But are you trying to make the point that it’s an exaggeration because “known life” only covers like 99.9% of the species on the planet, but not some ocean dwelling micro-organisms that we’ve yet to catalogue.
Does that make the extinction on that scale less scary? Does it make capitalism better and more acceptable that they’re only gonna destroy a third of known life.
Are you implying theres like a Hollow Earth with a massive amount of “live” that will compensate for the soon to be broken ecosystems?
If you only care about mammals that is a “you” problem, the ecosystem certainly does not need those. The deep biosphere, for example, is far larger than both land based and water based organisms combined.
Oh yeah, so it’s not just a third of life we’ll be wiping out, it’s half according to your link.
The extinction of species by human activity continues to accelerate, fast enough to eliminate more than half of all species by the end of this century.
You are implying that basically we don’t know anything about 80% of the life on the planet. That’s not so. They’re describing the part of the species which haven’t been formally described, classified and given two-part Latinized names. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have an estimate of how many beetle species there are, but that we just haven’t had the time to go through all of them. We still know roughly how much beetles there are, even if we’re not exactly sure of how many types of them there are. And that’s one of the hardest issues. For instance not knowing that a certain deer population on some continent might actually be two distinct but closely related species doesn’t mean that we don’t have an estimate of the population that those one or two species of deer live in. (That’s just a hypothetical example, but I’m sure you get the point.)
And to reiterate, you’re basically trying to justify that “it’s not so bad if it’s only a third of KNOWN life and that’s clearly less than 20% of all life”. Your math is really fucked up there, because it’s “a third of life”, not “a third of currently formally described and classified species”. And even a third of a fifth of all life would be rather fucking significant.
Significant enough at least to warrant some action, when it’s definitely possible to do so.
Oh how I detest people who leave a comment with an exceedingly clear implication and then when someone addresses that implication, they pretend they never implied anything.
Us not knowing how many species there are doesn’t mean the estimate of what percentage of life will be affected by climate change is completely off.
1/3 of KNOWN live.
Which could be taken as a good thing or a very bad thing
“Life”*
But are you trying to make the point that it’s an exaggeration because “known life” only covers like 99.9% of the species on the planet, but not some ocean dwelling micro-organisms that we’ve yet to catalogue.
Does that make the extinction on that scale less scary? Does it make capitalism better and more acceptable that they’re only gonna destroy a third of known life.
Are you implying theres like a Hollow Earth with a massive amount of “live” that will compensate for the soon to be broken ecosystems?
You think that we know 99.9 % of all life? They say we only know 20 %.
If you only care about mammals that is a “you” problem, the ecosystem certainly does not need those. The deep biosphere, for example, is far larger than both land based and water based organisms combined.
Oh yeah, so it’s not just a third of life we’ll be wiping out, it’s half according to your link.
You are implying that basically we don’t know anything about 80% of the life on the planet. That’s not so. They’re describing the part of the species which haven’t been formally described, classified and given two-part Latinized names. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have an estimate of how many beetle species there are, but that we just haven’t had the time to go through all of them. We still know roughly how much beetles there are, even if we’re not exactly sure of how many types of them there are. And that’s one of the hardest issues. For instance not knowing that a certain deer population on some continent might actually be two distinct but closely related species doesn’t mean that we don’t have an estimate of the population that those one or two species of deer live in. (That’s just a hypothetical example, but I’m sure you get the point.)
And to reiterate, you’re basically trying to justify that “it’s not so bad if it’s only a third of KNOWN life and that’s clearly less than 20% of all life”. Your math is really fucked up there, because it’s “a third of life”, not “a third of currently formally described and classified species”. And even a third of a fifth of all life would be rather fucking significant.
Significant enough at least to warrant some action, when it’s definitely possible to do so.
How do you come to the conclusion that that could be what I say or imply? Where do I justify anything?
Oh how I detest people who leave a comment with an exceedingly clear implication and then when someone addresses that implication, they pretend they never implied anything.
Us not knowing how many species there are doesn’t mean the estimate of what percentage of life will be affected by climate change is completely off.
Can you quote the sections you think imply these things and point it out to me? I fail to see it.
Almost as if you’re doing exactly what I said. How surprising.
I explained in detail (of several paragraphs) just a few comments ago. You didn’t address it.