[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Brashears on Hanson



In article 
<Pine.A41.3.95b.961210114749.42386D-100000@dante14.u.washington.edu>,
   "D. Braun" <dbraun@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Fred McGalliard wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>> 
>> > I would submit that environmental problems are not sufficiently
>> > described by "some animals being inconvienced". Although knowledge of
>> > global biodiversity is sketchy, virtually all biologists are in
>> > agreement that mankind is causing what would be the sixth mass
>> > extinction the earth has experienced, and may cause a majority of the
>> > world's species to go extinct.
>> 
>> Most of the rest of Jim's post I entirely agree with, but this part 
cannot go unchallenged. We may be 
>> an important predator, and responsible for some of the changes that wipe 
out species, but we are by no 
>> means the only game in town. I think we are clearly in the middle of a 
die off of large proportions, 
>> but I do not think we are the prime cause. The question should be, why 
have the species stopped 
>> adapting to the changes that we and other factors are making in the 
environment? If a major species 
>> bloom were to happen, would we be able to survive? Perhaps we should be 
thankful that we are in an 
>> extinction period.
>
>?! This question is rather easily answered by students of ecology or
>evolutionary biology, never mind by experts. Habitat change, caused by
>humans for the most part, has occurred and continues to occur more
>rapidly than species can adapt. Species with limited ranges, or narrow
>niche requirements go first. Generalists like rats and roaches (particular
>species of these which are generalists) will probably outlive humans as a
>species.  

I'm not certain about the rats, but I am fully confident that the roaches 
will be here long after we are dead, gone, *and* forgotten!



References: