THE WORLD IS COMING TO ITS TRAGIC END...........BEWARE
Mar 10 '05
The Bottom Line Ever cared about biodiversity? Neither did I.
Well, I'm in school again, so what does that mean? More papers to write, YEY! I just finished this one up, and thought I might share these interesting and scary facts with you. Although I could have written a much better and more interesting paper given if I'd spent more than one day writing it I think. I haven't gotten a grade back, will late you know. And obviously, I have a few opposing viewpoints from what I've written, but I knew my teacher wanted to only here one viewpoint (mainly his), so....
You might not make it through this whole paper (or even the whole paragraph), and if you don't, no hard feelings. Writing this bored me to tears. But I just had to post it because after so much work, it is kind of upsetting to think that only one person (the teacher) will be reading my paper. So ladies and gents, here it is:
The biodiversity crisis that is so often spoken of these days is something to think aboutno. Almost every week, we can read or hear about another species becoming extinct, how little is left of nature’s resources on this planet, or how we are in grave peril from the damage we are doing to the ecosystem.
Biodiversity is the variability between all species living together in a specific area and time (Starr 2005). But biodiversity is much more than its definition would signify. It is what holds the world together. It is the interaction of all species living together in a certain period of time, and what they offer to each other. All of the different species’ interactions with each other result in a healthy and necessary exchange that stabilizes our environment and makes life possible on this planet.
This is why biodiversity is so often spoken of in the context of extinction. If a certain species becomes extinct, even the smallest of fungi, who is to say what kind of damage it might have on the rest of its environment? For example, the introduction of the non-native African big-headed ant (Pheidole megacephala) in Hawaii has led to the destruction of most of the native insects, which eventually led to the disappearance of a lot of the native flora and birds. Pheidole megacephala killed a lot of the native insects, who served as pollinators of the native flora, thus hindering the rate of reproduction and removing most of the food for the native birds, thus starving them to death (Wilson 2002).
Scientists have become increasingly alarmed by the current extinction rate. Most people do not understand this alarm because there has been a huge history of extinction throughout Earth’s long life. But as it turns out, scientists have been able to come up with a ‘natural’ background extinction rate -- this is the normal rate of extinction, without interference from humans. Scientists are greatly alarmed because the current extinction rate is several hundred times the ‘natural’ background extinction rate, according to The Extinction Files website. According to Edward O. Wilson, the ‘natural’ background extinction rate was one species per million species per year and since human intervention, it is somewhere between one thousand and ten thousand times the ‘natural’ rate (2002).
There are certain parts of the world which are host to the biggest number of differing species. It has typically been found that the number of coexisting species is most eminent in the tropics, and that this number declines the farther you get from the equator. This phenomena is caused by at least two things: first, resource availability and reliability is better than elsewhere, and second, it is believed that the diversity of species is self-reinforcing (Starr 2005). Specifically, the tropical rainforests are host to more than half the known species of organisms (Wilson 2002).
Strangely enough, the parts of the world which have been host to the greatest number of extinctions are islands, even though they only make up a tiny bit of Earth’s surface (Starr 2005). Extinction on islands (especially the smaller ones) is greatest because when disease or non-native species are introduced, or when there are severe storms or volcanic eruptions, the species have nowhere else to go (Wilson 2002).
The Biodiversity crisis is caused by many different factors. Edward O. Wilson talks about an acronym used by conservation biologists to accurately define the causes of this crisis: HIPPO. This acronym stands for Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Population, and Overharvesting (2002). All of these factors come together to create the current extinction rate so feared by scientists. Habitat destruction means that a certain species has nowhere to live and therefore has no protection against predators and the like. Invasive species means that a non-native species is introduced somewhere it should not be, and kills off the native species. Pollution, which may not directly kill a certain species, enhances the likelihood that a frog (for example) may become infected by certain fungi that never bothered it before, or the pollution could directly kill the frog too (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers 2005). Population and Overharvesting are part of the same problem. The more people are on this planet, the more resources are needed, so the more are used up.
Even though biodiversity seems to be getting bigger, it is only because there are so many species that are already in existence that keep being discovered. Overall, however, conditions are getting worse as we use up Earth’s natural resources and destroy a delicate balance of the environment.
Of course, there are some benefits that are derived from the process of the biodiversity crisis. We need certain resources to sustain our lives and make them easier and more practical. The ever-constant need for timber or space has led to the present’s near-vanishment of Earth’s forests. Large mammals are either extinct or on the endangered species list because they were killed because of a need for food, clothing, protection (if they were a nuisance), specific properties (ivory, for example) or just for sport and entertainment. Obviously, there are certain things that humans cannot go without, like timber or meat. When the Dodo birds were killed on the island of Mauritius, it was because they were not able to fly, walked pretty slowly, therefore they were an easy source of food for the sailors(Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers 2005).
Most nations, companies and individuals benefit from the exploitation of Earth’s natural resources, not just the wealthy nations, as one would think. Poor citizens are forced to use the Earth’s resources to earn a living. For example, if they know they can get a very good price from killing an endangered or rare species, or if they must clear away some forest land to make room for raising their crops (Starr 2005). Some of them do not think that they have much of a choice in the matter.
Rich nations, societies and companies also benefit greatly from exploiting biodiversity. Pharmaceutical companies might use endangered plants for certain drugs that might cure some diseases, for example.
However, the biggest problem with all of this is that the majority of humans are completely anthropocentric, believing that nature’s resources are at their entire dispositions and ignoring the needs of the multitude of other life present on Earth. A great deal of people’s religion and culture dictates that nature is here for it to be utilized and exploited by humans, so that is the way they treat nature. But they do not realize that, because of the way biodiversity works, what they are inflicting upon nature will affect them also.
The costs of biodiversity loss are numerous indeed. By extinguishing these numerous species, like plants, insects, mammals, and fungi, there are already harmful impacts on the environment. But what about the harmful costs of biodiversity loss that we have not yet noticed or experienced? Scientists are sure that the price that we pay for biodiversity loss is a huge impediment on the food chains that all species, including mammals, depend upon (Wilkinson 1996).
By killing off plants, we are losing a precious part of the functioning of our environment. Deforestation of an area most likely means that the living creatures in that forest are going to perish because of habitat destruction (Starr 2005). So not only are we losing precious trees and plants, but everything else that lives in those areas as well. By exterminating plants and trees, we are also losing natural oxygen producers. And what about medical treatments, possible cures for cancer, and less importantly, beauty products? A lot of them come from plants too, many of which are now endangered (Shah 2004).
There is a massive chain of events possible in biodiversity loss. Imagine that a certain species of insects become extinct. Then so might the flowers and plants they helped polinate, then the birds that fed on these insects, then some larger mammals that fed on these birds, and so on for numerous amounts of species.
This loss affects humans directly too, besides using plants for medical cures. If trees that border a little river are removed, all of a sudden the river will grow smaller and smaller until there is no water left because the trees created shade for the water. So then we are left without a source of water for us and the livestock that depends on it (Starr 2005).
And apart from the precious species that are becoming extinct, what about the natural resources that we mistakenly think is infinite, but that are being used up at an exponential rate? The population of the world is growing at a huge rate. With already over six billion people on this planet rapidly draining Earth’s natural resources, it is estimated that the population in 2030 will be at ten billion people (Maruska 1999). How are we to support ten billion people on this planet when we are already having difficulty finding adequate resources for six billion people? Where are we to find enough timber, livestock, grain, petroleum, arable land, etc when we are wasting and destroying the little we have left?
Biodiversity loss impacts life on Earth in a tremendous way. What we are losing will take, as scientists have discovered from previous mass extinctions, that the richness of biodiversity takes millions of years to evolved back to where it should be (Wilson 2002). Something needs to be done because if the rest of the world were to conform to the levels of consumption that the United States are at, it would take four more planet Earths (Wilson 2002). We are currently looking at possibilities of life on other planets (namely Mars), but is it possible, how long before it is possible, and obviously, one planet would not suffice our current needs.
Considering the fact that there are ways to exploit natural resources while still preserving them, the cost/benefit ratio of the current trends are completely uneven. Human industrial activity can go on while minimizing the costs inflicted on biodiversity. The most important factor is that the human population needs to make radical changes in the way they exploit resources. Several tactics have already proven very effective.
By being careful about what we come across, we might discover very welcome editions to our species list. For example, a man discovered by accident a different kind of corn that was growing in a tiny area that was going to be burned down a week later. This extraordinary corn, Zea diploperennis, resists disease and endures more than one growing season (Starr 2005). Think about the consequences of this corn on starving nations? What if it had been exterminated without anyone knowing about it? And there might be more species like this just waiting to be discovered if we are careful and clever about it.
Strip logging -- a method of preserving trees from forests while still using its resources (timber) by utilizing a certain methadology that helps regenerate new trees while the old ones are being cut down -- has proven very successful too (Starr 2005).
Riparian zone restorations would be very helpful environmental efforts to upphold biodiversity. A riparian zone is the vegetation that surrounds small streams of water. These areas often get completely emptied of vegetation by cattle because cattle congregates and spend most of their time around these areas since they offer sources of water, shade, and food. After the a while, all the vegetation is gone, and so are the many birds and wildlife and water that were protected by the shade. Simple solutions to this problem would be to restrict the access of these riparian zones, provide different watering sites that are away from these zones, or simply just rotating the cattle.
The Endangered Species Act, put into law in 1973, has placed almost one thousand species on the endangered or threatened lists (Kahn 1999). Almost half of these species are regaining strength in numbers. From this list, only seven species have succombed to extinction (Turback 1997). These are great feats which could be improved with more involvment.
Edward O. Wilson provides several interesting insights into how we could improve our current bleak environmental future. He believes that we can make conservation profitable by raising the income of people who live in or around reserves and getting them interested (possibly even professionaly) in the protection of their environment. Wilson also proposes that we use biodiversity to our advantage by enlarging biotechnology to develop new eadables, pharmaceuticals and timber (2002).
People, especially in the western world, have to change the way they think to truly improve things as far as consumerism goes. And governments and religious institutions must inforce these changes. The United States is a swarm of hungry consumers that seem to have their eyes bigger than their stomaches. For the human population to have the smallest chance of survival, we must all take part in helping biodiversity out. Mother Nature needs a helping hand.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Theabee
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Thea
Location: New York City
Reviews written: 95
Trusted by: 94 members
About Me:
I like the idea of being paid to pontificate.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.