Humans are causing extinctions unlike any in the history of the earth?

Question

Scientists need to be cautious about their theories and assumptions. What arguments could you make for and against the statement that humans are causing extinctions unlike any in the history of the earth?

Answer 1

you couldn't... we destroy areas that will never return exactly how they would everyday. I'm a biologist.

Answer 2

Perminan mass extinction, cretacous extinction

Large changes in the envornment (great collisions, change in earths tilt, anything that pulls us towrd or away from the sun) can do more than we can.

Can we affect the envoronment - yes.
How many people can the earth sustain for an extended period of time comfortably? Think population control on a global scale, nice idea conceptually. it may take some major environmental changes before that is politically feasible.... a long long time, By which time some natural disaster of a global scale may cause warming or cooling or block sunlight and take care of much of the population for us.

Answer 3

There've been some big ones before:

# 488 million years ago — a series of mass extinctions at the Cambrian-Ordovician transition (the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction events) eliminated many brachiopods and conodonts and severely reduced the number of trilobite species.
# 444 million years ago — at the Ordovician-Silurian transition two Ordovician-Silurian extinction events occurred, and together these are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.
# 360 million years ago — near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition (the Late Devonian extinction) a prolonged series of extinctions led to the elimination of about 70% of all species. This was not a sudden event — the period of decline lasted perhaps as long as 20 million years, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
# 251 million years ago — at the Permian-Triassic transition Earth's worst mass extinction (the P/Tr or Permian-Triassic extinction event) killed 53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species (including plants, insects, and vertebrate animals). The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land it ended the dominance of the mammal-like reptiles and created the opportunity for archosaurs and then dinosaurs to become the dominant land vertebrates; in the seas the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%.
The whole of the late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life - even before the "Great Dying", the diagram shows a late-Permian level of extinction large enough to qualify for inclusion in the "Big Five".
# 200 million years ago — at the Triassic-Jurassic transition (the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event) about 20% of all marine families as well as most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and the last of the large amphibians were eliminated.
# 65 million years ago — at the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition (the K/T or Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event) about 50% of all species became extinct. It has great significance for humans because it ended the reign of the dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals to become the dominant land vertebrates; and in the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals again, to about 33%. The K/T extinction was rather uneven — some groups of organisms became extinct, some suffered heavy losses and some appear to have got off relatively lightly.

That all doesn't mean we should do more extinctions when we can prevent them, but hyperbole ("unlike any in history") doesn't help convince people.

Answer 4

Simple. There is no argument for. Only against. Survival of the Fittest.
It is an explanation in itself. Planet of the Apes hits it right on the head. If monkeys had landed on top, then man would be near extinct. It's the way of the world. The Food chain. The Circle of life. That's how it goes. You can blame it on technology, or expansion or whatever you choose. But in the end, it's the course of life. That's how it goes. The world won't get better. Just like a human body, our world will only get worse as it grows older. Nothing is perfect forever.

Answer 5

Argument against: name the animals that have gone extinct in the last 25 years...... since you will be able to name hardly any, it stands to reason that man is certainly not causing extinctions unlike any int he history of the earth (especially because most species that have ever lived on earth have gone extinct....)

Answer 6

i don't understand of the form of link, yet I easily have heard it suggested that the Milky way galaxy is colliding with one if no longer 2 smaller galaxies. while galaxies collide very nearly continuously no stars or image voltaic structures ever collide themselves. it incredibly is because of the super distances between stars and image voltaic structures and the fact that gravity acts as a buffer that keeps stars at secure distances while galaxies do collide. The gravity interacts between the colliding galaxies like 2 opposite poles of a magnetic container repels one yet another. We in the international do no longer could worry such "collisions" as no actual products collide and we will not experience any actual or cosmic outcomes. merely as we can't experience the cost of the earth or the galaxy we will not experience the galactic merger or "collision". that's extremely greater like a galactic marriage or merger than a collision. EDIT: Satellites do no longer bypass away the earth's orbit and we don't yet have the technologies to deliver area probes to a distance above or under the galaxy.

Answer 7

We didn't cause the extinction of the Dinosaurs.

Answer 8

I prefer the debate model: If you are willing you can let the entire world go back the way it was and guess what? You're a caveman, and can work for Geico.

Answer 9

www.google.com