HKWildlife.Net Forum 香港自然生態論壇
遊客:  註冊 | 登錄 | 龍尾 | YouTube | Facebook | English | Library | Blog | 幫助
 
標題: 人類可能已引發第6次大絕種
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-3 22:56  資料 短消息 
人類可能已引發第6次大絕種

唔係太新嘅新聞, 不過篇文好詳盡咁列出理據. 而且上到<Nature>都證明質素有返咁上下.

**************************************************
人類可能已引發第6次大絕種
(法新社)2011年3月3日 星期四 08:35
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110303/8/mzra.html
(法新社巴黎    2日電) 科學期刊「自然」(Nature)今天發布的1篇研究報告指出,人類可能已引發地球史上已知的第6次物種大滅絕(mass extinction)。

過去5億4000萬年來,自然發生的事件已引發5次大規模物種滅絕。

不過前述研究指出,最新的絕種威脅是出於人為,引發原因包括棲息地喪失、對陸上和水中動物過度捕殺、細菌、病毒和引入外來物種的蔓延,以及因燃燒石化燃料產生溫室效應氣體所導致的氣候變遷。

來自化石的證據顯示,在過去的「5大」(BigFive)物種滅絕中,動物物種至少有75%被消滅。

美國    加州大學柏克萊分校(University ofCalifornia at Berkeley)的古生物學家,以全球哺乳動物種類為指標,檢視當今生物多樣性。

在人類於約500年前開始大規模擴張以前,哺乳動物絕種的情況很罕見,平均每100萬年只有2個物種消失。

不過過去5個世紀來,5570種哺乳動物中,至少有80種被消滅,為生物多樣性提供明顯的禍害警訊。

研究人員巴諾斯基(Anthony Barnosky)表示:「即使是把『大絕種』的定義設下高標,現代物種滅絕的速度看來和過去的大絕種類似。」

巴諾斯基表示,假設這些物種消滅,生物多樣性流失繼續不受限制,那麼第6次大絕種可能在短短3到22個世紀內來臨。

和以往所有的大絕種相比,這次算是相當快速。

擔任巴黎自然歷史博物館    (Museum of NaturalHistory)館長的法國    生物學家巴夫(Gilles Boeuf)表示,2002年首次有人提出最新1次大絕種的問題。

到目前為止,科學家已確認有190萬種物種,每年留下紀錄的新物種在1萬6000到1萬8000種之間,基本上都是微生物。

巴夫說:「照這速度,我們得花1000年才能記錄地球上約在1500萬到3000萬物種之間的所有生物多樣性。」

「不過照事情發生的速度,在本世紀結束前,我們很可能消滅其中半數的生物多樣性,尤其是在熱帶森林和珊瑚礁地區。」(譯者:中央社陳宜君

************************************************
Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?
    * Anthony D. Barnosky
    * Nicholas Matzke
    * Susumu Tomiya
    * Guinevere O. U. Wogan
    * Brian Swartz
    * Tiago B. Quental
    * Charles Marshall
    * Jenny L. McGuire
    * Emily L. Lindsey
    * Kaitlin C. Maguire
    * Ben Mersey
    * & Elizabeth A. Ferrer

    Nature Volume: 471, Pages: 51–57 Date published:
    (03 March 2011) DOI:    doi:10.1038/nature09678

abstract: Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as times when the Earth loses more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short interval, as has happened only five times in the past 540 million years or so. Biologists now suggest that a sixth mass extinction may be under way, given the known species losses over the past few centuries and millennia. Here we review how differences between fossil and modern data and the addition of recently available palaeontological information influence our understanding of the current extinction crisis. Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures.
頂部
kingarthur
蟲后
Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5


UID 632
Total 3718
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 23907
種子 23907
花蜜 3233
閱讀權限 60
註冊 2007-2-5
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-4 00:44  資料 文集 短消息 
Started for decades already, I'll say.
頂部
kaiserX
幼蟲
Rank: 2Rank: 2



UID 1913
Total 350
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 619
種子 619
花蜜 310
閱讀權限 30
註冊 2007-9-15
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-4 23:50  資料 短消息 
it should be matters of fact, once the time when the spread of homo sapiens appears.
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-6 01:43  資料 短消息 
But this research paper is a complete, comprehensive one. Researches before are results from different areas.

"it should be matters of fact"--> Scientists do not BELIEVE in "FACTS", they look at evidence and draw conclusions from there about their hypotheses. (because the word "believe" sounds like religion or superstition).
頂部
kaiserX
幼蟲
Rank: 2Rank: 2



UID 1913
Total 350
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 619
種子 619
花蜜 310
閱讀權限 30
註冊 2007-9-15
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-7 23:38  資料 短消息 
回覆 #4 pyling 的帖子

I am not going to doubt the creditability of the scientific research, nor methodology and ideology of empirical science.

I just want to comment about the nature of human beings, which the original will of human creature to extend its species on the land of Gaia and henceforth to drive out any other species with the consciousness which is hidden in the deep of our body.
This is merely an idea. I swear I have no intention to disgrace the sublime of science.
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-8 11:30  資料 短消息 
回覆 #5 kaiserX 的帖子

Oh, take it easy. I am not pointing at you specifically. I just wanted to distinguish/ clarify the wording between science and belief. When I talk about the importance of making some sort of sacrifice of convenience to protect the environment, often time I encounter people saying things such as: "Oh, this is your BELIEF, not mine." "You say this because it is politically correct." Responsibility should be shared by both sides: people who say things above don't understand the rigorous of scientific methods and reasoning, and they just mess up "hypothesis" with "theory" with "law". On the other hand, some conservationists/environmentalists take Conservationism/Environmentalism as if they are religions. When they present their ideas, it is often times lack of reasoning to persuade others; or they present them in a way that the ideas become so "anti-human" or ignoring the livelihood of impoverish people, which would just generate more antagonistic emotion. That doesn't help spread the words to other apathetic people and persuade them to modify their behaviours at all.

A complete, rational plan for protecting the environment should take into account of every species on Earth, including human beings. Yes, we are like the cancer cells of the Earth's environment. And yet, it is also true that some of the members have to work hard to stop this for whatever metaphysical or practical reason (which I can think at least a dozen examples of both off the top of my head). The more people we can persuade them to modify their wasteful life style, the better it is for the environment.

Human beings are different from other animals that some people CHOOSE not to give birth and/or adopting other children instead of having their own. Not ALL people want to spread their own genes. We are more complicated than that...

[ 本帖最後由 pyling 於 2011-3-7 22:35 編輯 ]

本帖最近評分記錄
rosara   2011-3-8 14:17  種子  +10   超水準之作 Awesome !
頂部
rosara
成蟲
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 5370
Total 1669
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 -99999
種子 -99999
花蜜 -99999
閱讀權限 0
註冊 2010-3-9
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-8 14:23  資料 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 pyling 於 2011-3-8 11:30 發表
Oh, take it easy. I am not pointing at you specifically. I just wanted to distinguish/ clarify the wording between science and belief. When I talk about the importance of making some sort of sacrifice ...

I am so sorry that I could give you ten points only.   

"That doesn't help spread the words to other apathetic people and persuade them to modify their behaviours at all."
That is what exactly happening in bird watching/photo circle.




愛國不等於愛黨
信神不用信宗教
環保不必靠環團
頂部
rosara
成蟲
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 5370
Total 1669
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 -99999
種子 -99999
花蜜 -99999
閱讀權限 0
註冊 2010-3-9
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-8 14:52  資料 短消息 
A Human - They called them Homo Sapiens
B Human -  Radical conservationists/environmentalists

I eventually have company of C Human.

One scientist said: When food on earth is eaten up, human will resume cannibalism, when they were talking about anthropophagy.

I predict that when A Human ate up the last piece of food and finally they will start to eat B Human before they massacre A Human, cos' they hate each other so much.




愛國不等於愛黨
信神不用信宗教
環保不必靠環團
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-8 22:46  資料 短消息 
回覆 #8 rosara 的帖子

My point is, not only be rational and consider other elements as well, but also walk your talk. If one cannot do whatever s/he tell others to, then how can other people take his/her words seriously? Same is true on the other hand, if one cannot do it, say not living a wasteful life style, it doesn't mean ALL other people cannot do it. And it also doesn't mean one has to discourage other people from trying.

Depending on how you define "radical", because to many apathetic people, I am a radical in a lot of ways and since I am using rationality when talking to them and I really do what I talk, many of them would be persuaded.

I can't see your logic here:
1. If you draw your idea in a Vann diagram, "B Human" is a subset of "A Human".
2. You are assuming the whole world has only "B Human" and "A Human".
3. I would say the hatred between fundamental Muslims and other "non-believers" (however they define it) is much bigger than those between "A Human" and "B Human".
4. Your "one scientist" was making a claim, which has nothing to do with his/her job as a scientist. S/he can be an astronaut, a theologist, a priests/nun, a construction worker... to make that statement. No difference. Authority doesn't work here.
5. Your premises and proposition are not based on solid proved ground, therefore, your conclusion is merely another claim.
頂部
rosara
成蟲
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 5370
Total 1669
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 -99999
種子 -99999
花蜜 -99999
閱讀權限 0
註冊 2010-3-9
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-9 00:15  資料 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 pyling 於 2011-3-8 22:46 發表
My point is, not only be rational and consider other elements as well, but also walk your talk. If one cannot do whatever s/he tell others to, then how can other people take his/her words seriously? S ...

Needless to say, one must do whatever she/he tell others to do, that is fundamental. What left is how to convince other people to do what you are doing. Persuasion is a art, if one does not know how the art effects, for God's sake, don't do anything or just make things worse.

Among the three layers; radical, rational and apathetic, quantification is not crucial, people knows exactly what they have chosen. I am not going to ask you how to define the rationality that you are using either.

I categorized human being into 3 segments, A Human, B Human and as I mentioned, there is C Human. Allow me to quote your word - anti-human which is a extremely dangerous religion when B Human gets power in their hand. There is no hatred between Muslin and non-Muslin, it is all about OIL.

"One scientist" analyses, "one construction worker" guess, that's the difference. The scientist did not tell his ground, it doesn't mean there is no ground. Even "one me" can substantiate the saying with records - during drought, famine and wars ---- Cannibalism!




愛國不等於愛黨
信神不用信宗教
環保不必靠環團
頂部
pyling (快樂的小魚兒)
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 5412
Total 1485
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 3280
種子 3280
花蜜 1305
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2010-4-18
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2011-3-9 08:19  資料 短消息 
回覆 #10 rosara 的帖子

"There is no hatred between Muslin and non-Muslin, it is all about OIL."-->First of all, I am not talking about Muslims vs. non-Muslims; I am talking about FUNDAMENTAL-RADICAL Muslims/ Christians vs. non-believers (however they define). It is not about oil only. Look at the terrorists attacks in the Caucasian region of Russia, what the Taliban was doing to Afghans, especially women, before the invasion of the US...

Haha, the three-sectors are what you define, which is a wild hypothesis.
A scientist, haha, in the US, middle school kids taking a science course and doing experiment often call themselves as "scientists". I am not sure what kind of scientists deal with hypothetical Cannibalism analyze work and still pass peer-review. I would greatly appreciate if you can share me the data that that scientist used and the credential of that scientist.
頂部
 


Untitled Document


當前時區 GMT+8, 現在時間是 2019-10-19 17:32

Powered by Discuz! 5.0.0  © 2006-2008 HKWildlife.Net
Processed in 0.024807 second(s), 8 queries , Gzip enabled
清除 Cookies - 聯繫我們 - HKWildlife.Net - Archiver