Kick the Myth: Part One - Biodiversity on the Decline
03/11/09 11:23 Filed in: Personal
Recent BBC headline reads "Species' extinction threat grows".
The article goes on the describe the pressures placed upon flora and fauna within the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, a list containing 47,677 species. Of the list of these "Threatened Species", some 17,291 are deemed to be "at serious risk".
It's a sad story, truly. But what is even sadder is how that raw data is then expanded to encompass ALL species of known mammals, amphibians, plants and invertebrates. When there is no evidense to suggest that this is the case. After all, it somewhat stands to reason that species added to the "Threatened Species" list are by their nature "at risk". That fact that only approximately a 1/3 of the species in the list is "at serious risk" surprises me. Exactly what criteria of being "threatened" are they working too? I digress.
From this an other recent stories you'd get the impression that in a few years there are going to be no creatures left on the planet. But to say this is something of a misleading statement on the part of conservatives, would be an understatement.
Now, before I start showing the evidence, I want to make something very clear. We should live in a efficient, none (or at least low) polluting way, that maximises energy efficiency. So we should have super efficient vehicles and/or public transport. Every house should employ solar for heating and power generation (it's free after all) and so forth. I think that's ideal.
However, having an education does provide me with the tools and interests to look into a story that otherwise reads like a Ronald Emmerich script. If you want to get a whole word prospective of biodiversity, it's necessary to take a longer view of things.
Below is a graph (taken from Wikipedia) showing the size and range of biodiversity on planet Earth over the last 550 million years.
I'm assuming you've noted it starts today on the left and goes back in time to the right.
The point being that at NO
Lets start with a premise. It has been widely reported in the media that all species on Earth are in decline. The blame is obvious, in their eyes. It's a combination of the direct effects of mans activities and (most likely man made) climate change.
Here are the top five animals, most often sited.
So, is it true. Has their been a sudden decline in animal species and are mans activities truly the major contributing factor
Lets take them individually and examine the facts.
Elephants (Afican for sake of argument)
Before the ivory trade threatened to destroy the noble beast of Africa, you might have been given the impression that Africa was so packed full of elephants that it was more of less packed to the seams. But clearly this wasn't ever the case.
Elephants require large amounts of resources to survive, in terms of both food and water. They also only give birth to a single offspring (as you'd imagine).
Phanereozic - Wikipedia.
The article goes on the describe the pressures placed upon flora and fauna within the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, a list containing 47,677 species. Of the list of these "Threatened Species", some 17,291 are deemed to be "at serious risk".
It's a sad story, truly. But what is even sadder is how that raw data is then expanded to encompass ALL species of known mammals, amphibians, plants and invertebrates. When there is no evidense to suggest that this is the case. After all, it somewhat stands to reason that species added to the "Threatened Species" list are by their nature "at risk". That fact that only approximately a 1/3 of the species in the list is "at serious risk" surprises me. Exactly what criteria of being "threatened" are they working too? I digress.
From this an other recent stories you'd get the impression that in a few years there are going to be no creatures left on the planet. But to say this is something of a misleading statement on the part of conservatives, would be an understatement.
Now, before I start showing the evidence, I want to make something very clear. We should live in a efficient, none (or at least low) polluting way, that maximises energy efficiency. So we should have super efficient vehicles and/or public transport. Every house should employ solar for heating and power generation (it's free after all) and so forth. I think that's ideal.
However, having an education does provide me with the tools and interests to look into a story that otherwise reads like a Ronald Emmerich script. If you want to get a whole word prospective of biodiversity, it's necessary to take a longer view of things.
Below is a graph (taken from Wikipedia) showing the size and range of biodiversity on planet Earth over the last 550 million years.
I'm assuming you've noted it starts today on the left and goes back in time to the right.
The point being that at NO
Lets start with a premise. It has been widely reported in the media that all species on Earth are in decline. The blame is obvious, in their eyes. It's a combination of the direct effects of mans activities and (most likely man made) climate change.
Here are the top five animals, most often sited.
- Elephants
- Gorillas
- Polar Bears
- Tigers
- Panda Bears
So, is it true. Has their been a sudden decline in animal species and are mans activities truly the major contributing factor
Lets take them individually and examine the facts.
Elephants (Afican for sake of argument)
Before the ivory trade threatened to destroy the noble beast of Africa, you might have been given the impression that Africa was so packed full of elephants that it was more of less packed to the seams. But clearly this wasn't ever the case.
Elephants require large amounts of resources to survive, in terms of both food and water. They also only give birth to a single offspring (as you'd imagine).
Phanereozic - Wikipedia.
