Extinction & Loss of Habitat

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.11.07 at 19:47:29(7772) Ted Can I congratulate you on provoking discourse & then taking part most sensitively so that everybody could both agree & agree to disagree without anybody losing their dignities in the face of hurt insecure egos! If you or any other optimistic person was to be written off the list then I would certainly not remain silent. I would however request that you do not use Yank-slang that we Old world peoplemost don't understand - like "cool" & "parking lot". Obtusely under the above heading - If only marmosets could war against Man's visionless eco-terrorism, then I'd be the first to request instant re-incarnation. Ron +More ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:16 PM Subject: One Last Comment I knew when this started that my comment would touch a nerve among the more ideological among the list members. I guess I am just an optimist about the world. Throughout the history of life (as we know it currently) there have been some pretty remarkable cataclysms where the number of species have been reduced dramatically by all estimates. It is probably the case that at any given "stable" time that a large fraction of the extant species exist in a rather precarious situation. Something comes along and shakes things up (and I suppose this could be construed as "habitat loss" except that as that phrase is usually used in today's parlance it means the whole "parking lot" business - not "natural" climate changes, vulcanization, meteor strikes, ice ages, etc.) and a host of the more specialized species get the rug pulled out from under them. In fact, if the "trajectory" of all the species present at any one time could be known and plotted, one would find that some are on the ascendency, vigorous, robust, while others are in decline, weak and prone to succumb to shocks of various sorts. Naturally, some of the weak species are really cool from the parachial human perspective. A lot of the coolest plants that this list likes are in that category. But from the standpoint of the history of the world, whether people like a particular life form does not matter very much. To be sure, people are now able to intervene in evolution in both good ways and bad. We can make parking lots and we can artificially propagate cool plants and animals and keep them going. From the comments I read about the Philodendron spiritus-sancti it is not clear why it is such a rare plant. Maybe it is because some preferred habitat is now a parking lot. Maybe it is because the plant was being overwhelmed by more successful species and is hanging naturally on the edge of extinction. Someone brought up the Franklinia issue a day or so ago.The reason Franklinia was hanging by a thread when rescued had nothing to do with loss of habitat then. There is no lack of habitat for Franklinia to be reintroduced into the "wild" today. The point is that species extinction is a really old thing and that for the vast majority of extinctions human parking lot building had absolutely no role. That this is happening today is not a valid opposing argument. I will now be silent on this topic unless people want to write me off-list. ted.held@hstna.com

From: Ted.Held at hstna.com on 2001.11.08 at 00:53:27(7776) Thank you Ron, I am actually a good-natured person who likes to challenge conventional views. And I agree with you completely about marmosets. I wish there were an alternative for those people who chop down the natural world to make a living. I think the majority are helplessly poor. And they certainly don't know about the complexities of an ecosystem. I believe one day we will solve the crisis, but I think quite a bit more destruction will take place first. I am not in favor of it. I am resigned to it and hope it can be minimized. I'll have to take your advice about American slang. I am quite cognizant about slang as I am the slang consultant for our European colleagues who work here in the US (I work for Henkel of Duesseldorf, Germany). I find that our coworkers arrive with a very good command of English but they cannot understand anything discussed in our meetings. I have had two other comments to me from the list to my private e-mail. The whole subject of extinction and the history of life is a passion of mine. Thanks for responding. "Ron Iles" m.net> Sent by: cc: aroid-l@mobot. Fax to: org Subject: Extinction & Loss of Habitat 11/07/01 02:47 PM Please respond to aroid-l Ted +More Can I congratulate you on provoking discourse & then taking part most sensitively so that everybody could both agree & agree to disagree without anybody losing their dignities in the face of hurt insecure egos! If you or any other optimistic person was to be written off the list then I would certainly not remain silent. I would however request that you do not use Yank-slang that we Old world peoplemost don't understand - like "cool" & "parking lot". Obtusely under the above heading - If only marmosets could war against Man's visionless eco-terrorism, then I'd be the first to request instant re-incarnation. Ron ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:16 PM Subject: One Last Comment I knew when this started that my comment would touch a nerve among the more ideological among the list members. I guess I am just an optimist about the world. Throughout the history of life (as we know it currently) there have been some pretty remarkable cataclysms where the number of species have been reduced dramatically by all estimates. It is probably the case that at any given "stable" time that a large fraction of the extant species exist in a rather precarious situation. Something comes along and shakes things up (and I suppose this could be construed as "habitat loss" except that as that phrase is usually used in today's parlance it means the whole "parking lot" business - not "natural" climate changes, vulcanization, meteor strikes, ice ages, etc.) and a host of the more specialized species get the rug pulled out from under them. In fact, if the "trajectory" of all the species present at any one time could be known and plotted, one would find that some are on the ascendency, vigorous, robust, while others are in decline, weak and prone to succumb to shocks of various sorts. Naturally, some of the weak species are really cool from the parachial human perspective. A lot of the coolest plants that this list likes are in that category. But from the standpoint of the history of the world, whether people like a particular life form does not matter very much. To be sure, people are now able to intervene in evolution in both good ways and bad. We can make parking lots and we can artificially propagate cool plants and animals and keep them going. From the comments I read about the Philodendron spiritus-sancti it is not clear why it is such a rare plant. Maybe it is because some preferred habitat is now a parking lot. Maybe it is because the plant was being overwhelmed by more successful species and is hanging naturally on the edge of extinction. Someone brought up the Franklinia issue a day or so ago.The reason Franklinia was hanging by a thread when rescued had nothing to do with loss of habitat then. There is no lack of habitat for Franklinia to be reintroduced into the "wild" today. The point is that species extinction is a really old thing and that for the vast majority of extinctions human parking lot building had absolutely no role. That this is happening today is not a valid opposing argument. I will now be silent on this topic unless people want to write me off-list. ted.held@hstna.com

From: "Phil Bunch" pbunch at cts.com> on 2001.11.08 at 17:11:01(7789) Actually there is one hopeful aspect to mass extinctions. They are generally followed by "rapid" evolutionary radiations. Not of course that we will enjoy the process since rapid in the evolutionary sense is slow by our measure. We are losing much that is beautiful and/or of interest. However, as we create many new habitats, something will adapt to grow in or on them. I don't think that DNA will just give up. In fact since we consider these new habitats to be ours, much of what evolves will be seen as weeds or pests. We just barely stay ahead of the species we don't like. There is no question that we will reap what we sow. +More Phil Bunch -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Date: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 16:55 Subject: Re: Extinction & Loss of Habitat > >Thank you Ron, > >I am actually a good-natured person who likes to challenge conventional >views. And I agree with you completely about marmosets. > >I wish there were an alternative for those people who chop down the natural >world to make a living. I think the majority are helplessly poor. And they >certainly don't know about the complexities of an ecosystem. I believe one >day we will solve the crisis, but I think quite a bit more destruction will >take place first. I am not in favor of it. I am resigned to it and hope it >can be minimized. > >I'll have to take your advice about American slang. I am quite cognizant >about slang as I am the slang consultant for our European colleagues who >work here in the US (I work for Henkel of Duesseldorf, Germany). I find >that our coworkers arrive with a very good command of English but they >cannot understand anything discussed in our meetings. > >I have had two other comments to me from the list to my private e-mail. The >whole subject of extinction and the history of life is a passion of mine. >Thanks for responding. > > > > "Ron Iles" > of list AROID-L > m.net> > Sent by: cc: > aroid-l@mobot. Fax to: > org Subject: Extinction & Loss of Habitat > > > 11/07/01 02:47 > PM > Please respond > to aroid-l > > > > > > >Ted > >Can I congratulate you on provoking discourse & then taking part most >sensitively so that everybody could both agree & agree to disagree without >anybody losing their dignities in the face of hurt insecure egos! If you >or any other optimistic person was to be written off the list then I would >certainly not remain silent. I would however request that you do not use >Yank-slang that we Old world peoplemost don't understand - like "cool" & >"parking lot". > >Obtusely under the above heading - If only marmosets could war against >Man's >visionless eco-terrorism, then I'd be the first to request instant >re-incarnation. > >Ron > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" >Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:16 PM >Subject: One Last Comment > > > >I knew when this started that my comment would touch a nerve among the more >ideological among the list members. I guess I am just an optimist about the >world. Throughout the history of life (as we know it currently) there have >been some pretty remarkable cataclysms where the number of species have >been reduced dramatically by all estimates. It is probably the case that at >any given "stable" time that a large fraction of the extant species exist >in a rather precarious situation. Something comes along and shakes things >up (and I suppose this could be construed as "habitat loss" except that as >that phrase is usually used in today's parlance it means the whole "parking >lot" business - not "natural" climate changes, vulcanization, meteor >strikes, ice ages, etc.) and a host of the more specialized species get the >rug pulled out from under them. In fact, if the "trajectory" of all the >species present at any one time could be known and plotted, one would find >that some are on the ascendency, vigorous, robust, while others are in >decline, weak and prone to succumb to shocks of various sorts. Naturally, >some of the weak species are really cool from the parachial human >perspective. A lot of the coolest plants that this list likes are in that >category. But from the standpoint of the history of the world, whether >people like a particular life form does not matter very much. > >To be sure, people are now able to intervene in evolution in both good ways >and bad. We can make parking lots and we can artificially propagate cool >plants and animals and keep them going. From the comments I read about the >Philodendron spiritus-sancti it is not clear why it is such a rare plant. >Maybe it is because some preferred habitat is now a parking lot. Maybe it >is because the plant was being overwhelmed by more successful species and >is hanging naturally on the edge of extinction. Someone brought up the >Franklinia issue a day or so ago.The reason Franklinia was hanging by a >thread when rescued had nothing to do with loss of habitat then. There is >no lack of habitat for Franklinia to be reintroduced into the "wild" today. > >The point is that species extinction is a really old thing and that for the >vast majority of extinctions human parking lot building had absolutely no >role. That this is happening today is not a valid opposing argument. > >I will now be silent on this topic unless people want to write me off-list. > >ted.held@hstna.com > > > > > > > >

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.11.12 at 17:07:51(7804) In a message dated Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Phil Bunch" writes: > In fact since we consider these new habitats to be ours, much of what > evolves will be seen as weeds or pests. We just barely stay ahead of > the species we don't like. Are you familiar with the book _After_Man_? It is quite fanciful, of course, as it conjectrures what new species will/may evolve on earth after our extinction (in fact, some seem downright implausible); but the writer/artist did have many of his imagined future species evolve from rodents and other current pests, since these are most likely to survive the age of man. His predatory "rats" were especially believable -- in the absence of carnivorous megafauna, rats likely would seize upon the opportunity.

From: "Phil Bunch" pbunch at cts.com> on 2001.11.13 at 04:23:10(7815) I have not read the book you mention. I suspect that humans will continue for quite some time, perhaps not at the same level of "development" we currently "enjoy" but we are a highly adaptable species. The mass extinction problem will almost certainly get worse. It may be that if we are careful and wiser than we appear to be there will be refugia from which a fair amount of the extant DNA will expand. +More I do suspect however that some of the habitats we are forming will be around for a very long time. Rats appear to be good candidates for continued evolution, as long as there are enough humans to provide for their needs in teh short term. Insects of course are very good at the "numbers game" and we should expect plenty of new forms to develop. Among the plants I would expect to see plenty Poaceae, Asteraceae, and a few other families that have many "weedy species." Hopefully, Phil Bunch -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Date: Monday, November 12, 2001 09:09 Subject: Re: Extinction & Loss of Habitat >In a message dated Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:12:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Phil Bunch" writes: > >> In fact since we consider these new habitats to be ours, much of what >> evolves will be seen as weeds or pests. We just barely stay ahead of >> the species we don't like. > >Are you familiar with the book _After_Man_? It is quite fanciful, of course, as it conjectrures what new species will/may evolve on earth after our extinction (in fact, some seem downright implausible); but the writer/artist did have many of his imagined future species evolve from rodents and other current pests, since these are most likely to survive the age of man. His predatory "rats" were especially believable -- in the absence of carnivorous megafauna, rats likely would seize upon the opportunity. >

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.