News Biggest Eco disaster ever!

[rynnor]

I have been reading about this for a while after I learned the fate of the Hellbender (a salamander - great name btw) - its being wiped out in the most obscene way by a combination of pollution and an Uber genocidal fungus thats having a go at wiping out an entire order of life - amphibia!

Basically - while we fret about global warming we are on the brink of a mass extinction un-paralelled since the dinosaurs bowed out.

The problem with fungi is that their spores get literally everywhere so even places we barely know about with pristine environments are having their native amphibia wiped out.

Its incredibly worrying - its one thing to lose a species here and there but to lose an entire order of life must surely have grave repercussions that we cannot comprehend.

However since frogs and newts arent particularly cute they are getting practically nil spending <sigh> ...

Read more - BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Crisis for the world’s amphibians

 

[Tom]

Are we responsible for this problem, or is it a naturally-occurring phenomenon? Because if its the latter, then I'm sorry but...bye, Frogs.

 

[old.Tohtori]

by a combination of pollution and an Uber genocidal fungus thats having a go at wiping out an entire order of life - amphibia

Is that pollution like the rest of the anti-pollution crowd are tooting, or is it an actual fact that x is doing y to z?

 

[Trem]

Frogs and newts are incredibly cute

 

[rynnor]

Is that pollution like the rest of the anti-pollution crowd are tooting, or is it an actual fact that x is doing y to z?

No-one really knows in the case of the hellbender - there is more pollution in their rivers than there was but its just a supposed link without much research (and its tough to research a dying species) - theres some signs of the fungus too but it could be something else.

Its horrible though - like leprosy - their skin is permanently inflamed and holes start appearing and their finger bones drop out, then their arm bones - I bloody hope they dont have good pain receptors...

As to the whole thing humans may have pressured amphibians a bit but its really the fungus doing the work - its possible humans spread the fungus around a bit but it could also just have spread naturally.

 

[Zenith]

Hmmm, I read about this the other day, its the normal stuff, more unnatural stuff going into the rivers and waters, which makes the fungi grow at an enormous rate afaik

 

[Raven]

Hmmm, I read about this the other day, its the normal stuff, more unnatural stuff going into the rivers and waters, which makes the fungi grow at an enormous rate afaik

Correct, we pump so much shit (literally sometimes) into our rivers its no wonder we and other animals have problems.

 

[Tom]

What we put into rivers today is nothing, nothing compared to what we used to put into them.

 

[Ctuchik]

Is that pollution like the rest of the anti-pollution crowd are tooting, or is it an actual fact that x is doing y to z?

so unless we can prove it without a doubt, we dont have to care..

is that what your saying?

 

[DaGaffer]

What we put into rivers today is nothing, nothing compared to what we used to put into them.

Not here. Its a different story everywhere else outside Europe and North America.

 

[old.Tohtori]

so unless we can prove it without a doubt, we dont have to care..

is that what your saying?

If it's a natural thing, we don't have to care.

Humans and their "save everything" might screw nature up more.

 

[Ctuchik]

sure. there is no way whatsoever to prove that it is or isnt natural. so why not be safer rather then sorry and assume it is and try to do something about it?

sure we might fuck it up anyway, but atleast then we tried. but i can almost guarantee that if we DONT do anything it WILL fuck it up.


bottom line is that ppl dont wanna risk wasting cash for nothing. they much rather take the chance that it is natural rather then do something about it while theres still a chance.

 

[rynnor]

Even if it is natural the definition of humanity is people who mess with nature.

Why not for once make it a benign influence by saving a host of species - if we can?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well i'd say polluting the planet is equally bad to saving a species that nature wants to get rid of. Both have unseen consequences.

So if there's no show of pollution effecting this, let it happen.

 

[ramathorn]

I seen a guy say a similar thing on the news the other day about Panda's, he's saying basically everything about how the species behaves is showing their time has come (a species that doesnt wanna mate is gonna have big problems surviving. He thinks we should let nature takes its course and let the species go, I think if we have a tiny chance of maintaining the species in the short term and renewing numbers (even slightly) in the long term, its well worth the time and effort

Let pandas die out, says naturalist  - Yahoo! News UK

 

[Tom]

Even if it is natural the definition of humanity is people who mess with nature.

Why not for once make it a benign influence by saving a host of species - if we can?

How is it benign to save a classification of animal when natural selection may have 'deemed' that it is no longer suited to life on this planet?

We don't live in a static environment. Things evolve, other things die off. Its the way things have always happened.

 

[Talivar]

Guess it all depends on the fact do you beleive its all part of natures grand plan or just a set of random occurences that led to this point.

 

[noblok]

How is it benign to save a classification of animal when natural selection may have 'deemed' that it is no longer suited to life on this planet?

We don't live in a static environment. Things evolve, other things die off. Its the way things have always happened.

Except things are now dying off at a thousand times the normal rate, due to human interference. (Although, perhaps, in this case we needn't interfere. I don't know the specific situation well enough.)

 

[Ctuchik]

So if there's no show of pollution effecting this, let it happen.

but there is. theres just no way to prove its the biggest reason or not.

they can only prove that we have a impact, but not that were the main reason or not.

but again, why not atleast try try to fix things before its to late?

i would agree with you if it only happens to one species of toads for example, but its a entire family of animals were talking about. and that doesent look natural to me.

 

[old.Tohtori]

but there is. theres just no way to prove its the biggest reason or not.

they can only prove that we have a impact, but not that were the main reason or not.

but again, why not atleast try try to fix things before its to late?

i would agree with you if it only happens to one species of toads for example, but its a entire family of animals were talking about. and that doesent look natural to me.

Well, if the planet is shaping due to our pollution, then it might be fixing things, eliminating races etc to compensate and make the planet as it should be.

Afterall, the planet knows what it wants(so to speak).

As i said, if it's not a major pollution effected thing, aka our fault, interfering with natures way is as bad as pollution.

I honestly don't care myself, toads or not, no worry, just giving an opinion.

 

[Scouse]

Are we responsible for this problem, or is it a naturally-occurring phenomenon? Because if its the latter, then I'm sorry but...bye, Frogs.

Quick to jump on the kill frogs bandwagon eh?

DENIER!

 

[Scouse]

How is it benign to save a classification of animal when natural selection may have 'deemed' that it is no longer suited to life on this planet?

True. They've been selected out. Unfortunately, natural selection has made humans carriers of fungal spores and as we move around the world, paying no heed to any other form of life but our own, we spread what would have been, until the last few hundred years, a local phenomena.

I pose this direct question to you, Tom: Now that natural selection has given humans the intellectual capacity to rationalise concepts such as natural selection, should we carry on in a selfish uncaring matter, or should we be doing our utmost to mitigate the damage we cause?

 

[Talivar]

We have reached the point now where we dont follow Evolutions path imo, our science and int and society/cultures have enabled us to step of the survival of the fittest road and create a path of our own choosing. With this in mind as Scouse says we now can choose to help other creatures when they need it. If mother nature really did want to get rid of a species tho im pretty sure Humans would be top of the list lol

 

[Tom]

I pose this direct question to you, Tom: Now that natural selection has given humans the intellectual capacity to rationalise concepts such as natural selection, should we carry on in a selfish uncaring matter, or should we be doing our utmost to mitigate the damage we cause?

You're asking should we behave in a Darwinian manner, or a moral manner. I don't think the two are separable.

As a species, we do whatever suits us first, and everything else can come second. That's no different to any other species.

 

[Raven]

Yes but we are different to every other species, we can understand that for our own species to survive we need other species to survive. Not just those that we use directly, ie food but all the way down the food chain.Even if its not in our food chain then most of the time it has an affect on the eco system, be it natural pest control or animals and insects that contribute, insects that digest waste matter to turn it into soil and to add neutralists to the soil, or insects that help spread pollen.

There is only so much that we can do ourselves, once it becomes the case that we put more energy and resources into doing something than we get out of it we are fucked.

Its not all man's fault and naturally climates change, species die out and the world moves on but it is currently happening at an alarming rate, we should protect ourselves from its effects by trying to stop it, whether its man made or not.

My problem with the whole thing is that its used as an excuse to tax and control us. Until I know every green tax pound I shell out actually goes on green projects and not some random bat shit crazy labour scheme they can all suck my balls.

 

[Cozak]

Frogs and newts are incredibly cute

This is true, I love going for a smoke in my back garden when it is raining.. we have a wee pond and the frogs are all over the steps when the rain is a'falling! They are actually pretty tame, you can stroke some of them and they wont move an inch!

 

[rynnor]

We don't live in a static environment. Things evolve, other things die off. Its the way things have always happened.

This is true on the species level but not on the orders of life level - the last (and only) order that went extinct was the dinosaurs and that was via catastrophic event's - meteorite strikes etc.

It is in our own self interest to preserve the status quo when we are king of the hill - if amphibians go it could give rise to circumstances that no longer favour our dominant position.

I also think the loss of future pharmaceuticals is also a tragedy for us - drugs from amphibia have an amazing range of medicinal uses.

 

[Jupitus]

Yes but we are different to every other species, we can understand that for our own species to survive we need other species to survive.

So taking an example of a dumb species then, who doesn't understand all this, what if (just for example) sharks were killing off whales... should we intervene, even if (say) it means killing all the sharks?

 

[Ch3tan]

So taking an example of a dumb species then, who doesn't understand all this, what if (just for example) sharks were killing off whales... should we intervene, even if (say) it means killing all the sharks?

No, because killing sharks would have a negative effect in some other part of the foodchain. Why would the choice have to be so extreme? If there are enough whales for the sharks to kill and eat, maybe the problem is human hunting of whales meaning there weren't enough for the whales? Maybe the sharks went after the whales because we over fished something else?

 

[Tom]

This is true on the species level but not on the orders of life level - the last (and only) order that went extinct was the dinosaurs and that was via catastrophic event's - meteorite strikes etc.

It is in our own self interest to preserve the status quo when we are king of the hill - if amphibians go it could give rise to circumstances that no longer favour our dominant position.

I also think the loss of future pharmaceuticals is also a tragedy for us - drugs from amphibia have an amazing range of medicinal uses.

Dinosaurs most likely didn't die out in a single event, rather they died out over the course of millions of years. Dinosaurs are still around however - they're called birds.

Its also rather short-sighted of us, and typical of the human ego, to presume that nothing good would come of extinction.