NEARLY 20,000 species of animals and plants around the globe are considered high risks for extinction in the wild.
That’s according to the most authoritative compilation of living things at risk — the so-called Red List maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
This should keep us awake at night.
By generalizing from the few groups that we know fairly well — amphibians, birds and mammals — a study in the journal Nature last year concluded that if all species listed as threatened on the Red List were lost over the coming century, and that rate of extinction continued, we would be on track to lose three-quarters or more of all species within a few centuries. We know from the fossil record that such rapid loss of so many species has previously occurred only five times in the past 540 million years. The last mass extinction, around 65 million years ago, wiped out the dinosaurs.
The Red List provides just a tiny insight into the true number of species in trouble. The vast majority of living things that share our planet remain undiscovered or have been so poorly studied that we have no idea whether their populations are healthy, or approaching their demise. Less than 4 percent of the roughly 1.7 million species known to exist have been evaluated. And for every known species, there are most likely at least two others — possibly many more — that have not yet been discovered, classified and given a formal name by scientists. Just recently, for instance, a new species of leopard frog was found in ponds and marshes in New York City. So we have no idea how many undiscovered species are poised on the precipice or were already lost.
It is often forgotten how dependent we are on other species. Ecosystems of multiple species that interact with one another and their physical environments are essential for human societies.
What might a real T-Rex bring-in (in admissions to see it), –especially if it were part of a “family” unit, although like the drooling Globalists, members would have to be kept separate, as many dinosaurs…and Globalists…EAT their young. The T-Rex may be too much of a “stretch (–for now), although only time & money are preventing the realization of the Return of the Wooly Mammoth, and the French have recently endorsed THEIR “Wooly Mammoth”,–a SOCIALIST!, which I predict, will be a Name-change only, as ONLY less Govt. could “grow” French Jobs. The point I’m trying to make, is that EXTINCT animals…and Socialists (who SHOULD be extinct, but persist like a vicious, smoker’s cough or some sexual disease) …CAN be brought back, so rumors of their demise might be premature. I hope NO-ONE wants to “clone-Mao”! Oh we already HAVE, –there’s Nobama… Many critical animals are in the larger, better zoos, so as habitat shrinks in the WILD they will Not necessarily be lost. Why the “Socialist–disappearing species” connection? Socialists are often SUPPORTED by those seeking govt. “help” for the animal they’re saving already on their own, –a bad-use of any government funding, because the govt. is ill-equipped to determine which animals can be saved NOW, and which later, wanting to save them all now(–It’s ONLY YOUR taxes, and if its NOT “the Children”, it’s the “Animals”). The Dutch students overseas in USA universities, in micro-biology, are developing a NEW variant of the Avian-flu(with some swine, to make it Worse), which the Globalists DO support, not realizing THEY could become victims as easily as those billions they want to eliminate, for which no vaccine yet exists, and if certain strains are “accidently” released, there will be NO vaccine, EVER, although who would WANT one, preserved in toxic compounds? At least the animals are at “risk” only through habitat-loss. WE…are “at risk” via a weaponized-flu(s) {–kills in hours}, for which the “cure” could ALSO be fatal, due to preservatives used in the vacine,given by Socialist programs that are heavily peering-at what USE you will be, to the State that “saves” you, if it truly can. We’re “worried” about animals/other species. I hope, millinia from now, Virai, or cockroaches, are gathered around, wondering how they can “resurrect” US,–the “Human-Dinosaurs” of their past, but I hope they don’t bring back any Globalists,–those are fatally-flawed!
Jek, Government is NOT the issue… corporations are. It’s their deep pockets so intertwined with our “Fascist” government that allows “poisons” in our vaccines. It’s also the false studies presented by lobbyists to our government officials that incorrectly state the effectiveness of the vaccines. This, among so many other things, is the cause for concern… not government itself… or the “social” programs, it is the corporate infestation of the american governmental system… there in lies the problem. Yes, social problems could use a hand in many cases (as nothing perfect), but when done properly, there is no better system than social democracy when it comes to quality of life and a fair chance for all. The other option? Let corporations rule everything. A horrible situation benefiting only the very wealthy few at the cost of everyone else. Every travel to the Scandinavian countries? It’s not like you hear for the ignorant folks that have not been there. They have cleaner air, longer life expectancies, better quality of life, more renewable energy, more “petroleum free” transportation, more green building, and the list goes on. If anyone reading this does not think these things are not good, I wish there was some way you find your own planet to ruin and leave ours alone. Making the place that sustains all life as we know it, less and less inhabitable is certified insanity.
Let’s see, there are lots of species that we don’t even know exist that might be in danger of extinction. So what measures should an oblivious human race take in order to save these mystery species and how would we know we were successful? Or should we just trust in the IPCC to tell us when we have devolved enough, starved enough and committed enough societal suicide? What’s really scary is that there are droves of leftist drones out there nodding their heads in sage idiocy while reading that drivel in the NYT.
The majority of the 20,000 at risk species are, just as you say, mystery species with no name or taxonomic description.
But each holds the key to curing cancer.
Well, they used to say that. I guess they
didn’t read the second page of their
play book this time.
Every heard of a sustainable economy? What we have now is an economy that is going to quickly drive us to the brink. Is that what you want? We can shift to being a “sustainable” species, if ignorant folks don’t get in the way.
Jed, if by sustainable you mean zero growth, I have heard of it, and its very foundation is fallacious. You are not going to get people to not want. The homeless will want homes, the hungry food, and the cold clothing. The most proven method of reducing the growth of population is to raise the living standards of human beings. That requires economic growth. If the myopic lemmings of the left had gotten out the way 25 years ago, our greenhouse gases would be a fraction of what they are now due to the domination of nuclear power in the generation of electricity. Add to that the reduced cost of energy made possible by nuclear power and you would have an economic boom that would sustain itself while reducing population growth at the same time. Unless of course you subscribe to that idiot Paul Erhlichs view that we should “humanly” reduce the human population to 2 billion or so as he says. That sounds like a policy of genocide that would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao “green” (lol) with envy. Before you go into a foaming at the mouth frenzy, keep in mind the fact that there has never been a death due to a radiation leak at an American nuclear power plant in the industries 50 plus year history. The cost of construction has been inflated by regulations more intended to prevent construction than to make it safe. Litigation cost at Seabrook in New Hampshire almost bankrupted UI of Connecticut yet none of the costs were assessed against the claimants even though not one of the lawsuits filed were successful. The final nail in the coffin of zero growth economics is the fact that it can only be attempted in a dictatorship to have even a remote chance of success. I don’t see the American people voting to deliberately become slaves of a social and economic agenda doomed to failure and give up their freedoms and individual liberties in the process.
Hi Edward,
Please see my responses to your text below followed by *****
Jed, if by sustainable you mean zero growth, I have heard of it, and its very foundation is fallacious.
***** I’m not necessarily referring to 0 growth, I’m referring to a sustainable economy. Although, I might mention that Zero Growth is absolutely necessary if we are not to self-exterminate ourselves. This is beyond obvious.*****
You are not going to get people to not want.
***You can certainly shift their behavior by playing with commodity prices and creating regulation. Unfortunately, as we both know people will not do what’s necessary for the longevity of the species on their own, therefor they need government guidance. It’s just the reality of the situation***
The homeless will want homes, the hungry food, and the cold clothing.
*****Of course they will, and we can either begin to educate folks as to why it is important not to have more than two children, and if that does not work, give them reverse incentives to not have more than two kids. We can also begin to curb our insatiable appetites for worthless junk that drives our unsustainable economy*****
The most proven method of reducing the growth of population is to raise the living standards of human beings.
***** Agreed, but educating them is a necessary part of that mix also*** That requires economic growth.
***** It requires economic growth within those countries where those people need things to live comfortable, healthy lives. So yes, I agree that with the current population crisis, there will need to be economic growth in certain parts of the world, but here in America, we do not need and cannot sustain continued growth… it’s a self annihilating agenda… that’s a fact. We are indeed in the midst of a mass extinction, which will no doubt include us if it continues.*****
If the myopic lemmings of the left had gotten out the way 25 years ago, our greenhouse gases would be a fraction of what they are now due to the domination of nuclear power in the generation of electricity
***** That is incorrect. The left began to push renewable energy (which is quite difficult I might add when unsustainable energy is subsidized not only by our government, but also by the fact the the true costs of extracting and burning our fossil fuels are not realized in the price of gasoline/oil) back when when Carter was in office, then Reagan removed the solar panels from the roof of the white house, making a strong statement and taking us back-words in time. No matter how the energy is produced, there are massive line losses incurred to transport this energy… at times as high as 90%. This is why it makes perfect sense to generate point source electricity on sight via solar and wind on site. Virtually zero line loss.*****
Add to that the reduced cost of energy made possible by nuclear power and you would have an economic boom that would sustain itself while reducing population growth at the same time.
*****Why would you assume that increasing dangerous nuclear power would create a self sustaining economy? Yes nuclear is very power efficient, but many times more deadly. Regardless of how many lives have been lost (or shortened) in the U.S (and that’s debatable), it is proven that Nuclear is not safe, nor is it sustainable by any means. The only current use for nuclear if as an intermediary step towards sustainable energy production. Nothing more.*****
*****Unless of course you subscribe to that idiot Paul Erhlichs view that we should “humanly” reduce the human population to 2 billion or so as he says. That sounds like a policy of genocide that would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao “green” (lol) with envy.
***** Not familiar with his views or statement, but yes… I would agree that through education and potentially monetary incentives, or lack there-of, it would be wise to set a goal to reduce and hopefully reverse population growth. We have made a conscious choice to have only 1 child… although there is nothing wrong with 2, however having more than this intentionally living in a first world country is in my opinion, selfish and irresponsible. There is no argument that facing our population problem head on is our only option, or we will over-populate and there will be far bigger things to worry about than folks loosing their child tax credits*****
Before you go into a foaming at the mouth frenzy, keep in mind the fact that there has never been a death due to a radiation leak at an American nuclear power plant in the industries 50 plus year history.
*****And I suppose that there must be some magical “political border” preventing anything bad from happening to our nuclear plants over here in America… maybe because we are God’s Chosen country. I’ve heard that one before. Also note that the Japanese nuclear disaster has affected us over here in American, not only through direct air contact, but also through the fish we consume caught on the West coast. If you don’t believe me on this one, I suggest you do some digging”
The cost of construction has been inflated by regulations more intended to prevent construction than to make it safe.
*****Regulation is a necessary evil to keep building practices in check. I’ve lived in places with a lack of regulation and it was a sad case. I have also built building myself in places regarded as having high regulation in WI due to the heavy involvement of the DNR, and I agreed 100% with every piece of it and was happy to abide by it. It was no construction killer as you say… it more or less guaranteed higher quality construction that had safer indoor air quality and proved to be far more efficient with it’s use of energy. I find it appalling how humans waste the FREE energy that is all around us. The most simply of which is passive solar. We don’t even use the sun in it’s simplest form to heat our homes in the winter by simply incorporating it into the design. We do not even have an energy problem here in America, we have a massive waste problem and infrastructure problem. 75% or more of the energy consumed in the is country is needlessly wasted due to laziness, and a lack of desire because energy is still dirty cheap. We live in a Net Zero home. Have you heard of these? I.e. we use “O” energy to heat/cool our home and run our appliances. Thus proving that we have a waste problem, not an energy problem per-se*****
Litigation cost at Seabrook in New Hampshire almost bankrupted UI of Connecticut yet none of the costs were assessed against the claimants even though not one of the lawsuits filed were successful. The final nail in the coffin of zero growth economics is the fact that it can only be attempted in a dictatorship to have even a remote chance of success.
***** Not true, they can be done through adequate government regulation by the peoples choice. The current problem with out government is not the government itself, but the infiltration of the modern corporation. Our government no longer serves our needs, it serves the needs of the 1%. *****
I don’t see the American people voting to deliberately become slaves of a social and economic agenda doomed to failure and give up their freedoms and individual liberties in the process.
*****I love this “Slave” and “giving up liberties” idealism. Would you consider a mass of shared public lands, clean air, world peace, modest, but healthy living, a modest but sustainable income and the joy to live your life with some free time to socialize, exercise, eat with family and friends etc, a loss of liberty and a bad thing? By loss of liberty are you referring to losing the ability to over-populate because you wish to irresponsibly have more than 1-3 children? Or do you consider it because you want to modify your exhaust so that you can ride the ride and make lots of noise for your enjoyment at the dismay of the hundreds you pass by each day? Or, is it bothersome to think that the government might tell you how many fish you can take home, because you should be able to keep as many as you want regardless of other folks desires. Or, do you think you should be able to build whatever you want, where ever you want so that you can express your freedom (liberty) however you want, regardless of how it affect others (liberties). There is the other half of us in this country that feel that by ridding of government regulation and taxes, that you are indeed opening up the door for every one to step on everyone else’s liberties. When a world gets as populated as ours, you NEED to have quality government run by the people, for the people to ensure that while expressing one’s liberties is interferes as little as possible with the liberties of others. It is a fact that in this day and age, every one needs to give up some of their liberties to ensure that they retain others. This is the only way. Check out this website to see why government is so important and how it benefits even you every day.
http://www.governmentisgood.com/ . This might be an eye opener for you. BTW… I’m in no way suggesting to have all the answers to head towards a 0 growth economy, but I for one know that this is our only hope, and that it is attainable. Once the path we must take is clear, I feel we can figure out how to do it best with a bit of trail and error. As per the population issue… yes, this is a touchy subject, but with education and a more fair distribution of wealth and natural resources, I feel it as well is possible. No… I do not feel American is god’s chosen country. I feel we are just another country, more evil than some, less evil than others. And yes, I feel that the Scandinavian countries could teach us a lot since they have more sustainable power, better education, better health care, higher quality of life, longer life spans, and less corporate influence in their social democracies. Have you had the good fortune of traveling there?
Jed, you still ingore the reality that zero growth cannot work and sustainable energy will mean rationing and shortages. Your position is unsustainable when reality shines on it.
As I suspected, my blog reply was too long for you, and you have already made up your mind. I recap a couple points here so you can grasp my points. ***** I’m not necessarily referring to 0 growth, I’m referring to a sustainable economy. Although, I might mention that Zero Growth is absolutely necessary if we are not to self-exterminate ourselves. This is beyond obvious.*****
Also (and I’ll try to keep this short for you but unfortunately, contrary to what you would like to believe, the answers are not simple to implement). A sustainable economy does not imply no jobs, it implies jobs that can continue without destroying life as we know it. And this would be fully attainable if it were not for folks like you and all of us were progressives, rather than conservatives. Sorry for the name calling, but you’ve just proven that your a typical conservative. Not in tune with the true reality of the situation. And YES we are in the midst of a mass extinction. There is no debating that. It’s called science. You are probably also a Global Warming Denier. Open your mind to reality, in the mean time I will be looking for your own planet for you to ruin. I’m done with this conversation as you’ve proven this a waste of my time. All the answers you need are in my prior comments.
Jed, don’t flatter yourself. It is not that I don’t grasp what you are saying, it is simply that the foundation for what you propose is fallacious. You are essentially proposing an environmental dictatorship where none is needed. All of your basic tenets are false so they cannot be taken seriously. The earth has endured mass extinctions since it cooled. You refer to yourself as a progressive which is code for socialist/communist/liberal. Those are failed eonomic and social systems that are contrary to human nature. I enjoyed your earlier response however when you called the mass genocide advocated by the left as “touchy”. We do not need your so called zero-growth, (I reject the code word sustainable) agenda. We simply need to get possibly well meaning but myopic folks like yourself out of the way and out of our economic planning and out of our governments. The leftist agenda is no more credible that the snake oil salesmen of the old west, only far more dangerous. The only promise in wind and solar power generation is the promise of shortages,rationing, and exhorbitant cost. If we had spent the billions wasted on wind and solar subsidies we could have upgraded the national grid and reduced new demand through greater efficiency. Had we continued to build nuclear plants at the rate of the 60′s and early 70′s we would have reduced greenhouse gases by over 50% of current levels. We could reduce our need for petroleum based fuel by billions of gallons insuring a supply for a thousand years and in the process raised living standards to a level that would cause population growh to level off. Had we pursued fusion reactors instead of windmills and solar panels we would have spared hundreds of thousands of acres the despoilment and preserved the lives of thousands of raptors who get smushed by the windmill blades. The most glaring fault in the green agenda is that it starts with social assumptions and then backfills with voodoo science to make the assumptions look plausible. They are not, and cannot be.
You must submit. It’s for the __________
FILL-IN-THE-BLANK
This time, it’s unknown species.
Add it to the list.
This is a trick learned from the IPCC — or maybe it was the other way around. Take a small, speculative number. Then, join it with a multiplier. The result: a little number of dubious significance is multiplied by 10,000, and the result looks scary.
TRILLIONS of species have been LOST, –before, –during, and after the Dinosaurs! Let’s have a good Cry/moment of silence, because you will be asimulated! We are Globalists, we are “Borg”. Resistance is reputed to be Futile, looking at the French vote where they may have burrowed-themselves DEEPER into the “Globalist-Cube”, ‘tho Sarkozy was NO “Friend of Farce–er, France.” –Imo, the Nobamunists are “Borg-ian”–I almost EXPECT Barry to come out in vinyl and hoses with a bionic eye-piece, someday. Once SCYTL’s hacked-into and our VOTE is “Borged”(–RE-COUNT…IS…FUTILE!), we’ll ALL be Demoncrats…Socialists to another “Borg-ian” Demension…
We read stories like this all the time when I was growing up. Back then they were called “science fiction”.
“By GENERALIZING from the few groups we KNOW FAIRLY WELL–”
“A STUDY concluded– that IF all species listed—WERE lost–”
“We WOULD BE ON TRACK to lose three quarters or more– of ALL”
“The red list provides just a TINY INSIGHT into the TRUE number–”
“The VAST MAJORITY of living things–remain UNDISCOVERED–we have NO IDEA whether their populations are healty or approacing their demise.–”
“We have NO IDEA–”
They have no idea so why listen to them. NYT must be desperate for stories.
USFWS is especially well versed in making up exaggerated numbers for species headed for extinction. In reality they believe all species are going to be extinct. That is why they are grabbing so much land for Habitat Conservation Plans that will protect all species as well as their jobs.
No… it’s because sane americans value their public land as a crucial part of a high quality of life. It is proven to enhance quality of life. Wherever cities have had the foresight to preserve public lands (that’s right, land held by the big-bad government) property values increase do to strong demand to live there. Where do you think people ride their ATV’s and Snowmobiles…. in some rich persons backyard?