Extinction

Kill Yourself to Protect Biodiversity

|

Giant Moa
New Zealand Post

All right, the headline not exactly what a new study, "Social-Ecological Predictors of Global Invasions and Extinctions," in the journal Ecology and Society recommends. The study, however, does claim that longer human lives is a significant factor in falling global biodiversity. From the study:

As human life expectancy increases, the percentage of invasive and endangered birds and mammals within a country increases…

We found a positive relationship between life expectancy and the percentage of endangered and invasive species in a country… The overall trend in high-income countries with improvements to the Human Development Index, which includes human life expectancy as one of its variables, is toward a disproportionately larger negative impact on a country's ecological footprint…. Increased life expectancy means that people live longer and affect the planet longer; each year is another year of carbon footprint, ecological footprint, use of natural resources, etc. The magnitude of this impact is increased as more people live longer.

So on this analysis, one could logically conclude that shortening human lives might be one way to preserve species.

I further note that the study focuses a lot on the biodiversity trends in New Zealand:

New Zealand has had a massive invasion by nonindigenous species since its human colonization in the past 700 to 800 years, and this has resulted in catastrophic biodiversity loss. New Zealand's invasive species crisis may be due in large part to its isolation, high endemism, and recent human colonization. Island ecosystems are often the most invaded and consequently the most threatened worldwide.

Catastrophic biodiversity loss? It is true that lots of local species have gone extinct in New Zealand, e.g., giant moas that ended their days in Maori cooking pots. However, one measure of biodiversity is "species richness" defined as the number of different species represented in an ecological community, landscape or region. By that measure, modern humans have been dramatically increasing biodiversity nearly everywhere including New Zealand.

Consider that in California an additional 1,000 new species of vascular plants have joined the 6,000 native species in the Golden State, and so far as is known, only 40 species have gone extinct. Similar increases in plant diversity can be seen around the globe. For example, New Zealand's 2,000 native plant species have been joined by 2,000 from elsewhere, doubling the plant biodiversity of its islands. Meanwhile only 3 species of native plants have gone extinct. Similarly, the number of plant species living on the landscape in Hawaii has increased from 1,300 to 2,300.

For more background on the trend toward increasing local biodiversity see my article, "Invasion of the Invasive Species."

Advertisement

NEXT: Obama and Republicans Struggling To Reach Shutdown, Debt Limit Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ron,

    The environmental movement has a very strange view of mankind. Instead of viewing mankind as a part of nature and having a duty to interact with nature to do the least damage within reason, the way the old conservationists viewed things, environmentalists view man as being something apart from and alien to nature. To the modern environmentalist, man’s presence alone is a harm. This is why they object to things like cutting down brush to control forest fires. It doesn’t matter to an environmentalist that such actions keep the forest in better shape and is good for the environment. To environmentalists, man acting on the environment at all is wrong. Man is not part of the environment but an alien and invasion thing. So man shouldn’t manage the environment. He should remove himself from it as much as possible. When you understand that, it is easy to see how both profoundly anti human environmentalists are and how dangerous the movement really can be.

    1. I tries explaining how plastic is as natural and organic as locally grown kale to a hippie friend of mine the other day. And then as luck would have it, he stumbled across this space story, but he still wouldn’t admit he was wrong.

      http://www.space.com/23008-sat…..dient.html

      The point being that extreme environmentalists are like far left liberals (redundant probably, I know) in that even when you show how and why they are wrong they still won’t concede. And these Malthusians are never going to stop arguing that humans are the “killing the earth”.

      1. That is because you don’t see anything inherently wrong with something being man made. Your hippie friend does. It doesn’t matter that plastic isn’t harmful. Man made it and that is enough to make it bad in his view.

        1. Yeah but think of those poor, retarded ducklings along the beach with a ring of plastic around their necks or some shit.

          1. Natural selection in action – it even makes animals that can co-exist with us.

            Brings a smile to my face and a spring to my step.

        2. I always bring dams into the picture. Landslides ok, earthquakes ok, beavers ok, but human dams are artificial, even when made with just logs and rocks?

          1. Don’t kid yourself, those beavers are next.

            1. “We are reporting that beaver terrorist blew up the dam and flooded the town.”

          2. Dams in most cases would not exist without subsidies. Fuck dams.

            1. I’m pretty sure most dams in the US are privately funded farm dams that hold back springs to provide water to livestock.

    2. …”having a duty to interact with nature to do the least damage within reason,”
      I see no “duty” whatsoever.

      1. I use the term loosely. I think that there is a moral duty not to just indiscriminately destroy nature. Other creatures are life forms too and have value and dignity of their own. Also, I think we do have a duty to leave the world in somewhat good order for the people who follow us.

        1. Also, I think we do have a duty to leave the world in somewhat good order for the people who follow us.

          Key distinction from all the environmentalist crap. Nature doesn’t really give a shit what we do.

        2. Other creatures are life forms too and have value and dignity of their own.

          They have value to humans to the extent that humans value them, or will value them in the future (the close brush with extinction that buffalo suffered was an example of very short sighted hunters ignoring the future value of that species).

          Dignity? You’re projecting. There’s no dignity in the myriad of parasites infesting people and killing us or making us sick. Mosquitoes have no dignity. They could all fucking die if I had my druthers.

          1. I am not projecting at all. A deer or cougar or whatever is just as much a “life” as I am. Sure, he doesn’t have my intelligence or sentience. But he is alive. And he does deserve respect even if not full human rights. If you say they have no dignity or inherent value, you are saying that it is perfectly okay to be as cruel or as destructive to animals as one chooses to be. That killing animals is no different than digging a hole.

            1. Whitetails are a pest species around here. Killing them is no different from digging a hole, only it’s less work.

            2. Why do animals have more dignity (as lifeforms) than vegetables or fungii?

              Is it because they are more similar and relatable to us? If you dig a hole, how many earthworms will you kill, how many roots will you cut?

              If you say a deer is just as much of a life as you are, aren’t yeast also?

              1. Because they are have higher intelligence and are further up the sentience scale that fungi.

                If you think animals are no different than fungus, you are either lying or really a sick fuck who has no understanding of life or the value of anything beyond yourself.

                1. Have you ever heard of alleopathy?

                  A dust mite is an animal. I am not so sure that dust mites have any greater sentience than a venus fly trap.

                  It’s easier for us to appreciate the sentience of a dust mite because it is closer to what we are – animals.

                  But there is real evidence to show that plants possess a sentience beyond what we have always appreciated. They are not as animated (they ain’t animals), but if you step on one, it may scream chemically, and warn it’s comrades to raise their defenses. No shit. Seriously.

                  1. Sorry.

                    Allelopathy.

                  2. There are lots and lots of chemical reactions happening in us that we are completely unaware of, the ones that do produce experience/emotion/sensation are ones to do with nervous system tissue and certain parts of the brain. This is common to almost all animals and absent in plants. I’m not saying plants are not sentient but it is a complete toss up where as with animals it is almost a certainty.

                    If we ever discover that there is actual sentience in plants then I would support humane treatment of them just as I do for animals now. I would not use it to justify any and all acts of wanton cruelty as seems to be true of most people who try to bring this point up.

                    1. I do not justify acts of wanton cruelty. Well, depends on what you mean by ‘cruelty’.

                      I’m not for torturing anything for fun because I’m not a sadist.

                      But if I ate you, I’m guessing that would be considered ‘cruel’. Certainly it’s not nice. So some cruelty is unavoidable in life. Life is cruel. Humans can’t survive save but by praying on other life forms.

                      Some people think it’s cruel to eat cows, but they don’t show any sympathy for the poor carrots they keep devouring.

                    2. That is because we know for sure that cows feel much pain and suffering when they get their horns seared off, branded, stuck in a crate for months, separated from young, fattened on a diet that gives them ulcers, get infections due to excessively large udders, castrated, starved while being transported for days in heat or cold, and finally shot multiple times with a bolt gun because a min wager doesn’t know how or care to use it right before having its neck cut while still conscious in some cases.

                      It is far less likely a carrot can feel these sensations, and regardless even if they could alot would have to be fed to cows anyway so it still would not be an argument for eating meat.

                      “So some cruelty is unavoidable in life. Life is cruel. ”

                      True but it should be minimized, we don’t go around raping and killing humans just because life is cruel. We actively oppose those things precisely because they are cruel.

                    3. That is because we know for sure that cows feel much pain and suffering

                      That’s because they’re animated about it. As animals ourselves, we understand what moving and making noises means in terms of emotion. We can understand it better because it’s similar to how we communicate.

                      Myself I am quite positive plants feel pain. We don’t appreciate it as much because it’s harder for us to grasp emotion conveyed through smell or the emission of certain chemical compounds. That’s foreign to us, so it’s easier to ignore and pretend like plants aren’t REAL life. But they are, and they do certainly sense when they are being damaged or preyed upon.

                      Plants absolutely DO respond to external stimulus. Just not in ways we are typically familiar with.

                    4. “the emission of certain chemical compounds.”

                      Like I said there are lots of varied chemical reactions going on in our body that we are unconscious of, they are purely chemical. So while it is possible that plants have some sort of consciousness, the fact that they have chemicals that react with other chemicals isn’t enough to indicate this. If you squeeze an atomizer it shoots out a spray of perfume, perhaps it is conscious, but it seems less likely than something with a nervous system which is know to produce pain experience.

                      Also there is still the point that even given they are conscious animals have to eat a whole lot of plants to produce a little meat so the person eating the carrot is still less cruel than the beef eater(who imo is less cruel than someone who eats eggs.)

                    5. alot would have to be fed to cows anyway

                      And the cows must be fed to dogs anyway too.

                    6. What’s the point of not eating cows if it doesn’t allow you to avoid having to kill and eat things that feel pain?

                      Instead of being speciesist you’re just being kingdomist. Most people don’t want to eat their own species. Maybe you don’t want to eat anything in your whole kingdom, but you still have to prey on something, and the justification is the same (it’s different than us). Degree not kind.

                    7. “What’s the point of not eating cows if it doesn’t allow you to avoid having to kill and eat things that feel pain?”

                      I addressed this twice now with the amount of plants a cow would have to eat. I’m not anti-specieism, I’m anti-sentientism.

                    8. From wikipedia:

                      In botany, plant perception is the ability of plants to sense the environment and adjust their morphology, physiology and phenotype accordingly.[1] Research draws on the fields of plant physiology, ecology and molecular biology. Examples of stimuli which plants perceive and can react to include chemicals, gravity, light, moisture, infections, temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations, parasite infestation, physical disruption, and touch. Plants have a variety of means to detect such stimuli and a variety of reaction responses or behaviors.

                    9. (continuing)

                      Plants are not passive entities merely subject to environmental forces, nor are they ‘automata’-like organisms based only on reflexes and optimised solely for accumulation of photosynthate. Plants respond sensitively to environmental stimuli by movement and changes in morphology. They signal and communicate within and among themselves as they actively compete for limited resources, both above and below ground. In addition, plants accurately compute their circumstances, use sophisticated cost?benefit analysis and take tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control diverse environmental stressors. Plants are also capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of ‘learning’ (registering memories) from their past experiences.[28][29][30] Plants use this information to update their behaviour in order to survive present and future challenges of their environment. Plants are also capable of refined recognition of self and non-self, and are territorial in behaviour.

                    10. So, if you believe the modern science on plants, can you really say they don’t feel pain? Of course they do.

                      If you don’t believe these observations, you’re probably not abnormal. Most people discount plants.

                      But this is not routed in some ulterior motive of mine to justify torture of cows or some shit. I base my views of plants on the actual botany. Whether you believe it or not, plants actually do all sorts of things that would shock the shit out of you. They shocked the shit out of me when I learned about it.

                    11. When a virus attacks one of my cells my body mounts a defense, there are chemicals released and specialized cells that may attack and my cells/body even learns(ie produces certain antigens that are remembered if a similar virus attacks again) and yet I’m completely unaware of any of this happening.
                      If however the battle gets severe and my cells are expending large amounts of energy I may heat up and some molecules will bounce into my nervous system faster and I will perceive this as heat which may become uncomfortable.
                      So all of those things happening and I don’t perceive it until it affects nerves/brain.

                      Again not disagreeing that plants could have evolved some different form of consciousness, just that it is far more unlikely than for animals given what knowledge we have. And if it proves true it is just more reason to eat them as animals would have to eat many more times them to provide the same calories.

                    12. it is far more unlikely than for animals given what knowledge we have.

                      I really don’t see where you get this.

                      1) Dust mites are animals too. So if you are applying these things to ‘animals’ you are also holding up the dust mite as some great consciousness.

                      2) “Plants are also capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of ‘learning’ (registering memories) from their past experiences.[28][29][30] Plants use this information to update their behaviour in order to survive present and future challenges of their environment.”

                      How can you have memory and learning without consciousness?

                      3) Territorial in behavior, and communicates. This also implies some sort of consciousness.

                    13. produce experience/emotion/sensation are ones to do with nervous system tissue and certain parts of the brain. This is common to almost all animals and absent in plants.

                      If the metric is having ‘sensation’ then plants clear the hurdle.

                      Hell, some plants are carnivorous and eat animals. The fly trap certainly senses the fly landing on the petal.

                      There are other plants (I think it’s called the ‘bashful fern’) that absolutely do sense stimuli and respond to it.

            3. If you say they have no dignity or inherent value, you are saying that it is perfectly okay to be as cruel or as destructive to animals as one chooses to be.

              Ahhh … “as one chooses to be”. Why do you not torture wild animals, but (assuming you are not a vegetarian) are OK with the gruesome process of killing, say, a cow, for food? Forcing it up a ramp and having a bolt gun slam into its brain?

              If a mosquito lands on your arm, do you not slap it? If you get an infection, do you not get antibiotics and kill the buggers?

              Most non-sociopathic people don’t torture animals because it makes us feel bad about ourselves, but we kill these other animals for food or health because that doesn’t make us feel bad.

              1. Sadistic sociopaths enjoy the pain that they put others through. They can’t perceive a plant’s pain, so they don’t enjoy it.

                They often enjoy animal’s pain because they can see and hear it. The kid lighting a cat on fire likes to see the cat struggle, he’s not lighting the bugger up because he needs to have him for dinner, or any other reason, other than he enjoys the animal’s suffering.

                Very few animals even have the capacity to enjoy another’s suffering, though I’ve seen cats having fun playing with lizards and mice before actually killing them.

                When we slaughter animals for their meat we are not enjoying their suffering, and in fact, try to minimize it. The point is to get the meat, not to gloat over how the animal moans or cries or struggles.

                Serial killers DO love to see their victims pain and hurt and struggle. They like to inflict psychological as well as physical pain, and if the victim manages to kill herself/himself, they get frustrated and angry…they have no use for the victim after they are unable to feel pain.
                Even the rare Hannibal Lector type of cannibal is reliving his dominance and control over his victim, not eating for nourishment.

        3. You couldn’t indiscriminately destroy nature if you tried. No matter what you did, the fungii and the cockroaches and the amoeba would survive long after we’d killed ourselves.

          All you could do is wreck it up from the human perspective. None of this is about ‘nature’. All of it is about us.

          In this context, ‘wrecking nature’ can be seen as wrecking the aspects of nature humans appreciate and value as beneficial for them (trees, fluffy bunnies) in favor of natural aspects humans discriminate against as harmful to them (rats, tapeworms, bubonic plague virus).

          1. That’s what I hate most about the greenies. They pretend their personal preferences for an environment that suits them serves some higher moral purpose.

          2. I can’t help it…

            Choir pedantic: Y. Pestis is a bacteria, not a virus.

            /pedant

            Sorry. Though I do tend to agree with most of what you said.

            1. That’s what Y. Pestis wants you to think.

          3. I cannot destroy Nature as a whole or as an entity. But I certainly can destroy pieces of it. And I certainly can alter nature to make it less valuable and hospitable to man.

            1. “To man” is my point.

              The enviroweenies act like they are protecting nature for nature’s sake. Nature is a honey badger.

              We are just ruining it’s suitability for us. We cannot ruin it. It don’t give a crap about us. It was here millions of years before us and will be there millions of years after.

              I’m down with environmentalism so long as the foundational assumption is that we’re doing this to benefit ourselves. It’s not for ‘nature’. Nature does not mind being covered in old tires and used condoms. Tires make good habitats for ground varmint. Only human beings get pissy about piles of tires in the forest. To nature, piles of tires are irrelevant and not worth mention.

              1. That was my point as well. They view man as outside of nature and something whose influence is always bad and to be ended.

              2. Yeah, the “killing the planet” thing is ridiculous. Even if we made such a mess that it negatively affected the ability of humans to continue to live and prosper, within a few thousand years things would look pretty diverse and pristine again.

                1. For millions of years our planet was covered in volcanoes and fire, didn’t look pristine at all. Of course nothing looked at it because there was no life.

                  That’s why I’m amused by the phrase “using up natural resources”…resources for WHOM? For something to be of value, someone must VALUE it.

                  If a certain species of prairie dog is in our environment, that means we are also in his, as well as mites, ticks, minerals in the soil, coyotes, in short, everything.

                  1. I think what the typical environmentalist/greenie hates is human beings capacity for reason, and our ability to shape our own environment to our advantage and liking.

                    Thus they are actually offended by reasoning and will not be persuaded by it.

        4. “I think we do have a duty to leave the world in somewhat good order for the people who follow us.”

          To use an example, ’bout 80 miles north of SF on Hwy1, there’s a sign on a farm fence claiming ‘this land protected for agriculture forever’. Greenie ignorant hubris.
          I don’t think we have a clue as to what needs protecting and what doesn’t, let alone a duty to do so.

          1. If by “forever” they mean “until we die or are forced to sell and the next owners have an incentive to use the land for more profitable purposes”, sure.

            Wanting stasis doesn’t mean you’ll get it. The universe doesn’t give a fuck about your personal happiness.

            1. As the late George Carlin proclaimed: “Environmentalists don’t care about the environment. They only care about a comfortable place to live”.

              1. A comfortable place to live certainly involves the environment.

                1. A comfortable place to live involves a stable temperature conducive to a particular organism or species, adequate nutrition, and not being predated. None of these things are a reality for a large set of species anywhere on this planet.

                  1. It’s fucking nonsense to think that seventy-two degrees, .01% atmospheric CO2 levels, big pretty sequoias, and lithium-ion car batteries makes for great living conditions for anything except maybe a few hundred animals.

          2. I don’t think we have a clue as to what needs protecting and what doesn’t, let alone a duty to do so.

            No clue? So you think it would be desirable to systematically kill every wild animal in North America? Or at least come as close as possible? You think that would be bad, at least from our perspective?

            What about dumping enormous amounts of say cyanide in all of the rivers and ground water making it unswimable or drinkable?

            We don’t know the full story. But we know a few things. And we can preserve things. And we can decide that some things are worth keeping.

            1. Sorry, John, I meant no clue as to what people in the future might want.
              And yes, we can by consensus, decide we like some things and keep them, but no duty is yet implied.

            2. Dumping huge amounts of cyanide into all the ground water would create heaven on earth for all the creatures that are not poisoned by cyanide.

              It would remove their competition and let a new nature prosper and take over. This new nature may be different from the old one but not any better or worse for life as a whole.

              It would suck donkey balls for humans though and we would all die. So ‘protecting nature’ really means protecting nature’s suitability for humanity, at the expense of any life or nature that is not good for us, regardless of it’s supposed inherent dignity.

              It’s all about us, or else it’s just a kooky neo-primitive animist religion.

              1. Yes! A weak immune system is very good environment for a virus.

    3. Well, man shouldn’t be trying to manage certain things in the environment, such as flood plains, which is a joke of engineering.

      1. There is a limit to our power over nature.

      2. “Well, man shouldn’t be trying to manage certain things in the environment, such as flood plains, which is a joke of engineering.”

        Even that’s a bad idea in that humans pay for the mistake; ‘nature’ doesn’t.

        1. In the sense that there is still a planet and life here, sure “nature doesn’t”. But, I could beat the shit out of you and you would still be here. You would not really pay a price for it. Your wounds would heal. You would go on. But that doesn’t make it a good idea.

          The point is not to say that nature is personified. The point is that just because there will always be a planet here and some kind of life on it right up until the sun engulfs it in a few billion years, doesn’t mean that there is no reason not to not even consider preserving nature as we know it.

  2. This is greenie analog of the Cuban embargo; you know, how globalization is killing jobs but not trading with Cuba makes the Cubans poor:
    1) Humans are horrible; they kill off species!
    2) Humans are horrible; they introduce new species!

    1. I always found it interesting that people claim that ending the Cuban embargo would bring about an end to the Cuban regime. Maybe, but the Cuban regime seems to want us to end the embargo. I find it difficult to believe that a regime that has survived this long would be so stupid that it would want something that would bring about its own end.

      1. Ending the embargo would change the nature of the Cuban regime over time, even if the Castros held onto power. There is a profound difference between a closed off govt like North Korea and a relatively more open govt like Communist China. Increasing prosperity puts pressure on dictatorships to loosen up their grip somewhat.

        1. The Cuban regime would control the trade and steel the money. It wouldn’t end or even change the regime over time. If there was any danger of that, the regime wouldn’t want to end it. I trust the Cuban regime’s own assessment of its interest over Western wishful thinking.

          1. Why didn’t the Chinese do that?

          2. If you are talking about the Cuban regimes own self interest, perhaps.

            Communism itself is not in the Cuban peoples best interest, which is why Cuba has gone from a beautiful cultured place to a pariah shithole.

            The regime, however, will never admit that communism took them there, no, it has to be the embargo and other yanqui imperialist shenanigans, which they are nobly resisting.

            The Castro regime also has its wishful thinking.

      2. The Cuban embargo is most useful to demagogues on both sides, much as the War on (Some) Drugs is most useful to the police on one side and cartel leaders on the other. For the Castros, it’s useful as an outside threat to make their dictatorship seem more reasonable. Of course they argue against it, that’s part of how they make the US such a useful external threat, but I suspect the last thing they want is open trade.

  3. Well, I’m reminded of an incident Josephus recounted – he and some fellow-rebels against the Romans made a suicide pact, and Josephus was like, “OK, I’ll kill you guys and then kill myself,” and they were like “OK,” and so Josephus killed them all and then walked away. Nobody was around to say, “hey, what about our pact?”

    I’m not saying that a modern Josephus should play a similar joke on the environmentalists, because I’m not a fan of suicide. But I am reminded of the story nonetheless.

  4. If so many species are going extinct, Willis Eschenbach asks, “where are the corpses?”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KOyFvA5f1A

    1. The invasive species ate them, duh.

    2. In my belly!

      1. I thought this was the circle of poo?

  5. Yes, Ron, but let me explain. When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected in the great Circle of Life.

    1. We really should just destroy the solar system just to be safe.

      After all, we are all just star stuff.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

        1. Yep, sure is. Bill was great.

    2. The Reggae man smoke the grass.

      1. Jah made the herb for man.

        1. Right! You never see a giraffe smoking a joint do you?

  6. one measure of biodiversity is “species richness” defined as the number of different species represented in an ecological community, landscape or region. By that measure, modern humans have been dramatically increasing biodiversity nearly everywhere including New Zealand.

    You don’t understand, a species going extinct is the worse thing that can ever happen, EVAR!!!! We must have complete, 100% stasis. No changing climate, no species going extinct, nothing. The world must be perfectly preserved as is. /DEEEEEERRRRRRRRPPPPPPPP!!!11!!!!

  7. Pshaw, if a species becomes extinct just dig up the bones and create a clone. Problem solved. Also works with predatory dinosaurs.

    1. A clone which will face the same pressures that led its species to go extinct in the first place.

      Wooly mammoths might survive, because they wouldn’t all be killed by native hunters who faced a tragedy of the commons where keeping a few mammoths around would just mean a competing tribe got that meal.

  8. Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.

    1. +1 leelu-dallas-multipass

  9. Before people become too critical of the suggestion in the headline, I think it may be apropos to first consider who exactly might be the first takers in this particular proposal… meaning, say the people who read that and go, “Yeah! Not a bad idea! I’m going to go fertilize the land with my corpse!” and jump off a cliff, *happen* to be Anti-Human EARTH-FIRST Green-tards? I would suggest reserving judgment on the sensibility of the idea until we’ve at least let a few *try it out* first, hmmm? Let em have a go at it! It’s all for a good cause?! The thought is what counts.

    1. I’m pretty sure enviro-wackos would want to live, and kill off Rethuglicans instead.

      1. I see.

        But what about *tea*thuglicans??

        Because they seem to be more worser.

    2. That’s not how it’s going to work. The watermelons consider themselves to be good custodians of Dear Gaia, whereas you and I are just a bunch of wreckers. Their deepest desire to fertilize the earth with us first.

    3. The problem is the environmentalists don’t really want to kill themselves for the planet. They want to kill you so they can enjoy the planet.

  10. 1000 alien species!

    California has been taken over by those damned dirty eucalypts.

    1. Those are an extreme fire hazard, loaded with oils. Or, that’s how I explained it to the planning commission after I got caught removing mine without permission…

      1. Fire hazards is the price way pay for civ- oh, wait.

      2. “We had a drop bear infestation, had to destroy it.”

      3. They also keel over in breezes that other trees ignore.

  11. So on this analysis, one could logically conclude that shortening human lives might be one way to preserve species.

    Gimme a break, Ron. You knew that these yahoos would run with that instead of paying any attention to what the study said. You’ve been a kinda thoughtful sciencey journalist at times in the past. Why do you do stuff like this?

    1. h: A guy can’t have a little fun? On a Friday?

  12. Blah blah blah blah blah

  13. New Zealand has had a massive invasion by nonindigenous species since its human colonization in the past 700 to 800 years, and this has resulted in catastrophic biodiversity loss.

    sooo…Increasing biodiversity = biodiversity loss.

    1. Nevermind. read the rest of the article and Ron caught the same thing.

    2. “sooo…Increasing biodiversity = biodiversity loss.”

      Biodiversity decreased, some species went extinct and no new ones were created. Not what I would call a catastrophe but saying biodiversity increases locally while as a whole it decreased is pretty disingenuous.

      1. Not necessarily – my refrigerator reduces entropy locally while it increases the total amount in existence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.