Life on earth is facing a major crisis with thousands of species threatened with imminent extinction - a global emergency demanding urgent action. This is the view of 19 of the world's most eminent biodiversity specialists, who have called on governments to establish a political framework to save the planet.
The planet is losing species faster than at any time since 65 million years ago, when the earth was hit by an enormous asteroid that wiped out thousands of animals and plants, including the dinosaurs. Scientists estimate that the current rate at which species are becoming extinct is between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal "background" extinction rate - and say this is all due to human activity.
The call for action comes from some of the most distinguished scientists in the field, such as Georgina Mace of the UK Institute of Zoology; Peter Raven, the head of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis, and Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank. "For the sake of the planet, the biodiversity science community had to create a way to get organised, to co-ordinate its work across disciplines and together, with one clear voice, advise governments on steps to halt the potentially catastrophic loss of species already occurring," Dr Watson said.
©2006 The Independent (UK)
article by Steve Connor, Science Editor
published July 20, 2006
The threat is real and profound. We are, as a "dominant species", literally raping this planet until there is nothing left to exploit. Even conifers are a risk of extinction. The list is rather long and saddening. The main point of this article is that (and I quote) "In a joint declaration, published today in Nature, the scientists say that the earth is on the verge of a biodiversity catastrophe and that only a global political initiative stands a chance of stemming the loss."
This may end up being the worst mass species extinction event in the life of this planet. It all began when humanity started expanding from Africa to other parts of this planet, developed agriculture and instigated the Industrial Revolution. We've been so fruitful that we many end up destroying all life on this planet. I doubt that is what the Bible meant by "having dominion" and "subduing" this planet.
Looking at all the Biblical Hebrew variations of "subdue" in the Christian Old Testament, perhaps a better translation of "kavash" could be the following phrases: "a footstool", or "to place under control." (Source:Biblical Hebrew e-Magazine) It seems that religious fundamentalists believe that it is not through their desire, but through the pleasure of the Creator, that we are supposed to use up this planet. After all, why should we conserve a world that is going to be torn down and remade during the "End Times"?
That is why we do need to have a political movement around this whole world demanding that we try to be good stewards of the Earth. We need to have more than just a whimper of scientists quoted in British newspapers in order to change the dominant paradigm that is nothing more than a scorched-earth version of "dominion."
Comments ©2006 Cynthia Bage
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
It's interesting, because here in Hamilton, all residents have been told that they must use Green Boxes for all food and certain waste items. We also have the Blue Boxes for cans, bottles, glass, paper, etc. I realize that the dumps cannot take any more waste, so I do my part. However, at the same time, I see the steel companies here polluting the air faster than you can take a breath.
So since that mini Ice Age ended, let's say that the temperature of the air around earth has warmed by one whole Celsius degree. That seems reasonable to me after an ice age.
The howl of scientists neglect to mention that human-caused "global warming" accounts for only one-tenth of it. The rest (90%) is entirely natural (this too is verifiable). They also neglect to mention that the sun (which is responsible for virtually all energy on earth, in one form or another) has been acting up very badly in recent years, with solar storms happening at an alarming rate. These solar storms are approximately 93 million miles away from earth and are highly unlikely to have been influenced by humans.
Scientists who loved to grab headlines (which bring them grant money to do research) have been predicting global catastrophe for years. Thirty years ago is was a New Ice Age. Then desertification of the continents and melting of the polar ice caps, which would result in flooding of all coastal cities.
Not one coastal city has had one square yard of its land flooded since the warning cries began. Not a single person has migrated from the Maldives, in the Indian Ocean, whose highest point above sea level is one metre.
Lost in the tumult of crying voices are those of older, more experienced and less aggressive scientists who claim that the present "shift" in climate is an adjustment, that earth regularly makes such shifts for reasons as yet not understood.
Here is the odd part. The very same gases that the screaming scientists are telling us will kill us through climate change if we don't alter our ways are actually poisoning us due to their toxicity. It's hard to find one shouting scientist who is telling us that poisoned air is killing people, is causing untold misery and health problems.
Because the bandwagon is going the other way. The bandwagon goes where the money is. And the money today is warm air, not poisoned air.
Scientists, like movie stars, compete with each other for scarce dollars. They want to make a good living. The easiest way is to scare people with carefully edited and incomplete fact sets which are designed, like statistics, to sway the thinking of the people who hold the purse strings.
Sorry this was so long. I understand that your purpose for publishing this was to scare people and my comments will make that more difficult.
Your attempt at irony and sarcasm is tepidly amusing. I also find your lack of true evidence fascinating. I would very much like to see your sources, and from which foundations these "older, more experienced and less agressive scientists" get their grant money. I've heard of your pet theory, and can find much in the way of scientific evidence that can disprove it. I seriously question the disinterestedness of these "experts" whom you decline to name.
According to a recent story in VOA News:
Here's just an excerpt from a story last year in Mother Jones:
This is not about concocting scientific scare tactics. I'm not into writing best-selling "conspiracy theories" the way that Crichton does. He's in the same deplorable company as fellow-conspiracy theorist Dan Brown: creatively type up a boilerplate novel where some big bad conspiracy is keeping "the truth" from the world, all the while passing off the conspiracy theory as "fact."
Who are the real fearmongers, Bill? And why do you descend to mere talking points. I would love to see the actual sources that support your argument. Links to actual data would be most helpful. That is, if you are willing to show your sources.
People are more angry about the cost of fuel than they are about the depletion of the earth's resources, which is astonishing to me.
Good article, Cynthia.
I tried to find an interview in a recent edition of Discover Magazine (a science magazine), but I can't find it. I give most of them away after reading them.
My comments do not require proof because I do not intend to enter into a debate. As I said, I only urge people to get two sides of the story. Yours is one.
Sorry if a contrary opinion upset you.
You said:
First, I find it amusing that you say you "tried to find" something that you knew you could not have much hope in finding. Surely Discover has a website where such an article could be found. Additionally, that magazine is a glossy publication that does not necessarily require rigid scientific parameters as is the case with peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Second, you claim that your comments "do not require proof." Why not? Are you afraid of showing that your arguments are really nothing more than unsubstaniated claims? You must have an irrational faith in whomever makes you feel the most comfortable about your personal environmental habits.
Thirdly, the mere fact that you posted twice shows to everyone that you did intend to enter into a debate. You could have chosen to remain silent. Instead, you willfully entered into a debate.
Finally, your opinion did not "upset" me. You must think that all female poets are irrational, emotional and somewhat bitchy. Remember, I stated quite clearly that your comments "amused" me. I'm still chuckling over your continued petulance.
And is it really my story? Did I publish the findings in The Independent? Is that my byline? I merely shared what someone else published and brought to my attention. Yes, what I state as my "opinion" is my work. Still, it is an informed opinion in contrast to your irrational faith in what Big Oil pays to have it's mouthpieces say.
You've got to do better with your sarcasm as it is more like a tea that has been brewed by the same teabag fifteen times before. Might I suggest reading some Jonathan Swift or perhaps the satiric verses of Alexander Pope? That could sharpen your mind a bit...but that's only if you're willing to stretch out that far.
Consider the ridiculous predictions of scientists that have been disproved: In 1970, Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, prediction that 75 to 80% of all animal species would be extinct by 1995. Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrich, who predicted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation back in the 1980's, predicted that 15-20% of all species would be extinct by 2000. The rest of the data comes from Chapter 6 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science by Tom Bethell. His sources are cited within.
I hope this is a good start to a lively and important debate. I love animals and nature; that's why I will fight to ensure that people know the truth about their condition!
There are things each of us can do and need to do.