| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8 |
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  | | Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Quote: Originally posted by Cisco | | Quote: Originally posted by David K | Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a
"natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not
convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you! |
"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."
Not for the one that is replaced David.
And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed. |
My understanding is that some 98 to 99% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet have gone extinct over the eons. Do we think that somehow
man is going to change that trajectory in any meaningful way? I have a problem with that type thinking when it is applied to say more than your
personal back yard. |
Given that Homo sapiens has been wiping out species at a relatively rapid rate, I suspect the other species would cheer to see Homo sapiens go
extinct. Maybe your dog will miss you, but all the other species will cheer Homo sapiens extinction. |
As you admit, that is all speculation, Goat. But even if correct, that would be a typical and logical hypothetical response from those species losing
out (those that can think, that is). As you know, mass destruction of many species has often been caused in minutes, seconds even (Asteroid impact)
totally by Natural causes, and man is not involved. But yes, it is amazing what 'man' can do when he sets his mind to it, but even man has trouble
destroying species on the scale we are talking about here. I do worry about the lack of 'cost analysis' when we talk too ambitiously about changing
things in Nature, however.
Yes, perhaps "my dog" would miss me, but not having a dog eliminates that tragic possibility-----see, I AM sensitive to other species.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
"but all the other species will cheer Homo sapiens extinction."
This may be moving a bit into Anthropomorphism 
As for the introduction of "other" species into another environment ... The Federal Government and states try to keep that to a minimum ... Same for
other Nations too
Think the Mediterranean Fruit Fly ... there are other Class I pests which weŽ must deal with ... all the time
[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc | | Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron |
Unfortunately the Tamarisk species you are referring to is Tamarisk aphylla which was used as you say. That species is not particularly invasive.
Since you are not a botanist I can understand your error. Tamarisk ramosissma is the culprit I am referring to and it was generally used as an
ornamental and is from Eurasia. If you don't enjoy or appreciate intact ecosystems then the discussion can end here. |
Define "intact" ecosystem.
Like Galapagos where all present species invaded at one point from somewhere else?
Intact and nature don't really go well together.
Per definition, nature means constant change. Everything in the universe is in the process of changing. Nothing will be like it was yesterday.
Nothing.
Restoring today into yesterday? Ask your children. They have an answer.
And as a reminder. A tamarisk from Eurasia is bad, you say. All the various humans after Columbus (or the Vikings , whatever you prefer) were a good
development? |
Why do you keep bringing up subsets of humans when the subject is about humanity at large having a footprint---not the footprint of man against other
men.
"Intact" ecosystems have many layers of species diversity from mychorizae, soil bacteria, fungi, insects, flora and fauna---these have evolved over a
long time into relatively stable systems that did not generally get new introductions on a constant and large scale---even the Galapagos and Hawaiian
islands were gradually coalesced. This current onslaught on ecosystems is creating dead zones other than the invasive plant thriving. Barry, as a
park ranger you should know the value of species diversity. Yes, the universe is constantly changing and species diversity helps ecosystems do just
that. Its like growing one type of corn--a disease comes along and wipes it out--well, you're toast. But if you are growing ten types of corn you're
only out 10 percent and you can survive.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Mexitron-------you make some thoughtful points. I would counter with the point that David K. is constantly making----"Man is part of Nature", if I
understand Evolution properly. Who can say that "intact ecosystems" don't include the changes brought on by man, even if extreme? For example in
Yellowstone Natl. Park-------the attempt at preservation of "intact ecosystems" there via man's "Fire control" resulted over a few years in a
disastrous situation when it finally did burn out of control--------talk about your "dead zones". In that case "dead" was not quite the result, but
close, and certainly a drastic change that will take many years to possibly revert to pre-man levels, if ever, as is true with all presumed "dead
zones". If we had allowed fires to burn naturally as they had for eons, then the result would have been, according to your theory as I understand it,
all ok?!?!? The truth as I see it is that man has only a rudimentary idea of what an actual intact ecosystem is, and he is often wrong or partially
wrong. To stop in it's tracks a man-devised project because some very obscure creature or plant is present just seems like folly and arrogance to me,
and just might be counter to the natural development of things if man is truly a part of nature.. I am willing to take that chance, but you
apparently are not? THAT may be the bottom line. Still, you points are deeply thought-provoking, to me anyway.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Agreed .. Mexitron brings a steady hand to the discussion
Would only offer that entire planet is an ecosystem
And what does man bring to this ecosystem which is overall positive to the "ecosystem" ... when looking at a "natural system"
It would certainly appear to be negatives ... as man changes the ecosystem for one purpose ... the benefit of one species ... not all ... And man's
attempts to "manage" it's impact can be viewed currently around the planet
And yes the human is part of the ecosystem ... big difference it is one player in the "system" which does not have to follow the same laws of nature
... which all other factors in the ecosystem do which would appears to be causing problems in a number of area's
The indians used to set fires to burn off the overgrowth to allow for more feed for the "game" ... just something they picked up over a few thousand
years ... and worked fine till the Europeans arrived and management changed
[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup | Agreed .. Mexitron brings a steady hand to the discussion
Would only offer that entire planet is an ecosystem
And what does man bring to this ecosystem which is overall positive to the "ecosystem" ... when looking at a "natural system"
It would certainly appear to be negatives ... as man changes the ecosystem for one purpose ... the benefit of one species ... not all ... And man's
attempts to "manage" it's impact can be viewed currently around the planet
And yes the human is part of the ecosystem ... big difference it is one player in the "system" which does not have to follow the same laws of nature
... which all other factors in the ecosystem do which would appears to be causing problems in a number of area's
The indians used to set fires to burn off the overgrowth to allow for more feed for the "game" ... just something they picked up over a few thousand
years ... and worked fine till the Europeans arrived and management changed
[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup] |
Yes, I agree with this.
Homo Sapien Sapiens have been quite prosperous if that is defined by multiplying.
Yes, humans are a part of the system, but my question is; Is there any other species who destroys its own environment. And if the answer is yes, I am
seriously interested in knowing which species does so. And does it destroy its own environment so quickly and completely?
At times, humans have changed behavior and brought back some of the destruction etc., but ...............
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Online
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup |
And what does man bring to this ecosystem which is overall positive to the "ecosystem" ... when looking at a "natural system"
|
Beer and potato chips, but of course.
Just finished off a bag of Ruffles, or ROOF-lays, as our Mexican friends say. Washing them down with cold TKT light.
Let's see the palm tree photo that disproves decades of scientific research by 1000s of scientists around the world. Quite remarkable when you think
about it.
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
It all changed when Smoky Bear showed up.
| Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup |
The indians used to set fires to burn off the overgrowth to allow for more feed for the "game" ... just something they picked up over a few thousand
years ... and worked fine till the Europeans arrived and management changed
[Edited on 2-29-2016 by wessongroup] |
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Online
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DianaT | Is there any other species who destroys its own environment. And if the answer is yes, I am seriously interested in knowing which species does so.
And does it destroy its own environment so quickly and completely?
|
A plague of locusts - not good.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
This could be an example of something being introduced into an Ecosystem ... With little benefit to the "whole"
$2.5 million Bugatti Chiron set to claim world speed record
http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/bugatti-chiron-fastest-...
I enjoy the abilities of human's to create all kinds of things ... however, the need of an ecosystem of having the worlds fastest car ... brings very
little to the "ecosystem" in positives IMO
[Edited on 3-1-2016 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Online
|
|
I dunno wesson, that's a head scratcher. But I think there is a benefit to ecosystem with the Bugatti Chiron at 2.5 mil a copy. Think about it. If it
were the only car available the lines at the border going north would be a heck of a lot shorter. Unless you were in the pedestrian line, that is.
zoom, zoom
[Edited on 3-1-2016 by SFandH]
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Not sure how it would work with a "A plague of locusts" .. 
[Edited on 3-1-2016 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Online
|
|
A good metaphor for mankind, doncha think?
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Mexitron-------you make some thoughtful points. I would counter with the point that David K. is constantly making----"Man is part of Nature", if I
understand Evolution properly. Who can say that "intact ecosystems" don't include the changes brought on by man, even if extreme? For example in
Yellowstone Natl. Park-------the attempt at preservation of "intact ecosystems" there via man's "Fire control" resulted over a few years in a
disastrous situation when it finally did burn out of control--------talk about your "dead zones". In that case "dead" was not quite the result, but
close, and certainly a drastic change that will take many years to possibly revert to pre-man levels, if ever, as is true with all presumed "dead
zones". If we had allowed fires to burn naturally as they had for eons, then the result would have been, according to your theory as I understand it,
all ok?!?!? The truth as I see it is that man has only a rudimentary idea of what an actual intact ecosystem is, and he is often wrong or partially
wrong. To stop in it's tracks a man-devised project because some very obscure creature or plant is present just seems like folly and arrogance to me,
and just might be counter to the natural development of things if man is truly a part of nature.. I am willing to take that chance, but you
apparently are not? THAT may be the bottom line. Still, you points are deeply thought-provoking, to me anyway. |
Well I wasn't talking about saving EVERY species I was talking about the impact of invasives on ecosystem health. Yes it gets a little too principled
to stop large projects that benefit many people to save one subspecies that was never very numerous anyway. We have to balance this stuff all out.
That said, we are currently in what scientists are calling the Holocene extinction event and we are the cause---the number of species going extinct is
on par with previous extinction events and those didn't happen every 100 years but only occasionally over a billion years so that should be some food
for thought as well.
And, with the coming genomics revolution, who's to say we won't have the capability to restore species (aka 'Jurassic Park') or be able to alter genes
in invasives to make them die off regionally. Maybe we can even use invasives as fuel for cellulosic ethanol plants--one way to help the ecosystem
and have it pay for itself.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron | | Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Mexitron-------you make some thoughtful points. I would counter with the point that David K. is constantly making----"Man is part of Nature", if I
understand Evolution properly. Who can say that "intact ecosystems" don't include the changes brought on by man, even if extreme? For example in
Yellowstone Natl. Park-------the attempt at preservation of "intact ecosystems" there via man's "Fire control" resulted over a few years in a
disastrous situation when it finally did burn out of control--------talk about your "dead zones". In that case "dead" was not quite the result, but
close, and certainly a drastic change that will take many years to possibly revert to pre-man levels, if ever, as is true with all presumed "dead
zones". If we had allowed fires to burn naturally as they had for eons, then the result would have been, according to your theory as I understand it,
all ok?!?!? The truth as I see it is that man has only a rudimentary idea of what an actual intact ecosystem is, and he is often wrong or partially
wrong. To stop in it's tracks a man-devised project because some very obscure creature or plant is present just seems like folly and arrogance to me,
and just might be counter to the natural development of things if man is truly a part of nature.. I am willing to take that chance, but you
apparently are not? THAT may be the bottom line. Still, you points are deeply thought-provoking, to me anyway. |
Well I wasn't talking about saving EVERY species I was talking about the impact of invasives on ecosystem health. Yes it gets a little too principled
to stop large projects that benefit many people to save one subspecies that was never very numerous anyway. We have to balance this stuff all out.
That said, we are currently in what scientists are calling the Holocene extinction event and we are the cause---the number of species going extinct is
on par with previous extinction events and those didn't happen every 100 years but only occasionally over a billion years so that should be some food
for thought as well.
And, with the coming genomics revolution, who's to say we won't have the capability to restore species (aka 'Jurassic Park') or be able to alter genes
in invasives to make them die off regionally. Maybe we can even use invasives as fuel for cellulosic ethanol plants--one way to help the ecosystem
and have it pay for itself. |
Mankind has become an invasive species and nature will deal with us as it does
with other invasive species.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
BajaTed
Senior Nomad
Posts: 859
Registered: 5-2-2010
Location: Bajamar
Member Is Offline
|
|
Lets extrapolate to the extreme; mankind is learning the lessons needed to exist on other planets and not screw them up too.
See ya'll on the other side of the universe in a couple of eons.
it's all a test of faith in HUMANS in the interim.
Es Todo Bueno
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Those interested in sea level rise and the article may appreciate these articles on the topic of recent work by Justin Gillis and the study by Stefan
Rahmstorf et al referenced in NYT.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millen...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/27/what-to-do-about-the-f...
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-acceler...
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65215
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
From the first link posted above...
Interesting graph from 400 B.C. to 2000 A.D. showing the sea level has gone up and down many times, but from 5 cm. to under 15 cm. overall. The net
rise in the ocean after 2,400 years is not even 10 cm. (less than 4 inches). wow. 
When the difference between high tide and low tide, every day, is measured in feet, does 4 inches mean our days are numbered?
What made the graph dive down in the past? Who says it won't dive down again? I am surprised the sea level change is so tiny over 2,400 years.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Hey ... What's with that "Hockey stick" in 2000 
But, I do agree the changes which have been measured are small .. as one would expect, given the volume under discussion ... all oceans on the planet
does create something rather large to measure
Wonder what their findings and/or measurements were in 159 AD on the west cost of North American or South America
However, not to sure about the "measurements" taken in BC and for a number of Centuries prior to the 20th Century ...
Measuring abilities and/or instrumentation has changed somewhat
[Edited on 3-1-2016 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65215
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Yup, a big fuss over 4 inches in two thousand years. I would be more worried about an asteroid hitting the earth than sea level rise. So, as they say
in Jamaica, 'don't worry mon'.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
