E X T I N C T I O N

[dchasselblad74]

That is sad that the guy in thailand wasted his life.

l

[James O'Neill]

At least it changed some people's attitudes....

[dchasselblad74]

Only temporary though.......

DexFC

[loligo1964]

One of the major issues associated with conservation -- plants in particular -- is the odd categorization or lumping together of some plant species, which wasn't originally intended, under the same rubric as, say, endangered mega-fauna -- elephants, rhinoceros, and lions (that, and the various products made from them) -- under CITES Appendix I (Most Endangered) status; the analogy suffers when you consider that a single plant's seed pod (and a mature plant may produce five to twenty per season -- many orchid species, for example) -- could potentially produce upwards of 10,000 seedlings under cultivation (many orders of magnitude greater than that of any of the CITES I protected animal counterparts), whereas only a few percent of the plants ever survive to reproductive maturity in the wild, due to competition for resources, to herbivory, disease -- any number of factors.

Paradoxically, it is quite legal, as others have mentioned, to flood a habitat for a hydroelectric dam, farming, construction of roads, or even golf courses and resorts, but CITES makes it all but impossible and highly illegal (under the threat of imprisonment and hundreds of thousands of dollars or euros in fines) to salvage those plants, even the odd seed pod, and potentially distribute them to cultivation . . .

Edited September 21, 2010 by loligo1964

[dchasselblad74]

One of major issues connected to conservation -- plants in particular -- is the odd categorization or lumping together of some plant species under the same rubric as endangered mega-fauna -- elephants, rhinoceros, and lions: that, and the various products made from them -- under CITES Appendix I (Most Endangered) status; the analogy suffers when you consider that a single plant's seed pod -- say, many orchid species -- could potentially produce upwards of 10,000 seedlings under cultivation (obviously, several orders of magnitude greater than that of any of the CITES I protected animal species), whereas only a few percent of the plants ever survive to reproductive maturity in the wild, due to competition for resources, to herbivory, disease -- any number of factors.

Paradoxically, it is quite legal, as others have mentioned, to flood a habitat for a hydroelectric dam, construction of roads, or even golf courses and resorts, but CITES makes it all but impossible to salvage those plants, even seed pods, and potentially distribute them to cultivation . . .

This is exactly what I was talking about, when I posted this thread...........

DexFC

[dchasselblad74]

So in essence, the very laws that were written to protect and conserve, in many cases work against the saving of these endangered plants......

DexFC

[loligo1964]

So in essence, the very laws that were written to protect and conserve, in many cases work against the saving of these endangered plants......

DexFC

Absolutely . . .

There have been armed raids -- many certainly political in motivation -- of private collections of those suspected of possessing illegal species (notoriously, one in the 1980s on Henry Azadehdel, a famed orchid expert, describer of a number of species, a contributor and former collector for Kew Gardens) throughout Europe and the Americas and the confiscation of thousands of plants. To add insult to injury, the plants are more-than-often neglected and, on some occasions, thousands of supposedly all-important CITES I plants die while in custody. Plant labels are carelessly or even intentionally changed or "lost"; roots and blooms are trimmed, and broken, so that the age of the plants in question are often indeterminate as to whether they were cultivated or potentially collected from the wild. Even more ridiculous, is the fact that many herbarium specimens -- dried, some hundreds of years old -- cannot be imported or exported for study, due to reflexive CITES restrictions. It is also quite ironic that many commercial growers who had been under suspicion at one time or another -- especially now that so very much is readily tissue cultured in house -- have managed to cultivate larger populations of some endangered plant species than those that currently exist in the wild.

Compounding the issue, are species that have been cultivated in collections -- many for decades -- that have only recently fallen under the CITES I restrictions, such as the entire orchid genus, Paphiopedilum did, in 1990. Overnight, many growers found that they possessed contraband in their greenhouses and were at risk of imprisonment and or sizable fines; and most people after some years, cannot document where they obtained each and every plant -- including those which were then-legally imported, some even wild-collected -- from Asia in the 1980s . . .

Edited September 21, 2010 by loligo1964

[dchasselblad74]

This really makes me lose hope for humanity............If we can't fix this, what about the bigger issues......?

DexFC

[jimfoxy]

We saw an interesting slogan on a tee shirt out here in Thailand today, "save the planet, kill yourself"

Unnecessary. Just stop at 2 children. Easy. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

[manders]

Unnecessary. Just stop at 2 children. Easy. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

According to that website viable uk population is 30 million, so don't we need to have less than two to reduce the population to less than 50% of current?

Edited September 21, 2010 by manders

[manders]

According to that website viable uk population is 30 million, so don't we need to have less than two to reduce the population to less than 50% of current?

hmm, I suppose then wed have to bring in more cheap foreign labor to bolster the economy and pay for the old retired folks, doh.

maybe euthanasia is the answer to both problems?

[Phil Green]

Unnecessary. Just stop at 2 children. Easy. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

That still doesn't work.

1stly - because we now live longer. So when the children start to repoduce the parents would have to kill themselves otherwise it would be a population increase.

2ndly - It would have to be 1 boy and 1 girl. If those 2 were both girls and they each had 2 children then you get 4 grand children replacing 2 grand parents = population increase.

What we really need is a major war to drasticlly reduce population or some major disease. Come to think of it, perhaps Bush & Blair were actually secret conservationists - going to war all over the place to reduce populations in several countries at the same time as US & UK

[jimfoxy]

According to that website viable uk population is 30 million, so don't we need to have less than two to reduce the population to less than 50% of current?

The 30million is if we cut off all supplies with other countries. If everyone has a 2 child philosophy then that won't have to happen. Natural death rate will then decrease the population. Old-heavy demographics is not a good situation but I feel the alternative of an ever increasing population (until crash) is far worse. Don't we already have an old-heavy demographic?

[jimfoxy]

That still doesn't work.

1stly - because we now live longer. So when the children start to repoduce the parents would have to kill themselves otherwise it would be a population increase.

2ndly - It would have to be 1 boy and 1 girl. If those 2 were both girls and they each had 2 children then you get 4 grand children replacing 2 grand parents = population increase.

What we really need is a major war to drasticlly reduce population or some major disease. Come to think of it, perhaps Bush & Blair were actually secret conservationists - going to war all over the place to reduce populations in several countries at the same time as US & UK

On average, it would be 1 boy and 1 girl. Old age is not the only method of death. It is not perfect but, compared to killing people, it would be a lot better than the current situation and is a passive way to help.

[manders]

The 30million is if we cut off all supplies with other countries. If everyone has a 2 child philosophy then that won't have to happen. Natural death rate will then decrease the population. Old-heavy demographics is not a good situation but I feel the alternative of an ever increasing population (until crash) is far worse. Don't we already have an old-heavy demographic?

Yes we do, but isn't the age old demographic getting worse every year? And isn't it one of the reasons the government has to mess about with pensions because basically there aren't enough young people to pay for the old people? A situation that is currently getting worse and one of the reasons we let cheap labor flood in. Japan is in an even worse situation.

So maybe if we reduce the number of young working people in the economy, the government gets even more short of cash than it is now and it ceases paying meaningful pensions, a sort of back door euthanasia because you cant afford to heat your house or buy food or get decent healthcare when you get old, unless your lucky enough to accrue a big private pension. So we reduce the population from both ends of the age range.

Isn't it that with 2 children the rate of reduction is going to be very slow, according to the telegraph (and elsewhere) we're already at average number of births per women of 1.64, and the population is still growing. (due to increasing life expectancy as Phil said previously).

[mantrid]

One of the major issues associated with conservation -- plants in particular -- is the odd categorization or lumping together of some plant species, which wasn't originally intended, under the same rubric as, say, endangered mega-fauna -- elephants, rhinoceros, and lions (that, and the various products made from them) -- under CITES Appendix I (Most Endangered) status; the analogy suffers when you consider that a single plant's seed pod -- many orchid species, for example -- could potentially produce upwards of 10,000 seedlings under cultivation (many orders of magnitude greater than that of any of the CITES I protected animal counterparts), whereas only a few percent of the plants ever survive to reproductive maturity in the wild, due to competition for resources, to herbivory, disease -- any number of factors.

Paradoxically, it is quite legal, as others have mentioned, to flood a habitat for a hydroelectric dam, farming, construction of roads, or even golf courses and resorts, but CITES makes it all but impossible and highly illegal (under the threat of imprisonment and hundreds of thousands of dollars or euros in fines) to salvage those plants, even the odd seed pod, and potentially distribute them to cultivation . . .

Money talks, probably various people profiting from back handers etc.

[jimfoxy]

Isn't it that with 2 children the rate of reduction is going to be very slow, according to the telegraph (and elsewhere) we're already at average number of births per women of 1.64, and the population is still growing. (due to increasing life expectancy as Phil said previously).

I believe this is true of the 'natural' population in the UK. The philosophy needs to be applied globally. The most important charity in third world countries is empowerment of women, through education and family planning. This can be just as applicable in some areas of Europe. Whenever anybody is collecting charity for less developed countries, I always ask what percentage is going to be spent on education. If they don't know then I do not give them money. If more people did this then the importance of education will be recognised. What is the point of saving a few lives if that results in more starving, deprived children. Of course, this is a very idealistic view and easy to write sitting in my warm chair; I am sure that if I was in the middle of a starving village in Africa then I would want to help as many as possible. It is an old problem but one that everyone should think about.

Back in the UK, there is no doubt that the situation will get worse before it gets better whatever happens. Any future planning and sustainability will take at least a generation to take effect. It is one reason why we must all take personal responsibility in this and expect the government to do nothing (they only work on a 4yr time scale; they encourage short term solutions which nearly always are to the detriment of the long term). Quite simply, because of inevitable future competition over limited resources, it is selfish to have more than 2 children and it should be discouraged.

Or maybe we should just shoot the fattest people first because that will save NHS costs, too. Oh, and the smokers.

Edited September 22, 2010 by jimfoxy

[dchasselblad74]

I believe this is true of the 'natural' population in the UK. The philosophy needs to be applied globally. The most important charity in third world countries is empowerment of women, through education and family planning. This can be just as applicable in some areas of Europe. Whenever anybody is collecting charity for less developed countries, I always ask what percentage is going to be spent on education. If they don't know then I do not give them money. If more people did this then the importance of education will be recognised. What is the point of saving a few lives if that results in more starving, deprived children. Of course, this is a very idealistic view and easy to write sitting in my warm chair; I am sure that if I was in the middle of a starving village in Africa then I would want to help as many as possible. It is an old problem but one that everyone should think about.

Back in the UK, there is no doubt that the situation will get worse before it gets better whatever happens. Any future planning and sustainability will take at least a generation to take effect. It is one reason why we must all take personal responsibility in this and expect the government to do nothing (they only work on a 4yr time scale; they encourage short term solutions which nearly always are to the detriment of the long term). Quite simply, because of inevitable future competition over limited resources, it is selfish to have more than 2 children and it should be discouraged.

I Agree with above.....

Or maybe we should just shoot the fattest people first because that will save NHS costs, too. Oh, and the smokers.

Not with this one...after all "fattest people....smokers" they're just products of our own society, they're not the problem, they're the indicators(canary in a mine)....

Edited September 22, 2010 by dchasselblad74

[jimfoxy]

Not with this one...after all "fattest people....smokers" they're just products of our own society, they're not the problem, they're the indicators(canary in a mine)....

Mmmm, a little sarcasm was my intention here....

[wallsg7]

Overpopulation is going to be very difficult to turn around.I cant see it happening.Yet the problems caused by overpopulation grow more and more severe.

Edited September 24, 2010 by wallsg7

[mantrid]

Or maybe we should just shoot the fattest people first because that will save NHS costs, too. Oh, and the smokers.

This suggestion always makes me laugh. Consider this.

If the fat people and smokers dont die in their 60s, they will retire, and so stop paying taxes and start taking their pensions. Eventually after maybe 20 or 30 years of no longer contributing and taking tax payers money they will spend the last ten years of their life in very expensive retirement homes the last few probably requiring 24 hr nursing care as dementia, parkinsons, cancer or other such disease sets in before they finally die. All these expenses and pension payments far exceed the cost of a few ambulance trips to hospital and some drugs to keep the smokers and fatties going until they die prematurely.

[mantrid]

Overpopulation is going to be very difficult to turn around.I cant see it happening.Yet the problems caused by overpopulation grow more and more severe.

It will be very easy to turn around. It will happen naturally without us having to do anything, with mass death from starvation and disease. Like it does to any spp that use up all its resources. Anyone who has grown a yeast or bacteria culture has witnessed this. Despite our proclaimed self importance we are no different to those bacteria in a flask, and will go the same way.

Fortunately none of us will be around to suffer this part of our history.

[James O'Neill]

You speak sense, Mantrid. People's success is their downfall.

[Phil Green]

It will be very easy to turn around. It will happen naturally without us having to do anything, with mass death from starvation and disease. Like it does to any spp that use up all its resources.

Yeh, but by the time that happens, the rest of the planet and most other species will be F#*$ed.

[Davion]

I'm-'Worried'-about The-SIZE of-Sarracenia In-The-Wild.

To-Me They-'Appear' to-be Getting-Shorter than-They-Were in-The-Seventies and Even-Earlier.

****

Similarly as-R-Lad in-Australia, Around-Perth in-WA [Western-Australia] Drosera-gigantea Use-to-Be R-Robust Christmas-Tree-like Specimen that-One Could Stub Your-Toe-ON and Feel-The-Pain Even-Inside R-pair of Gum-Boots ... so-Solid Were-They In-The-Ground so-to-Speak!!! >(*~*)< that Use-to-Come-UP to My Shoulder-Height with Lovely 'Glauceous' Colouration. Nowadays One-Hardly-ever Sees-it Like-This Anymore!!!??? >(*~*)<