6th mass extinction event

[lizardbrain]

If you exclude farming, in terms of big mammals, the job was mostly accomplished about 25k years ago. Bit of a mop up operation about 200 years ago with industrial revolution. Tiny numbers remain in little pockets. Couple of decades of deforestation should sort it.

[ATG]

lizardbrain said:

If you exclude farming, in terms of big mammals, the job was mostly accomplished about 25k years ago. Bit of a mop up operation about 200 years ago with industrial revolution. Tiny numbers remain in little pockets. Couple of decades of deforestation should sort it.

I'm volunteering to eat some of them too.

[Gargamel]

Mr Whippy said:

Megatherium was kicking around just the blink of an eye ago.

I don't have that one, I bought into Etherium, Hedera, Cosmos, Doge and Illuvium.

I didn't realise I'd missed getting in on Megatherium. Otherwise I'd have shorted my BTC and gone long.

The only certainty is things change, that's why you should have taken my online course on how to use charts to predict the future, then you'd have know all about this.


Still too late now I guess

[lizardbrain]

JRHartless said:

I'm not sure I'd agree that irreversible damage and wholesale destruction and mass extinction was done to species numbers and natural ecosystems as far back as 25,000 years ago, but yes we've certainly done the business in the last 200 years and really upped our game in the last 40-50 years.

Certainly most large animals went extinct by end of last ice age, 10k years or so ago.

How much weight you put on hunting vs climate change, is less certain. But hunting was certainly part of it.

The last 1% is the hardest. We'll get there

Edited by lizardbrain on Wednesday 22 November 16:02

[eldar]

Without extinction events humans wouldn't exist, they created the space for us to evolve. It's the cockroaches turn next.

[lizardbrain]

JRHartless said:

As you say 25k-10k years ago the earth experienced real climate change and I suspect that was far more the reason for extinctions and wholesale changes of ecosystems than anything humans did back then.

You are correct to use the word 'suspicion'.

The timing of many extinctions is more strongly correlated with the arrival of humans than climate.

Humans of that era were quite capable of hunting animals to extinction.

[anonymous-user]

JRHartless said:

Obviously I know this is Pistonheads, home of the most obnoxiously eristic and pointlessly contrarian "debaters" on possibly the whole of the Internet, but to attempt to be so flippant and dismissive of the human impact on the natural world and species numbers and to disregard it as nothing new or nothing special is quite an achievement in adopting a moronic position.

I think the Earth would be better off without us for all the reasons you describe and more. Human race are little more than selfish parasites and we deserve to be gone. It’s our own habitat we are destroying, the world will recover just fine once we are gone.

[Some Gump]

lizardbrain said:

You are correct to use the word 'suspicion'.

The timing of many extinctions is more strongly correlated with the arrival of humans than climate.

Humans of that era were quite capable of hunting animals to extinction.

Aye, if it wasn’t for us horrible lot, the algarve would stilll be teaming with mammoths, sabre tooths and whatnot.

[Terminator X]

ATG said:

Terminator X said:

ATG said:

Terminator X said:

JRHartless said:

Why are people asking what this 6th mass extinction event is going to be?

It's already happening and we already know what's causing it.

How long have modern humans been around, 200k years (?) but right now is the time of our demise

TX.

If you measure the rate at which species are currently going extinct we are clearly in a mass extinction event right now. This isn't a political statement or environmental woo. It's just counting.

Only 1% of the species that have ever lived are around today, that isn't something new today or even the last few hundred years.

TX.

So what? An extinction event is a period when species are going extinct at a significantly higher rate than new species are emerging. The ratio of extant species to the number of species that have ever existed in the last 3bn years is not relevant.

Do you think humans are about to go extinct?

TX.

[Terminator X]

JRHartless said:

Terminator X said:

Only 1% of the species that have ever lived are around today, that isn't something new today or even the last few hundred years.

TX.

Obviously I know this is Pistonheads, home of the most obnoxiously eristic and pointlessly contrarian "debaters" on possibly the whole of the Internet, but to attempt to be so flippant and dismissive of the human impact on the natural world and species numbers and to disregard it as nothing new or nothing special is quite an achievement in adopting a moronic position.

Although I suppose you do deserve some credit for at least acknowledging that it is actually occurring, rather than just being unaware of it or denying it altogether.

By the way, why do you sign off every one of your posts with "TX"? It's a bit weird and vaguely narcissistic.

Name calling, have you just left school?

TX.

[Caddyshack]

Some Gump said:

lizardbrain said:

You are correct to use the word 'suspicion'.

The timing of many extinctions is more strongly correlated with the arrival of humans than climate.

Humans of that era were quite capable of hunting animals to extinction.

Aye, if it wasn’t for us horrible lot, the algarve would stilll be teaming with mammoths, sabre tooths and whatnot.

Maybe, or maybe another predator would have taken our place and gone over the top. I too agree the world would be better with no humans or maybe just a few thousand years with a handful of humans left.

[KarlMac]

Smollet said:

Scarletpimpofnel said:

105.4 said:

Magnetic pole flip?

So will the pole flip actually cause any issue for life on earth (or electronics in space) etc?

Yes. Those currently living oop north will now be living oop south

This is outrageous I won’t stand for it.

Being a northerner is all we have. Leave us alone.

[Caddyshack]

KarlMac said:

Smollet said:

Scarletpimpofnel said:

105.4 said:

Magnetic pole flip?

So will the pole flip actually cause any issue for life on earth (or electronics in space) etc?

Yes. Those currently living oop north will now be living oop south

This is outrageous I won’t stand for it.

Being a northerner is all we have. Leave us alone.

Levelling up….its what you all wanted. It’s alright for you…my mansion in Surrey is gonna be worthless.

[ATG]

eldar said:

Without extinction events humans wouldn't exist, they created the space for us to evolve. It's the cockroaches turn next.

I imagine we're the ultimate cockroach when it comes to survival. Even if we knacker our ability to feed 7 billion people and then set about killing each other en masse with a 99.9999% success rate, I reckon the remaining 7000 would eek out an existence for enough generations to keep the species going, adapt to the new conditions and start rebuilding numbers.

[ATG]

Caddyshack said:

Some Gump said:

lizardbrain said:

You are correct to use the word 'suspicion'.

The timing of many extinctions is more strongly correlated with the arrival of humans than climate.

Humans of that era were quite capable of hunting animals to extinction.

Aye, if it wasn’t for us horrible lot, the algarve would stilll be teaming with mammoths, sabre tooths and whatnot.

Maybe, or maybe another predator would have taken our place and gone over the top. I too agree the world would be better with no humans or maybe just a few thousand years with a handful of humans left.

Without us, in what sense would it be better? The "better or worse" judgement is something that only exists inside our heads. If you posit a world in which there aren't any human heads to be doing any judging, where's the better or worse judgement taking place?

[Caddyshack]

ATG said:

Caddyshack said:

Some Gump said:

lizardbrain said:

You are correct to use the word 'suspicion'.

The timing of many extinctions is more strongly correlated with the arrival of humans than climate.

Humans of that era were quite capable of hunting animals to extinction.

Aye, if it wasn’t for us horrible lot, the algarve would stilll be teaming with mammoths, sabre tooths and whatnot.

Maybe, or maybe another predator would have taken our place and gone over the top. I too agree the world would be better with no humans or maybe just a few thousand years with a handful of humans left.

Without us, in what sense would it be better? The "better or worse" judgement is something that only exists inside our heads. If you posit a world in which there aren't any human heads to be doing any judging, where's the better or worse judgement taking place?

Wow, that is a bit Schrödingers cat…

I mean that most of the destruction and extinction of plants and animals would be halted and heal back to a healthy world without us.

The world and nature would be better off without us and studies have shown that non fishing areas designated as refuges shows that fish populations soon bounce back in those areas (NZ have a lot).

Humans have overpopulated the earth.



How about the world being better if there were only 10,000 humans left to judge the world as a better place.

[Caddyshack]

JRHartless said:

lizardbrain said:

You are correct to use the word 'suspicion'.

The timing of many extinctions is more strongly correlated with the arrival of humans than climate.

Humans of that era were quite capable of hunting animals to extinction.

What do you mean many extinctions? I'm guessing you mean extinctions of individual species?

There's been no officially recognised mass extinction events in the course of human history (until now)

Yeah, pretty sure they mean the number of species going extinct shot up with the arrival and proliferation of man.

[lizardbrain]

JRHartless said:

What do you mean many extinctions? I'm guessing you mean extinctions of individual species?

There's been no officially recognised mass extinction events in the course of human history (until now)

I was talking about large animal species s all along,. Apologies if off topic, but I was clear.

I would consider extinction of 80% of animal species by human hand 10k years ago a kind of mass extinction worthy of the name. Maybe it's not official enough.

If you talking about sheer volume or mass of animals, then fauna is thriving, plenty of cows and sheep about.

Edited by lizardbrain on Wednesday 22 November 21:03

[Caddyshack]

JRHartless said:

Caddyshack said:

Yeah, pretty sure they mean the number of species going extinct shot up with the arrival and proliferation of man.

There's a pretty big difference between individual species going extinct and mass extinction events which result in the loss of entire kingdoms, food chains, habitats and ecosystems.

Yes, that is correct.

The extinct animals didn’t see it that way though :-)

[Silvanus]

Caddyshack said:

JRHartless said:

Caddyshack said:

Yeah, pretty sure they mean the number of species going extinct shot up with the arrival and proliferation of man.

There's a pretty big difference between individual species going extinct and mass extinction events which result in the loss of entire kingdoms, food chains, habitats and ecosystems.

Yes, that is correct.

The extinct animals didn’t see it that way though :-)

Mass extinction events can start gradually. Probably not the best way to describe it but imagine you have a big brick wall and you start to knock out individual bricks over time, occasionally knocking out some of the supports (key stone species), eventually the wall will start to crumble and eventually collapse.

Ross Barnett is a paleontologist and zoologist who has done some fantastic research into the extinction of mega fauna. One of his books Missing Lynx is well worth a read if it's a topic you're interested in.