99% of species are extinct
 

This is just a general probe. Granting it's truth ( and it's likely within reasonable range), what role could it play in various arguments, such as the necessity of protecting habitat, or biodiversity.
Or does it indicate ... X?

At first it seems to point to the incredible diversity achievable, but since species loses some of it's meaning when used over time spans, perhaps not quite as diverse as it seems. What say?

I don't know what scientific opinion is on the number of extant species on the planet at any one time. Has it changed much?

luckyme

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

Given that species don't actually exist, the idea of a species going extinct is a pretty strange statement. The distiction is little more valuable than an individual organism dying. Although I guess on an ecosystem level it has some value. Still, these things are incredibly tough to predict in terms of what to do and what not to do.

The best conclusion I have made in regards to all this is pushing for the ending of all violent territories, because they cause extreme destruction with the least sustainability; whereas state of nature, communal and private property are much better in terms of respect/care, sustainability, knowledge/understanding, etc.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

That's how nature works. There is no 'balance' in it and some species will die out and others will not. We might want to look at how our actions can alter ecosystems in a positive manner, but it can be fearfully complicated stuff to figure out - plenty of mistakes have been made in that regard (both on what is a positive manner and on how to do it).

Suffice to say we humans have altered and transformed our environment forcefully since we became more than hunter/gatherers and we will continue to do so.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
We might want to look at how our actions can alter ecosystems in a positive manner, but it can be fearfully complicated stuff to figure out - plenty of mistakes have been made in that regard (both on what is a positive manner and on how to do it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, very complicated. Knowing what satisfies me though, and what things I consider desirable and undesirable, is pretty simple. And since we are a natural result of our eco system, would you agree that the things that tend to be desirable to us will tend to be best for the "system" as a whole?

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

definitely higher.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ya, very complicated. Knowing what satisfies me though, and what things I consider desirable and undesirable, is pretty simple. And since we are a natural result of our eco system, would you agree that the things that tend to be desirable to us will tend to be best for the "system" as a whole?

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that the system itself has no 'preference' I will agree with you.

But we're heading down murky waters if we accept the entire premise - which will ultimately end up at extreme social darwinism and the conclusion that there are no ethics, no rights, no nothing except for the rule of the strongest.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We might want to look at how our actions can alter ecosystems in a positive manner, but it can be fearfully complicated stuff to figure out - plenty of mistakes have been made in that regard (both on what is a positive manner and on how to do it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, very complicated. Knowing what satisfies me though, and what things I consider desirable and undesirable, is pretty simple. And since we are a natural result of our eco system, would you agree that the things that tend to be desirable to us will tend to be best for the "system" as a whole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that was the type of thought that has me wondering if there is such a thing as 'normal for the system'. Two years ( 2,000 years?) after the dinosaur wipeout, the planet likely had a comparatively low number of species on it. There were previous mega wipeouts also.

Niches seem to create species, specialists really. As long as the planet remains a environmentally diverse place, any non-total wipeouts will be temporary? Will they be as diverse over time?

Does the 99% extinct figure contribute anything in such discussions?

luckyme

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

<font color="blue"> I don't know what scientific opinion is on the number of extant species on the planet at any one time. Has it changed much? </font>

I think this is the crux of it right here and why it's important to conserve natural habitats and preserve other species. There now exists a species (man), which is capable of eliminating enough other species that can cause real harm to the entire biosphere.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
But we're heading down murky waters if we accept the entire premise - which will ultimately end up at extreme social darwinism and the conclusion that there are no ethics, no rights, no nothing except for the rule of the strongest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why *aren't* we at "extreme social darwinism" right now? What does give us this sense of ethics and rights if not merely rational self-interest? I think the idea that we act in any way other than based on what's most desirable to us is responsible for many misconceptions, and thus problems.

"Ethics," as I've said before on this forum (not really sure who all agrees), is an empty word to me. It sort of strikes me the same as "species." Actions are actions. The consequence will determine the desirability. "Ethics" only exists when you seek to conveniently classify the merits of an action. But it's nothing more than an intangible recognition of what's tangibly desirable. Since humans share the same basic condition, you can reasonably say that ~all humans will consider some actions desirable or undesirable, and that we will effectively be able to defend what is best for our prosperity (by defending what is best for ourselves). It seems (since we share the same basic condition) you needn't have anything more than self-interest to come out with this result, and the sense of "ethics" and "rights" that you're looking for.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Ethics," as I've said before on this forum (not really sure who all agrees), is an empty word to me. It sort of strikes me the same as "species." Actions are actions. The consequence will determine the desirability. "Ethics" only exists when you seek to conveniently classify the merits of an action. But it's nothing more than an intangible recognition of what's tangibly desirable. Since humans share the same basic condition, you can reasonably say that ~all humans will consider some actions desirable or undesirable, and that we will effectively be able to defend what is best for our prosperity (by defending what is best for ourselves). It seems (since we share the same basic condition) you needn't have anything more than self-interest to come out with this result, and the sense of "ethics" and "rights" that you're looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
ah, memories

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But we're heading down murky waters if we accept the entire premise - which will ultimately end up at extreme social darwinism and the conclusion that there are no ethics, no rights, no nothing except for the rule of the strongest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why *aren't* we at "extreme social darwinism" right now? What does give us this sense of ethics and rights if not merely rational self-interest? I think the idea that we act in any way other than based on what's most desirable to us is responsible for many misconceptions, and thus problems.

"Ethics," as I've said before on this forum (not really sure who all agrees), is an empty word to me. It sort of strikes me the same as "species." Actions are actions. The consequence will determine the desirability. "Ethics" only exists when you seek to conveniently classify the merits of an action. But it's nothing more than an intangible recognition of what's tangibly desirable. Since humans share the same basic condition, you can reasonably say that ~all humans will consider some actions desirable or undesirable, and that we will effectively be able to defend what is best for our prosperity (by defending what is best for ourselves). It seems (since we share the same basic condition) you needn't have anything more than self-interest to come out with this result, and the sense of "ethics" and "rights" that you're looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's an appealing thought. My only objection is that if you use at as sole foundation for a belief you will end up giving legitimacy to almost any action/outcome you can think of. Anything that is, will be a result of what people did (as you say, no ethics - only actions) so pretty much any event/regime/something would be completely legitimate simply because it exists or happened.

For instance, you are an ACer and I support the modern democratic state. Which even though the outlooks are vastly different, means we both support some basic right(s) we assume people should have - this inherently means we disagree with how some systems/societies are run and that means we both believe in something more than a basic 'darwinistic' premise.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, you are an ACer and I support the modern democratic state. Which even though the outlooks are vastly different, means we both support some basic right(s) we assume people should have - this inherently means we disagree with how some systems/societies are run and that means we both believe in something more than a basic 'darwinistic' premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

But all I need to say in response is that I am an ACist and you are a statist because we see those things to be in our rational best interest. It isn't like "I support AC, but boy would I be happy if we did X instead." Our beliefs are based on logical assessments of the conditions, and from there, we can argue the extensions of certain assumptions and discuss which ones seem to most reasonably be best. That's still rational self interest. Even if one of your factors is that you want to help other people (and think either AC or a state does that most effectively) such is ultimately still self-interest (it would just happen that helping strangers is a value of yours).

[ QUOTE ]
so pretty much any event/regime/something would be completely legitimate simply because it exists or happened

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. If something happens it happens. What do you mean when you say it's "legitimate"? Do you mean I have to like it? Of course not. But there will be consequence, and nature will decide whether the entities that are likely to engage in a certain action will be likely to survive. If it affects me, I'll act in a way that adds my 2 cents to nature's decision.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Ethics," as I've said before on this forum (not really sure who all agrees), is an empty word to me. It sort of strikes me the same as "species." Actions are actions. The consequence will determine the desirability. "Ethics" only exists when you seek to conveniently classify the merits of an action. But it's nothing more than an intangible recognition of what's tangibly desirable. Since humans share the same basic condition, you can reasonably say that ~all humans will consider some actions desirable or undesirable, and that we will effectively be able to defend what is best for our prosperity (by defending what is best for ourselves). It seems (since we share the same basic condition) you needn't have anything more than self-interest to come out with this result, and the sense of "ethics" and "rights" that you're looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
ah, memories

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha!

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, you are an ACer and I support the modern democratic state. Which even though the outlooks are vastly different, means we both support some basic right(s) we assume people should have - this inherently means we disagree with how some systems/societies are run and that means we both believe in something more than a basic 'darwinistic' premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

But all I need to say in response is that I am an ACist and you are a statist because we see those things to be in our rational best interest. It isn't like "I support AC, but boy would I be happy if we did X instead." Our beliefs are based on logical assessments of the conditions, and from there, we can argue the extensions of certain assumptions and discuss which ones seem to most reasonably be best. That's still rational self interest. Even if one of your factors is that you want to help other people (and think either AC or a state does that most effectively) such is ultimately still self-interest (it would just happen that helping strangers is a value of yours).

[ QUOTE ]
so pretty much any event/regime/something would be completely legitimate simply because it exists or happened

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. If something happens it happens. What do you mean when you say it's "legitimate"? Do you mean I have to like it? Of course not. But there will be consequence, and nature will decide whether the entities that are likely to engage in a certain action will be likely to survive. If it affects me, I'll act in a way that adds my 2 cents to nature's decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we really are on the same chain of thought, just expressing it slightly differently. Basically the foundation that 'social darwinism' ultimately exists is the way we can give our beliefs legitimacy and call them better than other alternatives - simply because they serve us and others (according to our beliefs at least) better than the alternatives.

Like I can 'democracy is better than a dictatorship because people don't get shot for having a revolutionary brother' or you could say 'AC is better than state democracy because liberty of propery and self are the ultimate human rights', and the preceding chain of thought is how we can explain those beliefs without believing in absolute ethics or morality.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
what role could it play in various arguments, such as the necessity of protecting habitat, or biodiversity

[/ QUOTE ]

Not much. Species becoming extinct is part of how the world works. Species can become extinct because they all die out, or because they evolve into another species. There are often times where species die out or change much faster than others. I don’t think it can justifiably be used the way see to want to use it.

[ QUOTE ]
99% of species are extinct

[/ QUOTE ]

How far do you need to go back in time before this ceases to be true?

I guess a few billion years, although a big confusion here is the difficulty in defining species in bacteria and archaea.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

Evolutioniary biology is one of the most interesting subjects I've studied. Jump right in to the Cambrian animal fiesta if you want total immersion. There's not enough evidence for any specific theory and there's more than enough grant money for most any idea. More phyla came and went in this scant 15 million years than in any other*. Google 'Burgess shale' and jump right in, it's quite a tale.

* InTheDark is not now and has never been a paleontologist.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

Its good to see people realize that no species lasts forever and all go extinct eventually.

The whole idea of an endangered species act is silly except for one reason: vanity.

Our vanity of preserving some species for our personal enjoyment is fine, as long as we know we are doing it for vanity and not for some greater reason.

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
Our vanity of preserving some species for our personal enjoyment is fine, as long as we know we are doing it for vanity and not for some greater reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

ONLY 99%?

Re: 99% of species are extinct
 

[ QUOTE ]
Our vanity of preserving some species for our personal enjoyment is fine, as long as we know we are doing it for vanity and not for some greater reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT...

However, biodiversity is good for us, but you don't see many people worried about the many insects species going extint every day