In the grand epic that is life on planet Earth, what is it about labeling everything by color to emphasize significance? The US map is generally red and blue while our nation’s threat level seems to be stuck at yellow and orange. On the latter, I still don’t quite understand Homeland Security’s scheme, and frankly I’m not positive they do either.
Today’s colorful hot topic is one that really matters in the big picture: Red species. With yesterday’s release of the ’07 data from IUCN, conservation scientists all about the globe are scrambling to find out who’s made the A-List… Er, I mean Red List. You see, now is the time to collectively take stock of who’s left and we best hop to it because the World Conservation Union says many on the list may not be around very much longer.
Okay, I know what you’re thinking, and yes, sure, every species is destined to disappear at some point. You’re probably asking ‘what’s a little more extinction really? We’re all headed there eventually.’ And the answer is – this goes back to the importance of scale. Perspective determines emphasis. So while sure, for every given species that blinks into existence, an eventual terminal outcome is certain, the science estimates current extinction rates are 100-1,000 times higher than natural background rates. A huge margin of error, but even the most conservative value is rather alarming.
A look at the numbers reveals that 41,415 species are on the Red List with 16,306 considered to be threatened with extinction. We also know ‘threatened species‘ are increasing across almost all the major taxonomic groups. What does this mean for the future of the planet? I could project, although in truth no one really knows. Still, it’s evident that what happens to other lifeforms will have tremendous repercussions for us. Not just in our consumption patterns, but through the spread of disease, lack of pollination, access to medicine, human health, and the ramifications of trophic cascades.
So even if you don’t care about saving endangered gorillas and orangutans as much as I do, recognize that dwindling biodiversity is of concern to humans as well. And keep in mind it’s not all doom-and-gloom from here. Let’s take the 2007 Red List as a wake up call with the understanding we still have time to shift the course of this global odyssey. Much remains unwritten, and thus, I’d like to see hope and recovery as two major themes in our current chapter.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
More dinosaurs at The Intersection please!
September 14th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
The Red List of 2007 is extremely worrisome. I hope you’re right that this is a wake up call. I appreciate your optimism. If more of society would think like you, we’d be okay. Thank you.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
The number of humans living at present is more than the sum total of past humans combined. This puts pressure on other species as our numbers and need for food and habitat increase.
I’m all for biodiversity but as you pointed out Sheril, extinction is the fate of all species, including our own. Unless you are proposing drastic reductions in human poulation we are likely to negatively effect a greater and greater number of other species. That’s the way evolution works. There are winners and losers. No utopian “balance” exists in nature. Adapt to change or go extinct.
We seem to like to “save” cute species like pandas and polar bears while not worrying too much about the not so cuddly ones like insects.
I am fascinated by life in all its many forms and am saddened at the thought of losing any species but that is a bit sentimental and as you know Sheril, Ma Nature aint the sentimental type.
Claims that humans face insurmountable problems from the current rate of extinction grossly under estimate the very evolutionary advantage that has caused humans to proliferate, our incredible ability to adapt to our environment. Humans live in all terrestrial ecosystems from torrid deserts to frozen arctic wastelands.
I’m all for preserving as many species as is compatible with sustaining human populations but the reality is there are going to be winners and losers and I think our priority should be our own survival.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
E. O. Wilson has an interesting take on this in his recent book The Creation (click my name), which also connects with one of your other favorite themes (science and religion), Sheril.
I agree with Lance that we make the wrong case when we focus on cuteness. But unlike other species, we appreciate how biodiversity actually is good and necessary for our survival. On those grounds, I disagree with the “winners and losers” approach to human survival and favors Wilson’s view of humanity in the context of the total web of life.
Preserving all of “The Creation,” as Wilson notes can be viewed as a religious or moral imperative. But it can also be viewed as in our species self-interest.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Yes, I am a fan of Wilson. But Fred, are humans smarter than yeast?! (personally, I’m making no judgement). Anyway, interesting little production.
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?
By the way, as implied by the final credits, this video is an “pop” version of Albert Bartlett’s (professor emeritus of physics, U. of Colorado) wonderful lecture: “Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.” The video can be purchased along with many of his collected writings from The University of Nebraska, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Computer Education. You can also find the lecture itself (I’d be happy to cut & paste the links) on YouTube sliced up into 8 shorter segments. But be careful, there are other clips on YouTube which leave out the graphics or are in other ways abbreviated. The lecture runs about an hour, but is well worth the time.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Lance,
Re cuteness, didn’t Ms. Kirshenbaum spend her graduate years in Maine attempting to save the sea cucumbers? Despite jer obvious affection for these animals, I doubt they are widely regarded as cute.
That’s all.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I have to agree with you e-driver, nothing “cute” about sea cucumbers.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
We do not recognize past mass extinctions by noting that a random bunch of species went extinct over a short period of time. Rather we see that previously dominant groups were decimated or exterpated. No more trilobites, many fewer brachipods, no more ammonites, no more dinosaurs, greatly reduced New World megafauna, etc., etc.
We are clearly in the early phases of a mass extinction of our own making. If past extinctions are any indicator, the present day dominant species may not make it through. Perhaps not as a technology-based civilization, I fear.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Zrmbilisim Katkıları İle 2009 Seo Yarışması
February 5th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
[...] on both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species. The student presentations covered the listing criteria and some of the [...]