Dying species 'endangering' earth

From the BBC:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Recently succumbed to extinction: The golden toads of Costa Rica

A distinguished conservationist has rekindled the dispute about how many species are becoming extinct.
He is Dr Richard Leakey, formerly head of Kenya's civil service and earlier of its wildlife service.
Dr Leakey, speaking in South Africa, said the world was losing between 50,000 and 100,000 species every year.
He said this rate of extinction, twice the estimate he gave four years ago, was imperilling the planet.
Speaking in Cape Town, Dr Leakey said it was only the five earlier mass extinctions in the Earth's history, the last of which saw the death of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, that had shown the same rate of loss.
"At that rate we are probably approaching a point similar to mass extinction", he said.
Dr Leakey argued that the environment must be seen as a basic human right, and preserving land and conserving its wildlife was an "absolute necessity".
Lower estimate
People had to decide exactly how much land should be given over to conservation.
In 1997, at a meeting of the United Nations' Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), Dr Leakey gave a much lower estimate of the extinction rate.
He said then: "Most of you know as well as I do that biologists and conservationists are operating from a position of ignorance.
"We don't actually know how many species there really are on the planet, let alone on the African or any other continent.
"The rate of extinctions is also unknown. Scientists suggest that there are somewhere between 10 and 100 million species on the planet."
Dr Leakey told Cites that it was the acceleration of species loss through human activities that was significant.
Unless the present trend was reversed, he said, the world could lose about 55% of its species over the next 50 to 100 years.
"Such rapid catastrophic losses to biodiversity have happened before, and these catastrophes have always had far-reaching consequences for the surviving species."
Last May a report by the Swiss-based IUCN-World Conservation Union and Future Harvest, a Washington DC agricultural research group, said global wildlife faced the greatest extinction risk since the disappearance of the dinosaurs.
Estimates challenged
A 1998 survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History found that nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was under way.
Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats.
Some scientists say the actual extinction rate is almost certainly far lower than Dr Leakey is suggesting, and well below any cause for concern.
The evidence that species are disappearing is often circumstantial, but many experts believe it is gradually painting a clearer picture.

Craig Hilton-Taylor of IUCN told BBC News Online: "It's quite possible that we're approaching a sixth extinction, but it's hard to say for sure.
"In October 2000 IUCN published its Red List of threatened species, which also lists those known to have died out.
"The number listed as extinct doesn't tally with the predictions of people like Richard Leakey.
Continual increase
"But what may explain that is that there's a time-lag in the process. Some species are very hard to find.
"It may take several years of fieldwork before we can say whether they really are extinct. You have to wait to be sure.
"But the number of threatened species is growing all the time, and that shows there's a problem.
"Some of them could disappear quite rapidly. They're right on the brink."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we should make the effort to capture and save DNA samples of all these potentially near extinct species in the hope that one day we could reproduce and re-introduce them once we have a better understanding of the earth environment and why such species are in danger.

But does it really matter to the human race? Perhaps not, but there is much about biology that we do not understand and it would be arrogant of us to assume that we do not need every scrap of information we can capture. If we don’t understand yet then let’s preserve what we can until later.

Cris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not think this an unreasonable approach to the problem. In fact I think it quite wise in the direction to go.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I hope that somewhere scientists are keeping examples of such creatures that can be studied later.

 

That I would not bet on. And if they were there is no guarantee that something similar to the moon rocks or worst would not take place. Such as contamination of the sample or specimen.

 

How to store?

I am not sure that we currently have the facilities and the science needed to preserve various cellular specimens and keep the cellular integrity needed to revive them later. When we freeze cellular material, cell wall integrity is lost. We can keep cells cold and slow their metabolic processes for a limited period of time (as is done with sperm cells), but the process is not infinitely long. More research needs to be done to be 100% secure.

Ideally as world citizens we would take steps to ensure that no species is threated or in danger of becoming extinct. We have a long way to go ourselves as a species before we are mature enough to be planetary caretakers.
T.

 

Why Bother

to keep samples,it is the over population of the earth by humans that is the problem,and I doubt that will improve.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Genetic Material may Cure Diseases

The problem with species die out relates to the gentic variation that is lost. Not only animal, but plant as well. It is said that in a rain forest, you will find a cure for any disease or plague on our poplation. If you remove genetic diversity, you also remove the cure. The cure for diseases that perhaps we haven't even heard of yet.

It more a matter of control then overpopulation. We ABSOLUTELY need to leave vast tracts of land untouched, except by reputable scientists. And by vast tracts, I don't mean a couple of acres. I mean thousands of hectares. Its difficult, but it can be done.
T.

 

Well although I agree with you,I wonder how this will be achieved with the spread of people every where.

 

Odin, I am 100% with you. The root of most modern problems lies in the fact that we multiply so frequently. I have looked at evey angle into this problem. I have concluded that the only effective response would come through an agency of social engineers. We need to change peoples perceptions of what is exceptable. By telling children the truth from the an early point, we can prevent the ignorance that pervades our society. We tell our children too often that the world is stable, while knowing that it is the opposite.