Last post of the Skeptics and Deniers series was on Global Warming and Mass Extinction. This blog post will be its continuation, discussing the various factors that threaten wildlife.
The writers list four 'confirmed' factors:
1. Asteroid Collisions
2. Hunting
3. Agriculture
4. Introduced Species
Since the writers do not believe that Global Warming endangers wildlife, they give the factors that are not directly related to the current climate change. It provides an outline of the threats throughout time, giving a glimpse of the complex relationships between a species and the environment and also among species.
There was an interesting piece of information linked to factor #3: although humans have taken over one third of the world's land for agricultural purposes, the land suited for farming is likely to to have been providing habitat for a small number of species. However, I have to take issue with what the book says soon afterwards: that because we choose land with high productivity for farming (more suited for agriculture), we leave out the rest of the world's land (on which more species live) to "nature". Are the writers implying that humans take control of land just for farming and do not use the rest for other purposes? If there is a reason for this misrepresentation, perhaps the writers are trying to give the impression that we do not impose that great an influence on the environment. It certainly wouldn't be a hindrance to the writers' opinion that human activity cannot have such a big impact as to cause an anthropogenic climate change...
Factor #4 was another point that I gave more thought to. It states that the development of transportation unintentionally brought new species to foreign land. Ships, cars, and planes meant the introduction of species to distant regions around the world. The book explained that the competition between the native and foreign species was inevitable, causing some to become close to extinction. I wondered whether this conflicted with ideas presented further in the chapter. Giving examples of various species - the Northern Pika, birds of the eastern region of the United States, etc. - the writers offer the following idea: as a reaction to the changes in climate around the world, many species' original habitats may become unsuitable; however, the animals are "strong" and have an "inherent ability to adapt"; thus, the range of their habitat will simply shift, causing no definite harm to their survival. The writers explain that mentioned species have shown to survive moving to different regions and that others will do the same. And yet, what is so different about this situation that the various species survive in this case, and do not in the first scenario - the introduction of species by human transportation? Competition between species exists in both, does it not? Is it due to the number of animals being shifted? Is it about how long it takes to make the shift? Please tell me what you think in the comments below!
The writers list four 'confirmed' factors:
1. Asteroid Collisions
2. Hunting
3. Agriculture
4. Introduced Species
Since the writers do not believe that Global Warming endangers wildlife, they give the factors that are not directly related to the current climate change. It provides an outline of the threats throughout time, giving a glimpse of the complex relationships between a species and the environment and also among species.
There was an interesting piece of information linked to factor #3: although humans have taken over one third of the world's land for agricultural purposes, the land suited for farming is likely to to have been providing habitat for a small number of species. However, I have to take issue with what the book says soon afterwards: that because we choose land with high productivity for farming (more suited for agriculture), we leave out the rest of the world's land (on which more species live) to "nature". Are the writers implying that humans take control of land just for farming and do not use the rest for other purposes? If there is a reason for this misrepresentation, perhaps the writers are trying to give the impression that we do not impose that great an influence on the environment. It certainly wouldn't be a hindrance to the writers' opinion that human activity cannot have such a big impact as to cause an anthropogenic climate change...
Factor #4 was another point that I gave more thought to. It states that the development of transportation unintentionally brought new species to foreign land. Ships, cars, and planes meant the introduction of species to distant regions around the world. The book explained that the competition between the native and foreign species was inevitable, causing some to become close to extinction. I wondered whether this conflicted with ideas presented further in the chapter. Giving examples of various species - the Northern Pika, birds of the eastern region of the United States, etc. - the writers offer the following idea: as a reaction to the changes in climate around the world, many species' original habitats may become unsuitable; however, the animals are "strong" and have an "inherent ability to adapt"; thus, the range of their habitat will simply shift, causing no definite harm to their survival. The writers explain that mentioned species have shown to survive moving to different regions and that others will do the same. And yet, what is so different about this situation that the various species survive in this case, and do not in the first scenario - the introduction of species by human transportation? Competition between species exists in both, does it not? Is it due to the number of animals being shifted? Is it about how long it takes to make the shift? Please tell me what you think in the comments below!
No comments:
Post a Comment