sunday times: extinction, coming soon to a planet near you
Several very unsettling items in the literature lately on species loss:
A paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [1], Human impacts on the rates of recent, present, and future bird extinctions, reported on at New Scientist,
finds that the extinction rate of birds is much higher than previously
calculated, and is excelerating. One of the authors is Peter Raven, of
the Missouri Botanical Garden and a former Time Magazine Hero for the Planet. I'll just leave you with his sobering quote: “[By 2100] we will see total homogenisation – an end to regional diversity. The same few bird species will be seen everywhere, whether they are native or not".
An item in Science[2], Confronting Amphibian Declines and Extinctions, reports that globally, 32.5% of amphibian species are threatened, and 122 species have become extinct since 1980. Only 10% of the 113 species of harlequin frogs have stable populations (I wrote about this here and here). The paper says, "Species have disappeared across the entire taxonomic group and in nearly all regions of the planet." The authors note that the figures are probably underestimates, as nearly 25% of known amphibian species were deemed "data-deficient." They called for formation of The Amphibian Survival Alliance (ASA), led by an international secretariat of the Amphibian Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN (World Conservation Union). The initial 5-year budget requires at least U.S.$400 million. More here.
In Biological Conservation [3], Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis found a two-thirds of 337 species of common macro-moths in Britain had declining numbers during the period 1968-2002 across a wide variety of habitats. The median 10-year population change was -12%, and 21% of the species had declines that would signify they are vulnerable or endangered. This suggests to the authors that the proportion of threatened British insects may be seriously underestimated. Since there were similar findings in a study of British butterflies, they conclude that:
They note that the environmental changes that affect these moths indicate strong impacts on the wider ecosystem and for higher trophic levels, including birds and bats.“The overall pattern of decline for so many species points to a widespread deterioration of suitable environmental conditions across the country. ...Insects may be facing great losses in other temperate-zone industrialised countries."
I don't think I need to expound on any of this. The writing is on the wall. We need to immediately clean up our act as well as quit destroying habitat -- not just far-away rainforests, but in our own cities and towns. Each of us needs to become an activist. Write some checks, write some letters, write some blog posts. No excuses. Pass it on.
Each of us needs to become an activist? What makes you think you're the 1st person to say this?
You need to stop lecturing and work out why it's not happening.
Or perhaps suggest to the Panda's Thumb people to spend less time bashing us IDiots and more time saving the planet.
E.g. bash GM, Boeing etc.
Posted by: Novparl | 18 July 2006 at 07:14 AM
Panda's Thumb stated purpose is to discuss evolution and critique the antievolution movement. Given the strong link between belief and action, I'm willing to bet that the scientists contributing to Panda's Thumb do a hell of a lot more productive environmental activism than those "IDiots" that disavow science.
I never suggested I was the first to suggest activism. As for "lecturing," I have devoted my entire career to conservation -- research and outreach. Part of what I do here is to educate people I normally would not come in contact with, with an eye to inspiring more activism.
Posted by: Nuthatch | 18 July 2006 at 08:23 AM
Education is key, and may be the only hope. The situation would be difficult in any event given the human population the world is supporting. Education can bring more understanding, and it's all the more needed because so many people live their lives in pervasively artificial environments. As people understand more about nature, most begin to care more as well.
Posted by: Marty | 18 July 2006 at 12:36 PM