HELP: I have an environmental question that needs answering

[Mass_Liberal]

I have heard often, and it seems to make sense, the statement that all species are interdependent and if a species becomes extinct it ruins the whole food chain and devestates the environment.

If this is true, how come the environment is still functioning after probably tens of thousands of extinctions of species since the beginning of life?

[Dover]

1. Because species also have a miraculous ability to adapt and change.

eom

[Mass_Liberal]

2. aaaahhhh

that makes sense. Sorry, I am a very horrible and ignorant student when it comes to science.

[Dover]

3. I thought it was a good question.

God forbid we think we have all the answers! Actually my answer was very simplistic. Some species are more devastated by another's extinction than others, but all (including humans) can adapt although it may take many generations.

[The Lone Liberal]

4. Every action forecloses a history.

We are where we are because some history, or path was closed to us. We organize to the information that is available to us. Who is to say, that some other history might not have been better and provided a better fitness pattern.

Besides, tax cuts are the answer to all problems.

[unblock]

5. both statements are oversimplifications

massive population declines short of extinction can have an even greater devastating effect on the food chain and environment. what's different about an actual extinction is that that one species obviously no longer has a chance to bounce back, which has a permanent effect on biodiversity.

when a species is killed off, the food chain, or at least the local food chain, suffers and must adapt or die. sometimes "or die" happens, but usually "adapt" is what happens. possibly with massive migrations, e.g.

as for "still functioning", it functions differently with each stress. any stress could cause massive damage, or lead to something that it can't adapt to. many species have indeed died off, including some that died because they couldn't adapt. enough have survived to become the environment you currently live in.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Because the eco-system has redundant systems built in.

However look at what happens when you remove top predators from the chain. You end up with rodent polulations spiking out of control then crashing as they die off from diseases and starvation. You have herd animals doing the same thing.

Because of transplanted parasites there are no more wild honeybees in the US. The only wild bees are the Africanized ones. All honey bees are kept by bee farmers and it is a constant batle to keep even those hives alive. This is having a major impact on farming in the US as there are fewer pollenizers in the eco-system.

Yes, the environment is resiliant. Normally it can absorb an average rate of extinction and "breed" something new to fill the niche over time. Extinction is a natural part of the system. It is actually a good and vital part. But that is "natural extinction". What we have hapening now is an excelerated extinction caused in large part by the actions of man. Look at the record of each of the last Extinction Level Events (ELE). After a massive die off of species it takes a long time for the eco-system to rebound, and the die off happens in an excelerating fashion.

An additional consideration is this. Many of the pharmaceuticals are first discovered in the environment. It isn't something that came from a lab, and may not even be able to be manufactured in a lab. With the level of extinction we have going on now, how do we know we haven't already destroyed the cure for cancer 100 times over and never even known it existed.

Beyond that the pure asthetic value of having a diverse eco-system is beyond value.

[amazona]

13. Honeybees are not native to the U.S.

The European honeybee was introduced to the Americas during colonial times. It interbreeds with the African honeybee because, let's face it, the two species are pretty much alike and can't be distinguished by eye but only by behavior. Yes, it's nit-picking, but European honeybees are just as much an introduced species as their African relative. It's sad to see them go but I don't put it in the same category as losing our native species -- their loss is more of a business and insurance issue than a wildlife issue.

The bumblebee is actually native to the U.S. and we have a variety of other pollinators from various wasps to the hummingbirds (which don't exist in the old world).

I would say most folks have no idea how little the continental U.S. of today resembles the continental U.S. of a few hundred years ago. Supposedly we're going to lose 1/3 of our remaining species in a 100 years or so, and I really don't doubt it. We've lost a lot but most people never miss it -- they go to a mostly dead-to-wildlife habitat like the pine tree desert that covers so much of the U.S. southeast and actually think they are out in nature!

[DarkPhenyx]

15. It was interbred with the African Bee...

...in an attempt to create a bee that produced more honey. It failed.

Bumblebees are also dsying off in the wild. Same parasites.

the wasps and hummingbirds are not a prolific a polinator, adn in particular the flowers that humming birds pollinate are designed for humming birds to do so. Humming birds do not pollinate the same flower that bees do. Bumblebees are also not as prolific a pollinator.

It's also worth pointing out that the hineybee in the wild in the US escaped from their domestic hives and wiped out some of the native pollinators. This was really the begining of the death of the wild pollinators. This crap has been going on for far longer than most people realize.

[strategery blunder]

18. They are out in nature!

I could go to the desert pine tree forests and be out in nature.
I could go deep into the mountains and be out in nature.
I could go into the sequoia forests of CA and be out in nature.
I could go to the Alaskan tundra and be out in nature.
I could go to national/state forests in the Northeast and be out in nature.
I could go to the fjords of Scandinavia and be out in nature.
I could go to the jungles of the Amazon and be out in nature.
I could go to Canada and be out in nature. :D (Thanks for preserving it, Canadians!)

All of these places are beautiful in their own way. Yes, people enjoy some climates more than others, but all have their place in the biosphere.

[amazona]

26. pine tree desert -- not desert pine trees -- is not nature or natural

You mis-read my post or, more likely, I didn't make myself clear. The jackpine/loblolly pine "forest" that has replaced most of the forest in the U.S. southeast is not natural and it does not provide habitat for any but a very small number of species. Pine tree desert is a degraded, mostly dead-to-diversity agricultural product. It is not the same experience as your going outside into a natural desert where say, a natural bristlecone pine is growing. It is a crop and anything that interferes in the growing/harvesting of that crop is simply in the way.

I have been in the car with people, who have driven past literally hundreds of miles of pine tree desert planted to supply paper mills and the like, and the other people have straight-facedly, sincerely marveled that "there is so much green left." Go into these agricultural areas -- and that is all they are -- and you will be shocked at the lack of birds and wildlife. As for shrubs and wildflowers -- ha -- the over-population of white-tailed deer doesn't give them half a chance. A walk in these fake forests is a sad experience. Many kids who find nature boring do not even know they have never seen nature -- a stand of pine trees and a glimpse of a paranoid deer and nothing else is not nature nor does it provide much food for mind or soul.

The situation is actually much worse than it appears because so many people are fooled by substitutes and imitations.

[strategery blunder]

28. Oh, I grew up in the Southwest

where there ARE natural pine tree forests in deserts, mostly in the (Arizona) mountains.

Sorry about the misunderstanding; I thought you were referring to these natural forests--I had no idea about the problems in the Southeast.

To those who think forests and deserts are mutually exclusive, a desert is generally classified as an area that gets less than 10 inches of rain per year. Some trees retain water really well.

[FlaGranny]

7. Well, sometimes when a species becomes extinct,

it causes other species to either overpopulate or die off also. For instance if all mice died off, it might cause owls to disappear. Conversely, if there were no bats, our insect population would increase. Then, over time, one species can evolve to take the place of another. There once were dinosaurs which are now extinct. The mammals took over. If mammals die off, reptiles might evolve to rule. If the reptiles then became extinct, then insects? Although sometimes I think insects always have had the upper hand. Maybe they will evolve intelligence. Then we'll be in big trouble if we're still around.

[Mass_Liberal]

8. what if there were no snakes?

I hate snakes.

[randr]

9. Then we would not have St. Patrick's Day.

[Mass_Liberal]

11. curse it all!!

You're right. :-)

[amazona]

14. we'd have a lot more rodents, I suppose

Many people like to see a black or king snake around the yard to keep away rodents or venomous snakes. The venomous snakes have been an important resource for the invention of new medicines -- keep in mind, all medicines are poisons, as the old saw has it. We'd also lose a link to our past history and folklore, where snakes (as symbol of resurrection -- they shed their skin and become good as new -- or double-forked deceivers -- you know that story) are an important part of our ability to understand past thought. Hell, Freud in the 19th century and plenty of English teachers in the 20th century thought the snake represented the phallus in dreams and literature; if we had no experience of snakes, could we really understood the psycho-history of those eras? Also, no snakes, no snakeskin shoes or belts.

Think about it! Snakes do a lot!

[Donkeyboy75]

10. A complete answer would take many many many pages

to answer. A short and grossly oversimplified answer would be that the "environmental niche" that the old species vacated will be filled in by other species. In fact, it was happening as the species in question was becoming extinct.

It is true that many extinctions are caused by humans. But other times it happens because one species forces another out of its niche, and it cannot survive.

[DarkPhenyx]

12. There is, however...

...a breaking point where those empty niches will not get filled, or filled adequately.

[Donkeyboy75]

17. Oh yeah, definitely.

I was looking at it as a single species going extinct, not a whole ecosystem going to hell in a handbasket.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. If it were only just single species.

Unfortunately it isn't. This on top of increasing levels of pollutants. Global Climatic Change. et. al.

*sigh*

[Donkeyboy75]

21. Wait! There's no climate change.

Oh wait, there is climate change, but it's not because of us. Oh wait, yes, it is probably because of us, but it's not fair for us to have to do something about it when poor countries don't. Oh wait, I can't breathe or drink the water...

[DarkPhenyx]

22. Spoken like someone who dosen't want to believe.

That's cool.

Bottom line. Global Climatic Change is happening. It isn't casued by mankind, but it is aggrevated by our actions. Your drinking water contains some 150 chemcals, on average, for which the EPA/FDA have not established minimum safe concentrations for. All of these chemicals have been in existance for less than 50 years and we have no long term health effect data on them. Air quality? We won't even get into that one.

Feel free to not believe all you want. Lots of folks don't like facing a scary reality.

[Donkeyboy75]

23. I'm sorry, you must have missed my sarcasm.

Or did you only read the subject line and not my post?

[DarkPhenyx]

24. Probably missed the sarcasm

Mea culpa if that is the case. 3:00 am nights will do that to you.

[Donkeyboy75]

25. No biggie. My sub line was misleading, anyhow.

I was mocking the Bushies/energy industry on their constant backpedaling.

[DarkPhenyx]

27. You did a good job too.

Very believable. :7

[H2O Man]

16. Perhaps you are thinking

in terms of "the food chain". If indeed nature were a chain, one broken link would result in what you say. But nature is not a chain. Think of it as a spider's web, or if you wish, a rope. Each life form is either a strand in the web or rope. By the laws of nature, there is always some degree of destruction to the web/rope. But if human beings -- a part of the web, not separate in any way -- causes too much harm, nature can not repair the fabric of life. And that's where we are today. No animal is intended to thrust its waste into its own food or water supply. We do. Waste goes down the river to the next community. Include in that the concept of today's community thrusting its waste into the currents that will bring it to the next generation. We are destroying the web.

[SoCalDem]

20. Redundancy..

Nature usually provides a variety of organisms that are sufficiently similar, so that natural selection does not take ALL of them, and they are constantly mutating just enough to stick around..