BajaNomad
Not logged in [Login - Register]

Go To Bottom
Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  6    8
Author: Subject: Update: this post is an FYI only. It is not an attempt to convince anyone, change any minds or force any change in personal...
Barry A.
Select Nomad
*******




Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline

Mood: optimistic

[*] posted on 2-28-2016 at 02:16 PM


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.
View user's profile
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
********




Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold

[*] posted on 2-28-2016 at 04:58 PM


"but all the other species will cheer Homo sapiens extinction."

This may be moving a bit into Anthropomorphism :biggrin::biggrin:

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]
View user's profile
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline

Mood: Happy!

[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 02:37 PM


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.
View user's profile
Barry A.
Select Nomad
*******




Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline

Mood: optimistic

[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 03:58 PM


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.
View user's profile
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
********




Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold

[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 04:21 PM


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]
View user's profile
DianaT
Select Nomad
*******




Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 04:34 PM


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 ...............




View user's profile
SFandH
Elite Nomad
******




Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 04:37 PM


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.
View user's profile
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

[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 04:56 PM


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]
View user's profile
SFandH
Elite Nomad
******




Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 04:58 PM


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.
View user's profile
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
********




Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold

[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 05:17 PM


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]
View user's profile
SFandH
Elite Nomad
******




Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 05:28 PM


Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
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 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]
View user's profile
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
********




Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold

[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 05:56 PM


Not sure how it would work with a "A plague of locusts" .. :lol::lol:

[Edited on 3-1-2016 by wessongroup]
View user's profile
SFandH
Elite Nomad
******




Posts: 7284
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-29-2016 at 05:58 PM


Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
"A plague of locusts" .. :lol::lol:



A good metaphor for mankind, doncha think?

View user's profile
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline

Mood: Happy!

[*] posted on 3-1-2016 at 05:07 AM


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.
View user's profile
monoloco
Elite Nomad
******




Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-1-2016 at 09:02 AM


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"
View user's profile
BajaTed
Senior Nomad
***




Posts: 859
Registered: 5-2-2010
Location: Bajamar
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-1-2016 at 10:00 AM


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
View user's profile
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-1-2016 at 12:40 PM


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...
View user's profile
David K
Honored Nomad
*********


Avatar


Posts: 65215
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have Baja Fever

[*] posted on 3-1-2016 at 02:37 PM
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. :rolleyes:



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.




"So Much Baja, So Little Time..."

See the NEW www.VivaBaja.com for maps, travel articles, links, trip photos, and more!
Baja Missions and History On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/bajamissions/
Camping, off-roading, Viva Baja discussion: https://www.facebook.com/groups/vivabaja


View user's profile Visit user's homepage
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
********




Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold

[*] posted on 3-1-2016 at 03:41 PM


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]
View user's profile
David K
Honored Nomad
*********


Avatar


Posts: 65215
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have Baja Fever

[*] posted on 3-1-2016 at 05:16 PM


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'.



"So Much Baja, So Little Time..."

See the NEW www.VivaBaja.com for maps, travel articles, links, trip photos, and more!
Baja Missions and History On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/bajamissions/
Camping, off-roading, Viva Baja discussion: https://www.facebook.com/groups/vivabaja


View user's profile Visit user's homepage
 Pages:  1  ..  6    8

  Go To Top

 






All Content Copyright 1997- Q87 International; All Rights Reserved.
Powered by XMB; XMB Forum Software © 2001-2014 The XMB Group






"If it were lush and rich, one could understand the pull, but it is fierce and hostile and sullen. The stone mountains pile up to the sky and there is little fresh water. But we know we must go back if we live, and we don't know why." - Steinbeck, Log from the Sea of Cortez

 

"People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." - Theodore Roosevelt

 

"You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who they think can do nothing for them or to them." - Malcolm Forbes

 

"Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else's hands, but not you." - Jim Rohn

 

"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." - Cunningham's Law







Thank you to Baja Bound Mexico Insurance Services for your long-term support of the BajaNomad.com Forums site.







Emergency Baja Contacts Include:

Desert Hawks; El Rosario-based ambulance transport; Emergency #: (616) 103-0262