biodiversity" over "ecology" as the justification for this. The fact is, if a species is about extinct, then there probably are not enough of them to make a significant ecological impact.

8/15/2008 10:09:24 AM

Is there anyone else in this thread that could give a shit whether animals go extinct? Whether it is our fault or not, if there is that few of them, who cares? Let them die. Animals have been going extinct since the beginning of animals, it is simply unnatural to artificially stop extinction.

8/15/2008 10:21:34 AM

^ way to demonstrate no understanding, whatsoever, of the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event

We are causing an extinction event. We already killed most of the big animals, they were easy to see, and thus throw spears into.



As a general rule, when Homo Sapiens show up to the party, everything dies. This phenomena is artificial by definition - WE did it. Extinctions are currently happening at 100 to 1000 times the natural background rate. Your argument that they've always been going extinct is plain ignorant.

Nuclear fission existed before humans (and even natural Uranium reactors), but it in NO WAY follows that we can't blow the crap out of every habitable square inch of land on the Earth by this... completely natural process.

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ]

8/15/2008 11:05:04 AM

See, you're just missing the part that I don't care. I don't care if we are killing them or not, it isn't a matter of not believing or not knowing that we are killing them. I was merely trying to judge if there was anyone present who felt the same way. Call it ignorant all you want, I have plenty to worry about, and biological diversity is positively not on that list.

8/15/2008 11:36:55 AM

Quote :

"See, you're just missing the part that I don't care. I don't care if we are killing them or not, it isn't a matter of not believing or not knowing that we are killing them. I was merely trying to judge if there was anyone present who felt the same way. Call it ignorant all you want, I have plenty to worry about, and biological diversity is positively not on that list."

8/15/2008 12:05:00 PM

Quote :

"I don't care if we are killing them or not"

We're not killing one or two of something, nor are we killing all of one or two groups of something. We are causing the 6th great extinction in Earth's history.

This is precedented by: large asteroids slamming into the Earth. In other words, our current actions are about as good for the Earth as a nuclear winter.

Quote :

"I have plenty to worry about, and biological diversity is positively not on that list"

You live as a part of an intertwined network of chemical and biological flows. You need the things that certain life produces in order to live. Furthermore, you need other seemingly arbitrary species to play a role relative to those that you obviously depend on.

No body thinks that you're going to go out and save the rainforest. But you should probably recognize some value in maintaining our biological resources. You decedents may someday need them.

8/15/2008 12:20:05 PM

Adam, I'm hoping you're a troll, but perhaps you should learn some basic biology. Species support each other in a food web. Perhaps you remember elementary school?




If too many go extinct, the entire ecosystem collapses. Although it's disgusting that you need this point in order to care, no ecosystem means no food for humans. Does that make you care a little more? Or are you some sort of narcissistic solipsist?

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2008 5:02:42 PM

Quote :

"no ecosystem means no food for humans."

Wat? It's been a while since humans have relied on "the ecosystem" for the majority of our food. I mean, bald eagles dying out isn't really gonna affect agribusiness too much. Now, the ocean contains a lot of ecosystems that are being affected by pollution, and there is no doubt that fishing is affected. But to act like we are gonna starve if the Pygmy Owl and the Aleutian Canada Goose go extinct is kinda silly.

8/15/2008 6:05:10 PM

^ Thank you for making my point for me.

Quote :

"To some people here if you can't harvest it for food or oil then it has no significance and is expendable. "

8/16/2008 7:19:56 AM

To some people here mystical gaia will kill us all if an insignificant species of bacteria in antarctica goes extinct.

Quote :

"We are causing the 6th great extinction in Earth's history."

In all prior mass extinctions it was the large land animals that went extinct first. If this truely is a sixth great extinction, which large land animals have gone extinct? One dog in Australia? Your hyperbole is disasterous for your position.

Quote :

"If too many go extinct, the entire ecosystem collapses."

It is an odd feature of long stable natural systems that they are rife with negative feedbacks. In the case of species, any truely necessary species would be extremely difficult to make extinct. This is because a species is usually driven to extinction by competition for food, and if competition exists for it then it is clearly not necessary since competition already wants to take its place in the food web. If no competition exists, then as the species is reduced in number, the natural mortality rate of the species will drop due to plentiful food and habitat, counter-acting the higher unnatural mortality rate. This process accelerates as the predators of the species in question starve off, further reducing the natural mortality rate.

This is why most of the modern extinctions have been birds and insects which have plentiful substitutes for each other in the food web. And if a nuclear war or meteor strike overwealms this process, then the presence of man will be a benefit, as we can import species from one continent to another to replace holes in our local ecosystems.

That is, unless you think it would make God angry?

[Edited on August 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/16/2008 10:20:41 AM

Quote :

"If no competition exists, then as the species is reduced in number, the natural mortality rate of the species will drop due to plentiful food and habitat, counter-acting the higher unnatural mortality rate."

Uh, in many cases, it's the destruction of suitable habitat that threatens the species.

Quote :

"And if a nuclear war or meteor strike overwealms this process, then the presence of man will be a benefit, as we can import species from one continent to another to replace holes in our local ecosystems."

Because we've had so much luck with importing species in the past, right? Sure, we could do that in theory. I'm not sure we're up to the task quite yet.

Look, I partially agree with you. Experience has shown we can wipe out plenty of species and continue doing our human thing. We don't know exactly how many we'd have to kill to get into serious trouble.

However, preserving species has other benefits. Apart from the preventing ecological collapse, biodiversity aids science. We're just getting into nanotechnology at this stage in the game. Nature has been doing it for billions of years. Each extinct species is a loss of information. That's unacceptable.

For example, scientists recently discovered the ideal photonic crystal structure in the scales of Brazilian beetle's shell:

Quote :

"“It appears that a simple creature like a beetle provides us with one of the technologically most sought-after structures for the next generation of computing,” says study leader Michael Bartl, an assistant professor of chemistry and adjunct assistant professor of physics at the University of Utah. “Nature has simple ways of making structures and materials that are still unobtainable with our million-dollar instruments and engineering strategies.”"

http://www.physorg.com/news130481875.html

In letting species go extinct, we resemble an illiterate barbarian horde that sets fire to libraries. We don't even know what we're losing.

8/16/2008 10:52:35 AM

Quote :

"Experience has shown we can wipe out plenty of species and continue doing our human thing."

And what experience is that? I suspect a lot of species have been lost in the rainforest, but even there it is a tiny fraction of 1% of the species available. If by 'plenty' you mean a tiny fraction of 1%, then clearly you are right and South Americans resemble a barbarian hoard which burns down a fraction of 1% of the libraries.

So, while I deplore how South Americans treat their environment, I am not willing to do very much to stop them, since the only thing we could do that would work is invading Brazil.

8/16/2008 11:00:18 AM

Quote :

"And what experience is that?"

Human history. We've officially destroyed 784 species since 1500. We started long before that date, however. Primitive humans hunted the megafauna out of existence. The process seems to be accelerating, the more and more species threatened.

Quote :

"I suspect a lot of species have been lost in the rainforest, but even there it is a tiny fraction of 1% of the species available."

Good point. The relatively small percentage of species lost gives support of the idea the next string of extinctions could seriously disrupt the ecosystem. Thousands of species are currently in danger of going extinct. And it doesn't take complete annihilation to screw up things. Depopulation can have a similar impact.

Quote :

"So, while I deplore how South Americans treat their environment, I am not willing to do very much to stop them, since the only thing we could do that would work is invading Brazil."

That or overthrowing international capitalism. You know which one I'll choose.

8/16/2008 11:24:47 AM

Quote :

"Wat? It's been a while since humans have relied on "the ecosystem" for the majority of our food. I mean, bald eagles dying out isn't really gonna affect agribusiness too much. Now, the ocean contains a lot of ecosystems that are being affected by pollution, and there is no doubt that fishing is affected. But to act like we are gonna starve if the Pygmy Owl and the Aleutian Canada Goose go extinct is kinda silly."

Way to pick the most convenient example.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2008/08/12/simon.pip.frogs.cnn

I hope you like mosquitoes. They'll come out on top. I think that clearly affects us. You know, as long as we still go outside.

Quote :

"In all prior mass extinctions it was the large land animals that went extinct first. If this truely is a sixth great extinction, which large land animals have gone extinct? One dog in Australia? Your hyperbole is disasterous for your position."

land animals that have gone extinct because of us? Are you kidding? Great example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon

There were more of these in America than there currently are of humans. The natural environment of North America right now looks very very very different from what it did a few hundred years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarpan (having a few domestic horses doesn't mean we didn't kill off wild species)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine

These species died off soon enough ago that we have pictures of them. The finger points to us.

Calling this the sixth great extinction is not an exaggeration, biologists often do so. The difference between now and the prehistoric extinction events is only that we haven't seen the end of it yet. The rate at which species disappear now is more than enough, way more than enough. With no action taken, in 1000 years, this could be the worst extinction event ever.

Quote :

"If no competition exists, then as the species is reduced in number, the natural mortality rate of the species will drop due to plentiful food and habitat, counter-acting the higher unnatural mortality rate. This process accelerates as the predators of the species in question starve off, further reducing the natural mortality rate."

GodenViper said it alright. No swamp = no frog.

[Edited on August 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM. Reason : b]

8/16/2008 11:28:32 AM

Quote :

"That or overthrowing international capitalism. You know which one I'll choose."

See I wish you would fucking stop this, because it makes everybody link environmentalism with anti-capitalism. The two don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, and one does not lead to the other.

8/16/2008 12:02:52 PM

Ah, I'm hardly the premier environmentalist around these parts. I doubt folks will make that connection.

8/16/2008 12:20:07 PM

bump by request

10/1/2010 1:53:05 AM

Back from the dead: One third of 'extinct' animals turn up again
Sept. 29, 2010

Quote :

"Conservationists are overestimating the number of species that have been driven to extinction, scientists have said. A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well. Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1315964/One-extinct-animals-turn-again.html

http://news.discovery.com/animals/extinct-animals-mammals.html

Amphibians Once Thought Extinct Rediscovered: Big Pics
Sept. 22, 2010

Quote :

"A group of amphibian specialists searching for 'extinct' species returned this week with leap-in-the-air-worthy news: Three species that were previously believed likely to be extinct are, in fact, still alive. The Omaniundu Reed Frog (top photo) from Democratic Republic of Congo, not seen since 1979; The Cave Splayfoot Salamander (middle photo), not seen since its discovery in 1941; and the Mount Nimba Reed Frog (bottom photo) from the Ivory Coast, not seen since 1967 were found during The Search for the Lost Frogs Campaign led by Conservation International. All are survivors of climate change, habitat loss and disease that threaten the majority of amphibians."

http://news.discovery.com/animals/extinct-frogs-amphibians-found.html

[Edited on October 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM. Reason : SO WHAT?!]

10/1/2010 2:11:24 AM

bttt this when someone finds some dinosaurs

10/1/2010 2:16:34 AM

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/28/plant.extinction.threat.study/?hpt=Sbin

Quote :

"Plant species in peril, report warns"

Quote :

"Over one-fifth of the world's plant species are threatened with extinction according to a new study compiled by the UK's Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, London."

10/1/2010 10:16:56 AM

10/1/2010 10:17:47 AM