The variety of life on earth, its biological diversity is commonly referred to as biodiversity. The number of species of plants, animals, micro organisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, the different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rainforests and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse earth. Appropriate conservation and sustainable development strategies attempt to recognize this as being integral to any approach. Almost all cultures have in some way or form recognized the importance that nature, and its biological diversity has had upon them and the need to maintain it. Yet, power, greed and politics have affected the precarious balance.
Who Cares?
But why is biodiversity important? Does it really matter if there aren't as many species?
Biodiversity actually boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play and that it is this combination that enables the ecosystem to possess the ability to prevent and recover from a variety of disasters. This is obviously useful for mankind as a larger number of species of animals ensure that the ecosystem is naturally sustained.
Loss of Diversity and Extinctions
It is feared that human activity is causing massive extinctions. From various animal species, forests and the ecosystems that forests support, marine life. The costs associated with deteriorating or vanishing ecosystems will be high. However, sustainable development and consumption would help avert ecological problems.
Climate Change Affects Biodiversity
The world Resources Institute reports that there is a link between biodiversity and climate change. Rapid global warming can affect an ecosystems chances to adapt naturally.
Coral Reefs
One type of ecosystem that perhaps is neglected more than any other is perhaps also the richest in biodiversity--the Coral Reefs. Reefs are useful to the environment and to people in a number of ways. However, all around the world, much of the world's marine biodiversity faces threats from human activities as well as natural. It is feared that very soon, many Reefs could die off.
Water Gets Affected Too
Pollution of waters and oceans is increasing. It is easy to take clean water and regular access for granted in the developed nations. However, most of the planet's population can not get clean water.
- Anup Shah - globalissues.org
What are your thoughts on biodiversity?
What about Global Warming?
Have you recently seen an odd looking insect and thought "What the heck is that"?
Are there insects in your area that you're seeing less of each year?
Have you noticed extreme climate change in your area? Are the winters milder than they were 15 years ago?
There was a report a few days ago about the discovery of a wasp living above the Arctic Circle. Scientists are amazed, but not shocked.
Do you think our progression has destroyed the planet?
Ozone Science: The Facts Behind the Phaseout
The Earth's ozone layer protects all life from the sun's harmful radiation, but human activities have damaged this shield. Less protection from ultraviolet light will, over time, lead to higher skin cancer and cataract rates and crop damage. The U.S., in cooperation with over 160 other countries, is phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances in an effort to safeguard the ozone layer.
I. The Ozone Layer
The Earth's atmosphere is divided into several layers. The lowest region, the troposphere, extends from the Earth's surface up to about 10 kilometers (km) in altitude. Virtually all human activities occur in the troposphere. Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain on the planet, is only about 9 km high. The next layer, the stratosphere, continues from 10 km to about 50 km. Most commercial airline traffic occurs in the lower part of the stratosphere.
As shown in the graph, most atmospheric ozone is concentrated in a layer in the stratosphere, about 15-30 kilometers above the Earth's surface (graph courtesy of World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998). Ozone is a molecule containing three oxygen atoms. It is blue in color and has a strong odor. Normal oxygen, which we breathe, has two oxygen atoms and is colorless and odorless. Ozone is much less common than normal oxygen. Out of each 10 million air molecules, about 2 million are normal oxygen, but only 3 are ozone.
However, even the small amount of ozone plays a key role in the atmosphere. The ozone layer absorbs a portion of the radiation from the sun, preventing it from reaching the planet's surface. Most importantly, it absorbs the portion of ultraviolet light called UVB. UVB has been linked to many harmful effects, including various types of skin cancer, cataracts, and harm to some crops, certain materials, and some forms of marine life.
At any given time, ozone molecules are constantly formed and destroyed in the stratosphere. The total amount, however, remains relatively stable. The concentration of the ozone layer can be thought of as a stream's depth at a particular location. Although water is constantly flowing in and out, the depth remains constant.
While ozone concentrations vary naturally with sunspots, the seasons, and latitude, these processes are well understood and predictable. Scientists have established records spanning several decades that detail normal ozone levels during these natural cycles. Each natural reduction in ozone levels has been followed by a recovery. Recently, however, convincing scientific evidence has shown that the ozone shield is being depleted well beyond changes due to natural processes.
II. Ozone Depletion
For over 50 years, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were thought of as miracle substances. They are stable, nonflammable, low in toxicity, and inexpensive to produce. Over time, CFCs found uses as refrigerants, solvents, foam blowing agents, and in other smaller applications. Other chlorine-containing compounds include methyl chloroform, a solvent, and carbon tetrachloride, an industrial chemical. Halons, extremely effective fire extinguishing agents, and methyl bromide, an effective produce and soil fumigant, contain bromine. All of these compounds have atmospheric lifetimes long enough to allow them to be transported by winds into the stratosphere. Because they release chlorine or bromine when they break down, they damage the protective ozone layer. The discussion of the ozone depletion process below focuses on CFCs, but the basic concepts apply to all of the ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
In the early 1970s, researchers began to investigate the effects of various chemicals on the ozone layer, particularly CFCs, which contain chlorine. They also examined the potential impacts of other chlorine sources. Chlorine from swimming pools, industrial plants, sea salt, and volcanoes does not reach the stratosphere. Chlorine compounds from these sources readily combine with water and repeated measurements show that they rain out of the troposphere very quickly. In contrast, CFCs are very stable and do not dissolve in rain. Thus, there are no natural processes that remove the CFCs from the lower atmosphere. Over time, winds drive the CFCs into the stratosphere.
The CFCs are so stable that only exposure to strong UV radiation breaks them down. When that happens, the CFC molecule releases atomic chlorine. One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. The net effect is to destroy ozone faster than it is naturally created. To return to the analogy comparing ozone levels to a stream's depth, CFCs act as a siphon, removing water faster than normal and reducing the depth of the stream.
Large fires and certain types of marine life produce one stable form of chlorine that does reach the stratosphere. However, numerous experiments have shown that CFCs and other widely-used chemicals produce roughly 84% of the chlorine in the stratosphere, while natural sources contribute only 16%.
Large volcanic eruptions can have an indirect effect on ozone levels. Although Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption did not increase stratospheric chlorine concentrations, it did produce large amounts of tiny particles called aerosols (different from consumer products also known as aerosols). These aerosols increase chlorine's effectiveness at destroying ozone. The aerosols only increased depletion because of the presence of CFC - based chlorine. In effect, the aerosols increased the efficiency of the CFC siphon, lowering ozone levels even more than would have otherwise occurred. Unlike long-term ozone depletion, however, this effect is short-lived. The aerosols from Mt. Pinatubo have already disappeared, but satellite, ground-based, and balloon data still show ozone depletion occurring closer to the historic trend.
One example of ozone depletion is the annual ozone "hole" over Antarctica that has occurred during the Antarctic Spring since the early 1980s. Rather than being a literal hole through the layer, the ozone hole is a large area of the stratosphere with extremely low amounts of ozone. Ozone levels fall by over 60% during the worst years.
In addition, research has shown that ozone depletion occurs over the latitudes that include North America, Europe, Asia, and much of Africa, Australia, and South America. Over the U.S., ozone levels have fallen 5-10%, depending on the season. Thus, ozone depletion is a global issue and not just a problem at the South Pole.
Reductions in ozone levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years.
Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal ozone levels. It is always important to limit exposure to the sun. However, ozone depletion will increase the amount of UVB, which will then increase the risk of health effects. Furthermore, UVB harms some crops, plastics and other materials, and certain types of marine life.
It seems clear that weather patterns are changing on Earth. I don't know what anyone can do to halt the slow deterioration that has been taking place.
There will have to be some very advanced high-tech achievements to create someting to halt the changes, I am sure, you see occurring.
The earth's population is ever increasing and will occupy more and more space, need more air to breathe and food to eat. It is like a huge ocean liner that cannot be turned around quickly or halted easily from sailing its sea lanes.
Highly processed food consumption is bringing more and more illness to our population. Modern medicine is keeping them alive longer, but it doen't cure them. Ever increasing strains on health care are the result.
I could go on and on about this but I will stop now.
I believe we won't need a high tech solution to solve the problems we're introducing. In fact quite the contrary: low tech solutions could save us all. Here are the primary, self-inflicted problems we are faced with that most directly affect our quality of life as a race:
1) Unregulated greenhouse gas emissions from utility, industrial and automotive sources
2) Unregulated landfill dumping operations
3) Unregulated deforestation operations in the tropics
4) Unregulated population growth
There are solutions, but the capitalist pigs won't like it. There's not as much "easy money" in it. So our biggest challenge by far will be political in nature: getting the capitalists to realize that the problems we are faced with bear dire global consequences and are more important than making easy money by far. In fact there is a good deal of money to be had in these solutions, but it's a different kind of money, the kind that takes hard work to get; because they would much rather hardly work to get it as they do now, they will resist.
Nevertheless, here are some solutions that I think would address the four problems above and put us on a track to recovery. Though I couldn't hope to project any realistic rate of recovery, I am confident that it would indeed be a change for the positive where all do now is perpetuate the status quo.
1 - The emissions problem is directly tied to our use of combustible fuels in industry & transportaiton.
The solution is immediate reversion to an alternative energy platform. There has been tons of research on this both public and private and there are several deployable models. Anyone who has spent any amount of time researching this topic independently knows that the key factor is the establishment of infrastructure. Guess what: there is big money in the establishment of infrastructure.
The federal government should lay out a plan and force compliance no matter how much the big motor companies and civilian public utilities and such complain. The government has already taken steps in this direction by requiring automakers put a certain percentage for more fuel-efficient vehicles on the streets within certain timeframes, so we're not without precedent here. Of course they're going to complain. This would be completely stepping on their toes. But if we remember to keep our eyes on what is actually important here, it will all be worth it in the end. Auto makers can shift their focus to vehicles based on the new model. Utilities can focus on shifting their services to being supportive of the new model. Even the big oil companies can, and some have already started, adopt the new ideas to be prepared for the day when oil is only a lubricant.
If I had to predict the exact nature of the new energy platform, I'd say that it probably will involve a number of technology elements including hydgrogen-based infrastructure for transportation "fuel", hydrolytic and natural forms of hydrogen production based on natural resources (solar, heat, wind, hydro, atomic power, etc), and non-fuel-burning methods of energy production for the power grid. Add to this a wave of new, low-power devices to replace current appliances and electronics what would use a low power source such as 24-50V rather than today's 120-240V. By reducing heat loss and excessive drains from the grid, overall power output can be significantly reduced to levels easily sustainable by more energy-efficient systems. This will enable the decommissioning of older coal-burning power plants.
2 - Unregulated landfill operations are filled largely by product packagings.
The solution is two-fold.
First, it is necessary to enforce a new, recyclable product packaging standard for all commercial goods shipped and sold in the U.S. Up to now there has been ZERO regulation on what kind of packaging a company may/may not use on store shelves. A large amount of packaging is not even recyclable because of the types of materials used as well as the way in which the packaging is integrated (certain types of inks, glues, etc) that taint otherwise recyclable materials into being ultimately UNrecyclable. Today, ALL this material makes it to the dump.
Federal packaging standards would require that 100% of product packaging materials, including canning, sealing, wrapping, etc. food stuffs, and all retail products follow specific guidelines. In the same way that the FDA manages what drug products pharmaceutical companies are permitted to release to the public, a company that wishes to use some material or integration method not specifically approved for packaging would have to appeal to the regulatory commission and demonstrate recyclability in order to use it. There are many current products that this would have no impact on at all as their packagings (whether or not intentional) already meet the criteria that might be defined by regulation. Others would have to convert however. I predict that such regulation would most significantly affect manufacturers who specialize in product packaging over manufacturers of goods who must switch product packaging. Again there is an opportunity to make money in the adherence to packaging standards by way of:
a) increased volume production of more standardized packaging translates to lower costs, better profit margins on the part of both the packaging manufacturer and the product manufacturer who invests in the packaging materials.
b) 100% recyclable packaging materials translates to lower costs on sourcing raw materials for production of new packaging, further lowering operational expenses on the part of packaging manufacturers.
A more extreme implementation would also seek to regulate the types of materials and means of assembly used in consumer products in order that products can be realistically dismantled by an automated process if possible and reverted to raw material sources. This would be much more difficult to push through, but wasteful product manufacturing is also a significant contributor to landfill and resource consumption.
The second part part of the solution is a mandatory recycling program instituted at the state/city level. Residential and commercial waste would be routed through the recycling program to minimize wastes that actually make it out to landfill. Realistically there should be no reason for landfil to exist at all. Anything can be repurposed. Anything. Disintegrate something back into its constituent components and you can always crush, melt or otherwise manipulate the raw materials into a form which can be reused. Organic wastes should be separated for composting, everything else can be boxed up and shipped back out as raw materials to manufacturers offering the highest bid.
Ultimately we can reduce and even put a permanent end to landfill operations by employing existing recycling technologies on a massive scale which employs workers and reduces our dependence on untapped domestic and foreign natural resources. Other than possibly some increase in rates to offset build-out and operational costs, this program would have no impact on businesses or residents as they would continue to use the normal waste management program as usual - the waste management program itself is what is to be revised. There are some places in the U.S. that already implement a program like this with tremendous success. New York City is one of them.
3 - Unregulated deforestation operations in the tropics affects us all.
Unlike the deciduous trees here in the North America and Europe the tropics are always green. The significance of this is that tropical plants filter contaminants from the air all year round where deciduous trees which lose their leaves seasonally re-release all the carbon that they capture right back into the air as the leaves decay each year. This shows that bigger, ever-green plantlife is instrumental in trapping carbon over long periods making them an important biological timing device of the planetary carbon cycle. By wiping out these forests, we have significantly damaged this timing device, but not irreversibly.
Because of their significance to our habitable biosphere, I don't see tropical forests as being the exclusively the rightful property of the countries in which they reside. I see them as property of all things living, including every person on this planet - and that we all have a vested interest in ensuring protection and restoration. Don't call me a tree-hugger because I'm not stating this out of my unconditional love for life and want for protecting all the poor, sad trees that have every right to live as we do - I'm saying it because we NEED these forests to survive.
The problem comes once again back to economics. The rainforests provide a surplus of wealth in lumber and other products to those willing to harvest and sell it.
I think we can get around this by working with the governments of countries with prevailing tropical rain forests to protect them. If we bring alternative revenue streams to those places, the rain forests harvesting will become less required for the underlying economy of the region. We are already inadvertently on the cusp of making this happen with the onset of globalisation in industry. A concerted effort to bring out-sourced operations in manufacturing and technology sectors to those places with large, available labor forces who would otherwise be contributing to the further demise of the natural lands around them would work wonders for this goal. The micro-economy would be driven by industry and once established, it would be a simple matter to introduce tourism & hospitality. We're talking big bucks here! It is an opportunity for the regional fat-cats to get fat on something else while doing their country, their kin, and the world at large a favor. And with the country's government in agreement to the plan, he'd also be in compliance with the government's objectives.
4 - Unregulated population growth needs to slow, even reverse in order for us to remain a sustainable society.
If you've ever seen the result of a single weavel left undisturbed in a bag of grain, you have witnessed what amounts to a miniaturized version of exactly what is happening with the human race: while resources appear plentiful and breeding continues, the population will eventually out-match the available resources until the population cannot be sustained and the entire population dies off for lack of resources. Of course a bag of wheat chaff and bugs has no means of replacing the resources that it consumes, however even if they could replace the resources, if their breeding continued unchecked, the bag would literally pop and spill bugs all over the cabinet. As humans, we have nowhere to spill over to when our bag pops. We have nowhere to escape to. We won't be able to colonize other worlds and just make the same thick-headed mistakes there. The Earth is our home and we MUST make it work for ourselves!
More is NOT merrier, people. We can hardly be merry amongst ourselves. Adding more just multiplies the weight of the problems that we are faced with.
Education is one possible key to controlling population growth. Of course we are faced with a number of challenges of bringing improved education to the children in this country, and even moreso in third world countries where education is typically reserved for the well-off. In our quest for spreading the reach and depth of education offered to our children, I believe an initiative should be made to explain the problems associated with unchecked population growth. By discouraging recreational sex and unplanned pregnancies and providing inscentives for young adults to remain single and independent without want for upsetting their own lives with a child that they are not ready to care for as a single parent, we may be able to make a significant impact on the number of children born each year without having to consider more drastic options like government regulated and licensed birthing.
Conclusion
Some of the things I describe here may sound somewhat extreme in scope, but I cant imagine any more resonable, approachable methods to solving each of the four problems that are among the most critical for our long-term survival interests. The reports and studies from researchers and naturalists over the years have not been designed to instill some unfounded phobia as to the fate of the planet. They are realistic, scientific assessments of what is going on around us. To ignore the problems is to ignor the fate of your own children, grandchildren. No right-minded parent can honestly say they don't care what their child has to deal with when they grow up because it's not their problem. As parents we strive to make things easier and more attainable for our children. That makes their problems tomorrow, your problem today.
Many people recognize the severity of the unfolding situation, but feel helpless to make a difference. Instead of taking action, they simply hope that someone else more knowledgable or capable will make it better. This is something like expecting someone else to vote for the President for you because you feel like your vote doesn't count. If you recognize the problem, but don't feel that you can personally have a significant impact, at least shoot for a minor impact. Collectively, minor impacts in volume add up to major impacts. If you see a program or idea being promoted that you think sounds like a good idea, the very least you can do is express to others your support and optimism for that program. Maybe you can make a financial contribution. Maybe you can do promotional work. Maybe you can volunteer. You can't take on the world by yourself. That's why I'm here doing my part to encourage you to do the same!
You can make a difference, even if it is just encouraging others to try to make a difference themselves. Who knows? Maybe one day in the chain of people who you've encouraged to be more proactive, THE one person who will change it all will receive the needed encouragement to revolutionize our whole way of thinking. Your own child could be President one day, so do what you can!
I am in complete amazement of your post! It's so very nice to know there are realists like you in this world! The people who don't see the importance of doing anything, even a small amount, think the rest of us are unrealistic dreamers.
The city I grew up in initiated a groundbreaking recycling program eight years ago. It was supposed to be the "test" city for the Wet/Dry program. Although recycling basic things, like cans, bottles and cardboard had been underway for many years, the Wet/Dry program, which has been very successful, was turned down by other major cities in North America. The main concern was that it was too much of a burden, and that people didn't want to devote the extra few minutes a day it would take to assign wet and dry materials to the appropriate places. Each residential compost bin is contained outside of the home. It was considered unfair and too much work for people, after eating an enormous meal, to have to walk a few steps from their front doors to "feed" the earth with their own consumable waste. Thankfully, the requirements for landfill space in one Canadian City, have been reduced drastically in the eight years since its inception. But all of that has no significant value to the "capitalist pigs" who govern other cities. They make too much money by charging people to dispose of waste in designated landfill areas. If they could put aside their greed and look at the bigger picture, they would see that this particular recycling program will save money over the long haul. It will extend the life of an existing landfill, which will avoid the high cost of trucking garbage long distances, or having to build a new landfill. Wet/Dry recycling will save an averaged sized city $600 million in waste export over two decades, as well as recover $65 million in reusable materials each year. The plan, developed with environmental consultants, can divert 75% of garbage and yard waste from landfills through using a combination of recycling and composting.
It all seems very reasonable to me, but some people just aren't willing to put their precious time and energy into something that doesn't serve the immediate need! Our present existence is just a speck on the map of humanity. You are so right that by ignoring the problem now is ignoring the fate of our children and grandchildren. If we don't make changes now, what will the world be like for our grandchildren's children?
I believe you were correct when you said New York had adopted that particular recycling system. I'm not sure of which New York city is doing it, but I have heard there is at least one city in New York doing it.
I've revised/corrected the post above as I didn't have time to go back and edit after my first pass when I wrote it. I would like to add the following thought to the section on population control & education, just before the conclusion - the message is too long to add it in directly, so I'll add it here:
quote:
Furthermore, I believe that this focus of attention could be focused on girls/women. Of the two genders, females are the ones who bear children. What's more is that girls tend to have a significantly higher degree of control in this regard; where young males younger than 30 are typically highly sexually driven, the females, though they are also interested in the same, don't expend nearly the effort or attention on sexual gratification, preferring quality of relationships over simple sexual pleasure. It is the combination of these elements that I feel puts females in the best position to control population growth. Generally, males just can't exhert enough self control. This is why you hear about dirty old men in alley ways raping women, but you've never heard of a dirty old woman raping men. The behavior is intrinsic to the genetic programming for the gender. Though this does not excuse men behaving badly, it does serve to illustrate that women will be more receptive and conscientious of pensive guidance. They should be taught how to defend themselves against aggressive men, and all the "ins and outs" (so to speak) of intercourse, pregnancy, bearing children, becoming a parent, and all the permutations therein.
I'm not speaking for all governments of the world, but rather the governments of Western Civilization.
Why should they care or invest the time and cost associated with educating people on population control? It's much easier and "cost effective" to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on space programs to find another planet that can sustain human life. When we've overpopulated and destroyed the Earth, we can all just hitch a ride to the next life sustaining planet. Why stop with Earth when we can destroy and overpopulate the entire Universe?
Humans have the unfortunate ability to control the order of things. Even small voices can make a large difference. The challenge is being heard by the people who have the power to institute change.
There may be a problem with the reasoning that more responsibility lies on girls/women. While they are the ones that bear children, it still does take two (usually) to tango, and putting the majority (or a larger helping) of the responsibility of population control on the women of a society I think might be negligent in a sense.
I think that "men behaving badly" is an area of refuge for some men who just would rather NOT take the mature approach, and think with their big (or bigger) head. I agree that certain genetic factors may play a role in male libido or sex-drive, but I think that part of being an "enlightened" species is overcoming some of our pre-programmed responses to such things as sex and sexuality.
I also think that the issue of population control may very well be the MOST THREATENING, because while the other major issues relate to things that we do out of greed, this one relates to part of what we were physically and psychologically DESIGNED to do...
Biomimicry (from bios , meaning life, and mimesis , meaning to imitate) is a new science that studies nature's best ideas and then imitates these designs and processes to solve human problems. Studying a leaf to invent a better solar cell is an example. I think of it as "innovation inspired by nature."
The core idea is that nature, imaginative by necessity, has already solved many of the problems we are grappling with. Animals, plants, and microbes are the consummate engineers. They have found what works, what is appropriate, and most important, what lasts here on earth. This is the real news of biomimicry: After 3.8 billion years of research and development, failures are fossils, and what surrounds us is the secret to survival.
Like the viceroy butterfly imitating the monarch, we humans are imitating the best and brightest organisms in our habitat. We are learning, for instance, how to harness energy like a leaf, grow food like a prairie, build ceramics like an abalone, self-medicate like a chimp, compute like a cell, and run a business like a hickory forest.
The conscious emulation of life's genius is a survival strategy for the human race, a path to a sustainable future. The more our world looks and functions like the natural world, the more likely we are to endure on this home that is ours, but not ours alone.
Here is the link for the full explanation as well as much more information on biomimicry.
Sierradaddy said this in post #10 : There may be a problem with the reasoning that more responsibility lies on girls/women. While they are the ones that bear children, it still does take two (usually) to tango, and putting the majority (or a larger helping) of the responsibility of population control on the women of a society I think might be negligent in a sense.
I think that "men behaving badly" is an area of refuge for some men who just would rather NOT take the mature approach, and think with their big (or bigger) head. I agree that certain genetic factors may play a role in male libido or sex-drive, but I think that part of being an "enlightened" species is overcoming some of our pre-programmed responses to such things as sex and sexuality.
I also think that the issue of population control may very well be the MOST THREATENING, because while the other major issues relate to things that we do out of greed, this one relates to part of what we were physically and psychologically DESIGNED to do...
I Fully agree with all your statements above and took them into consideration before I wrote the above piece. My instinct tells me that we will never be an enlightened race and that we must learn to accept who we are now as who we will be forever. I believe that men will always be chemically, physiologically, psychologically less in control of themselves than women are. While some of us have the capacity for it, others just, plain don't. Just as some people have a perpensity towards artistry or athleticism or intellect - some people are just incapable of the self control we're after and I personally believe that the vast majority of those people are men.
You're right though in that males could be included in the education I am suggesting, but I think the angle would be significantly different and that the sexes should be segregated for focused, unembarassing discussion. It shouldn't be a secret what each is being told from the other - segregation would allow more direct addressing that doesn't exclude 50% of the audience every time the topic switches genders.
More than 32 percent of species threatened worldwide, study finds
The associated Press - Oct. 14, 2004
Washington - Frogs, newts and other amphibians are becoming threatened worldwide, and their rapid decline appears to be worsening, a team of researches reported Thursday.
"What we're seeing here is completely unprecedented declines and extinction," said Simon N. Stuart of the World Conservation Union, lead researcher on the study.
These declines are "outside our normal experience," Stuart said in a telephone interview.
Causes remain a mystery
There are a variety of reasons for some losses, while others remain a mystery, the group reports in a paper being published online by the Journal Science.
Amphibians have porous skins and narrow environmental requirements, and their decline may be an indication that something sinister is under way in the environment, Simon said.
"Where amphibians proceed, others may follow, possibly us also," he said.
The researchers reprted that 1,856 species, 32.5 percent of the known species of amphibians, are "globally threatened," meaning they fall into the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's categories of vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered. By comparison, 12 percent of bird species and 23 percent of mammal species are threatened.
The researchers reported 435 amphibian species are in rapid decline, at least nine species have gone extinct since 1980 and another 113 species have not been reported from the wild in recent years and are considered to be possibly extinct.
Their findings, called the Global Amphibians Assessment, were compiled by more than 500 scientists in 60 countries.
In deep trouble
"All in all, amphibians are certainly in deep trouble in many areas, for a whole suite of reasons," said Ross A. Alford, a professor of tropical biology at James Cook University in Australia. Alford, who was not a co-author of the report, said via e-mail that the study "has done a good job of documenting (the decline), and also of pointing out how much more we need to know to really understand the scale of the problem and begin to attempt to solve it."
Indeed, he added, the report may even understate the problem due to the patchiness of knowledge of amphibians.
"It is quite possible that there are as-yet large-scale...declines, similar to those that have been documented for Australia and the New World tropics, that are occurring or have occurred" elsewhere, said Alford, author of a 1999 study of amphibian decline.
Trevor Beebee of the University of Sussex in England added that amphibians may be a type of warning, like the canaries miners used to take with them because the birds are more sensitive than people to the dangerous gases that can occur in mines.
"In my view this assessment of amphibian declines is very important, because it quantifies an extremely worrying set of observations," Beebee said via e-mail. "Amphibians are declining in many places all over the world, often in areas where we might expect human effects to be minimal."
Exploitation, habitat loss contributing factors
The new paper concludes that while exploitation and loss of habitat are factors in some losses, other declines remain enigmatic, occurring for unknown reasons.
Overexploited species are concentrated in East and Southeast Asia, where frogs are harvested for food, the report says. Habitat loss occurs more widely, but especially in Southeast Asia, West Africa and the Caribbean, it adds.
A major concern, the researchers say, are the enigmatic declines and disappearances occurring in North and South America, Puerto Rico and Australia.
"Such declines have taken place even within well-protected areas, such as Yosemite National Park (California), Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve (Costa Rica) and Eungella National Park (Australia)," the researchers wrote.
Some studies have associated these unexpected declines with a fungal disease that tends to occur at higher elevations and streamside locations, the report notes. Beebee also suggested subtle effects of climate change may also be at work.
Funding for the Global Amphibian Assessment was provided by the Moore Family Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Conservation International, MAVA Foundation, U.S. State Department, Regina Bauer Frankenberg Foundation for Animal Welfare, National Science Foundation, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, television producer George Meyer, conservation supporters Ben and Ruth Hammett and the Disney Foundation.
09-16-2004 10:02 PM
