| Cougar Press PO Box 894 Meadview AZ 86444 |
Some or many cases of extinction come across as good news. Most of us would not care to see
the return of Tyrannosaurus Rex or Saber Tooth Tigers. But many would love to have the
Passenger Pigeon back. Believed to be, at one time, the most numerous bird species on Earth, the
last one died in 1914. Most of them had been killed by the end of the nineteenth century.
Many folks long to see again a Carolina Parakeet or an Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Other long-
gone species include the Tasmanian Wolf, the English Wolf, the Quagga, the Caspian Tiger,
Steller's Sea Cow, the Spectacled Cormorant and the Dodo.
Humanity is hardly the only cause of extinction. Climate change and natural catastrophes
account for many of the missing creatures. It has been estimated that, of all of the species that
have ever lived, 99.9% of them are now extinct. Although we have done our share, both by over
hunting and habitat destruction, most of these left the scene without our help. Most of them, in
fact, were gone before humans came to exist. Dinosaurs are an example of this.
Extinction is still an ongoing event. By the end of the century, half of what is left may be gone.
The big question, of course, is whether Homo sapiens will be one of the species to disappear.
Right off the bat, that seems unlikely. In our relatively short period of existence, our species
has mushroomed to a population of seven billion. However, things could change. A list of
possible challenges to our survival would include:
These days we hear a lot about global warming. Although that may qualify as a big change in
our environment, it's doubtful that it would lead to extinction of our species. Mankind is really
good at adapting to changes in habitat. Hot, cold, wet, dry, fertile, barren, crowded, sparse... all
of these conditions already exist in different places on the globe. Rising sea levels are not going
to kill us all either. Even if global warming presages a return of the ice age, as some say, we will
survive. Humans live in the Arctic and in Antarctica. It will take more than that to get rid of us.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide sound scary, and to some members of the population, whose
breathing is not the best, it probably is dangerous. But we have to remember that at times in the
past there were much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Back in the Jurassic Period, there
were times when the level may have been as much as 20 times as high as is is today. Plants love
carbon dioxide. Green plants require the compound as a source of food. Much of the carbon
that exists today as organic compounds stored in the form of coal and petroleum, as well as in the
existing wood and plastic, was once a part of the air. When green plants, in the process called
photosynthesis, extract carbon, they also release oxygen.
In the earliest years of our planet's atmosphere, there was no free oxygen at all. Oxygen was
and is toxic to anaerobic microbes. Now that nearly a quarter of the air is composed of molecules
of oxygen, anaerobic life forms are reduced to living in environments without oxygen. These are
found inside our bodies and under rotting logs.
Carbon dioxide levels had been dropping for millions of years. That they are rising now is
inevitable in the cyclic way of things. Had they continued to go down, all the way to zero, then
we would have seen the end of green plants. However, that is unlikely to happen, since green
plants and photosynthesis are the reason for the lowering of CO2 levels.
War is another threat to the survival of humanity, but so far it has failed miserably to even dent
the population. The reasons for this up until now have been the lure of slavery and taxation.
Military victors learned long ago that, if they are to be wealthy warriors, they need someone to do
the work. Why exterminate the vanquished population? They can be used to produce the food,
clothing and shelter. They can work in the mines and build the roads. Otherwise, the noble
princes and chieftains would have to do the work themselves. Hence, slavery, and its subtle
cousin, taxation.
Terrible as they are, these nasty habits have led to the organization of civilization that we are
familiar with. Without subject populations paying taxes or fields full of slaves or serfs doing all
of the work for free, the only recourse for the mighty would be plunder.
In ancient times, plunder was the name of the game. Kill all of the enemy population and seize
the wealth and the land. By the time of the historical empires, the Romans, the Persians, etc., the
kings and emperors had learned that much more wealth is available if you do not kill the goose
that laid the golden egg.
Although this makes a grizzly kind of sense, the unfortunate byproduct of the system is
overpopulation. For the rulers, more taxpayers and more slaves means more wealth.
All of this might change. With the advent of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, war
may yet sweep the planet clear of humanity. This brings us to the next option:
Plagues and epidemics have certainly played their roles in reducing our populations. The irony
is that, as Friedrich Nietsche put it, "That which does not destroy us makes us stronger." It has
been suggested that Europe arrived in modern times with much of its forest intact thanks to the
Bubonic Plague. This epidemic in the fourteenth century, the "Black Plague," killed off a quarter
to a half of Europe's people. This actually left that part of the world in better shape to take
advantage of the upcoming industrial revolution. In contrast with other parts of the world where
overpopulation had already depleted the forests and damaged the rivers and croplands, Europe
was left with vast resources and a manageable population.
There are still speculations that some new disease may appear that will do what none of the
others have been able to do, and that is to wipe out the species. However, that event is hardly in
the best interest of whatever virus or bacillus is behind the infection. If these nasty micro-
organisms destroy their host, then they too must perish.
Which brings us to the next candidate for extinction of the human race, famine. Up until now
this one has also been a loser. Although millions of people have starved to death over the ages,
the population of our species has expanded without a hitch.
The primary reason for this is that past episodes of unrelieved hunger have occurred, not due to
a lack of food on the planet, but rather due to inadequate distribution. While sometimes there
may be little or no food in Ethiopia or Bangladesh, there is still plenty to eat in other parts of
India or Africa, or in America. Charitable organizations seek to arouse guilt in the well fed, but
they are not saving the world with their efforts. It's arguable that they are not even doing any
favor to the starving nations who would probably be better off without so many hungry mouths.
Nations do not thrive when their people are reduced to eating the seeds of next year's crops.
Now, if the whole world were to run out of food, it would be a different story. Such a scenario
could be the effect of a total lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mother Earth. With no
more green plants to produce the protein and energy that the animals and humans require to
survive, the following sequence might ensue:
Philosophers like Thomas Malthus have predicted this kind of outcome for some time. It hasn't
happened yet, but who knows?
In some respects, the category of "global calamity" is the most likely scenario leading to the
extinction of Homo sapiens. One reason for this is that it has already happened, and not just to
one species. The majority of geological evidence indicates that it was the impact of a giant
asteroid that collided with our planet some sixty-five million years ago that caused the extinction
of all of the dinosaurs.
Ever vigilant, we already have teams of astronomers searching the heavens for exactly that kind
of threat. If there is some big rock out there hurtling toward us, we want to know about it far
enough in advance to do something about it. Thinkers have come up with many proposals about
how to avert such a threat, but for now the emphasis is on finding all of the large objects crossing
our orbit and calculating their trajectories.
It must be said that a collision with some monster rock is not the only imaginable global
calamity. The following list is by no means complete;
If all of these possible calamities seem unlikely, it is probably because they are. The odds are
that we are going to continue to exist for quite some time.
the return of Tyrannosaurus Rex or Saber Tooth Tigers. But many would love to have the
Passenger Pigeon back. Believed to be, at one time, the most numerous bird species on Earth, the
last one died in 1914. Most of them had been killed by the end of the nineteenth century.
Many folks long to see again a Carolina Parakeet or an Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Other long-
gone species include the Tasmanian Wolf, the English Wolf, the Quagga, the Caspian Tiger,
Steller's Sea Cow, the Spectacled Cormorant and the Dodo.
Humanity is hardly the only cause of extinction. Climate change and natural catastrophes
account for many of the missing creatures. It has been estimated that, of all of the species that
have ever lived, 99.9% of them are now extinct. Although we have done our share, both by over
hunting and habitat destruction, most of these left the scene without our help. Most of them, in
fact, were gone before humans came to exist. Dinosaurs are an example of this.
Extinction is still an ongoing event. By the end of the century, half of what is left may be gone.
The big question, of course, is whether Homo sapiens will be one of the species to disappear.
Right off the bat, that seems unlikely. In our relatively short period of existence, our species
has mushroomed to a population of seven billion. However, things could change. A list of
possible challenges to our survival would include:
- major environmental change;
- war;
- epidemics;
- famine;
- global calamity.
These days we hear a lot about global warming. Although that may qualify as a big change in
our environment, it's doubtful that it would lead to extinction of our species. Mankind is really
good at adapting to changes in habitat. Hot, cold, wet, dry, fertile, barren, crowded, sparse... all
of these conditions already exist in different places on the globe. Rising sea levels are not going
to kill us all either. Even if global warming presages a return of the ice age, as some say, we will
survive. Humans live in the Arctic and in Antarctica. It will take more than that to get rid of us.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide sound scary, and to some members of the population, whose
breathing is not the best, it probably is dangerous. But we have to remember that at times in the
past there were much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Back in the Jurassic Period, there
were times when the level may have been as much as 20 times as high as is is today. Plants love
carbon dioxide. Green plants require the compound as a source of food. Much of the carbon
that exists today as organic compounds stored in the form of coal and petroleum, as well as in the
existing wood and plastic, was once a part of the air. When green plants, in the process called
photosynthesis, extract carbon, they also release oxygen.
In the earliest years of our planet's atmosphere, there was no free oxygen at all. Oxygen was
and is toxic to anaerobic microbes. Now that nearly a quarter of the air is composed of molecules
of oxygen, anaerobic life forms are reduced to living in environments without oxygen. These are
found inside our bodies and under rotting logs.
Carbon dioxide levels had been dropping for millions of years. That they are rising now is
inevitable in the cyclic way of things. Had they continued to go down, all the way to zero, then
we would have seen the end of green plants. However, that is unlikely to happen, since green
plants and photosynthesis are the reason for the lowering of CO2 levels.
War is another threat to the survival of humanity, but so far it has failed miserably to even dent
the population. The reasons for this up until now have been the lure of slavery and taxation.
Military victors learned long ago that, if they are to be wealthy warriors, they need someone to do
the work. Why exterminate the vanquished population? They can be used to produce the food,
clothing and shelter. They can work in the mines and build the roads. Otherwise, the noble
princes and chieftains would have to do the work themselves. Hence, slavery, and its subtle
cousin, taxation.
Terrible as they are, these nasty habits have led to the organization of civilization that we are
familiar with. Without subject populations paying taxes or fields full of slaves or serfs doing all
of the work for free, the only recourse for the mighty would be plunder.
In ancient times, plunder was the name of the game. Kill all of the enemy population and seize
the wealth and the land. By the time of the historical empires, the Romans, the Persians, etc., the
kings and emperors had learned that much more wealth is available if you do not kill the goose
that laid the golden egg.
Although this makes a grizzly kind of sense, the unfortunate byproduct of the system is
overpopulation. For the rulers, more taxpayers and more slaves means more wealth.
All of this might change. With the advent of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, war
may yet sweep the planet clear of humanity. This brings us to the next option:
Plagues and epidemics have certainly played their roles in reducing our populations. The irony
is that, as Friedrich Nietsche put it, "That which does not destroy us makes us stronger." It has
been suggested that Europe arrived in modern times with much of its forest intact thanks to the
Bubonic Plague. This epidemic in the fourteenth century, the "Black Plague," killed off a quarter
to a half of Europe's people. This actually left that part of the world in better shape to take
advantage of the upcoming industrial revolution. In contrast with other parts of the world where
overpopulation had already depleted the forests and damaged the rivers and croplands, Europe
was left with vast resources and a manageable population.
There are still speculations that some new disease may appear that will do what none of the
others have been able to do, and that is to wipe out the species. However, that event is hardly in
the best interest of whatever virus or bacillus is behind the infection. If these nasty micro-
organisms destroy their host, then they too must perish.
Which brings us to the next candidate for extinction of the human race, famine. Up until now
this one has also been a loser. Although millions of people have starved to death over the ages,
the population of our species has expanded without a hitch.
The primary reason for this is that past episodes of unrelieved hunger have occurred, not due to
a lack of food on the planet, but rather due to inadequate distribution. While sometimes there
may be little or no food in Ethiopia or Bangladesh, there is still plenty to eat in other parts of
India or Africa, or in America. Charitable organizations seek to arouse guilt in the well fed, but
they are not saving the world with their efforts. It's arguable that they are not even doing any
favor to the starving nations who would probably be better off without so many hungry mouths.
Nations do not thrive when their people are reduced to eating the seeds of next year's crops.
Now, if the whole world were to run out of food, it would be a different story. Such a scenario
could be the effect of a total lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mother Earth. With no
more green plants to produce the protein and energy that the animals and humans require to
survive, the following sequence might ensue:
- Humans and beasts would consume all of the remaining fruit, vegetables and grain;
- Humans would consume all of the mammals, birds, fish and insects;
- Humans would eat one another.
- The last remaining man or woman would starve to death.
Philosophers like Thomas Malthus have predicted this kind of outcome for some time. It hasn't
happened yet, but who knows?
In some respects, the category of "global calamity" is the most likely scenario leading to the
extinction of Homo sapiens. One reason for this is that it has already happened, and not just to
one species. The majority of geological evidence indicates that it was the impact of a giant
asteroid that collided with our planet some sixty-five million years ago that caused the extinction
of all of the dinosaurs.
Ever vigilant, we already have teams of astronomers searching the heavens for exactly that kind
of threat. If there is some big rock out there hurtling toward us, we want to know about it far
enough in advance to do something about it. Thinkers have come up with many proposals about
how to avert such a threat, but for now the emphasis is on finding all of the large objects crossing
our orbit and calculating their trajectories.
It must be said that a collision with some monster rock is not the only imaginable global
calamity. The following list is by no means complete;
- Volcanic activity might increase and render the whole planet too hot and toxic for any life
forms to survive. - The sun could explode, a phenomenon called a super nova. This is unlikely, since our star is
too small. - Scientists might accidentally create a black hole, and our whole planet, solar system or
galaxy could shrink to the size of a pin point. - Terrorists or governments could set off some sort of doomsday device.
- Aliens from another solar system might show up and kill us all.
If all of these possible calamities seem unlikely, it is probably because they are. The odds are
that we are going to continue to exist for quite some time.
| Yoga for Carnivores by Jay Dyck |