Bears and people (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

Incidents like this are becoming more regular, there were a couple of fatalities in Italy IIRC. Animals are not safe anywhere it seems, they just can't avoid people who continue to infest the planet with their burgeoning numbers.

Woman dies after being chased by bear in Slovakia

She was walking with a male companion when they were set upon by a bear, local officials say.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Jos Stratford]

It is not confirmed that she was killed by the bear, there are reports she fell and died while running away.

 

[Farnboro John]

What humans need as a species is recognition that its OK for animals to predate them. Each bear is more important to the planet than any of 8,000,000,000 people.

John

 

[THE_FERN]

What humans need as a species is recognition that its OK for animals to predate them. Each bear is more important to the planet than any of 8,000,000,000 people.

John

Well not sure about this. Even before people became dominant, bears had relatively little impact as ecosystem engineers. In contrast, even aboriginal peoples always have been potent "shapers"

 

[Farnboro John]

Well not sure about this. Even before people became dominant, bears had relatively little impact as ecosystem engineers. In contrast, even aboriginal peoples always have been potent "shapers"

Sorry, you think that's a good thing?

Bears are part of the ecosystem and their value does not depend on how they change it. We are part of the ecosystem but if any other species on Earth changed our ecosystem as comprehensively and negatively as we do, we'd cull it massively. It's incumbent on us to manage the ecosystem responsibly and that means not killing things just because they happen to occasionally eat one of us.

John

 

[THE_FERN]

Sorry, you think that's a good thing?

Depends. Our species has been supremely successful in managing ecosystems for our own benefit. So far, the modifications haven't (on balance) negatively affected us: the human population continues to grow and living standards around the world continue to rise. One can take a misanthropic view and say all this is a bad thing. But amongst humans that's very much the minority position

 

[dantheman]

Depends. Our species has been supremely successful in managing ecosystems for our own benefit. So far, the modifications haven't (on balance) negatively affected us: the human population continues to grow and living standards around the world continue to rise. One can take a misanthropic view and say all this is a bad thing. But amongst humans that's very much the minority position

There are also a few negatives and downsides ...


(I have a feeling it is believed some of the S American civilizations may have negatively affected their surroundings leading to their downfall iirc)

 

[Trinovid]

What humans need as a species is recognition that its OK for animals to predate them. Each bear is more important to the planet than any of 8,000,000,000 people.

Feel free to truly show your support and start by making a donation today.

 

[Farnboro John]

Depends. Our species has been supremely successful in managing ecosystems for our own benefit. So far, the modifications haven't (on balance) negatively affected us: the human population continues to grow and living standards around the world continue to rise. One can take a misanthropic view and say all this is a bad thing. But amongst humans that's very much the minority position

Quite possibly true but this is what gives us the increasingly uncomfortable recognition that anthropogenic climate change is negatively affecting our own position let alone that of the rest of the world's species. Are you saying that climate change recognition is misanthropic? Personally I think it holds the only survival route for the human race at large and is therefore anthropophile but in the interests of not taking anything else with us I think we also have to recognise that our governments' inability to generate any economic model not based on the ultimately certain disaster of Ponzi-scheme growth means we have to shrink the human population (and quickly, frankly) in order to even support current living standards - and those aboriginal peoples you spoke of have either lost or are losing their habitats through modern destruction, so they no longer have even their original living standards.

Climate collapse will shrink the human population quickly when it really gets going but it would probably be better for us and the rest of animality if it were done in a managed way.

John

 

[THE_FERN]

anthropogenic climate change

Climate collapse

Only one aspect of the changes we have wrought on ecosystems, end result of which is not yet clear. Its implications for our own species are also uncertain. An optimist might hope we'd avoid the worst predicted negative consequences through transition to clear energy etc

(I'd note that the hottest period in earth's history was a period of rapid diversification for mammals [and reptiles])

We have had many other impacts on ecosystems before this which have nothing to do with climate change---widespread introductions of alien species, elimination of large species (especially predators) etc etc.

 

[Farnboro John]

Only one aspect of the changes we have wrought on ecosystems, end result of which is not yet clear. Its implications for our own species are also uncertain. An optimist might hope we'd avoid the worst predicted negative consequences through transition to clear energy etc

(I'd note that the hottest period in earth's history was a period of rapid diversification for mammals [and reptiles])

We have had many other impacts on ecosystems before this which have nothing to do with climate change---widespread introductions of alien species, elimination of large species (especially predators) etc etc.

Yes indeed, which is why I think of our "shaper" business as largely negative. It remains the weight of opinion that the loss of each continent's megafauna was down to humans even before firearms, which makes us pretty undesirable from very early in pre-history.

John

 

[THE_FERN]

Yes indeed, which is why I think of our "shaper" business as largely negative. It remains the weight of opinion that the loss of each continent's megafauna was down to humans even before firearms, which makes us pretty undesirable from very early in pre-history.

John

very early in pre-history.

This was actually very late in prehistory, only a few thousand years ago, and perhaps no more than 50 k in the case of Australia. In contrast, what's likely to have been the first mass extinction had nothing to do with humans but was some 2 billion years ago:

The strange history of atmospheric oxygen

Many of us think a lot about oxygen. This includes how the normal body handles oxygen in health, but particularly how this is complicated by lung disease. Few of us are aware that as human inhabitants of the earth, we have a unique privilege. This is ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So we aren't the only species to have had negative effects on other species during earth's history. In fact, all heterotrophs have some adverse impacts in this way, and autotrophs like plants compete with others and may actively harm them through allelopathy.

our "shaper" business as largely negative

Depends on your point of view and moral stand point. We have changed and continue to change the status quo, and we are presently causing a mass extinction event. However, the 5 other or so mass extinctions have not involved humans at all. To decide our impact is "negative" you have to bring a particular set of sensibilities to bear—values such as "more biodiversity is good" or "other species have a right to exist". I think you also have to view humans as somehow (how?) not part of nature (which is clearly absurd).

Perhaps we feel that humans are bad because their impacts have been so wide-ranging. But that's just a question of degree and not character. Pathogens in particular are likely to have "routinely" eliminated whole species in the past.

(Personally, I feel the strongest arguments for preserving biodiversity are the same aesthetic and historical ones which surround cultural heritage like works of art. Notions of "rights" are not universal, appeals to utility ["undiscovered drugs in the rainforest"] vulnerable to technological change.)

I mourn the loss of biodiversity as it's something I value highly. But I also turn away from simplistic "humans are evil"-type statements.

 

[Farnboro John]

This was actually very late in prehistory, only a few thousand years ago, and perhaps no more than 50 k in the case of Australia. In contrast, what's likely to have been the first mass extinction had nothing to do with humans but was some 2 billion years ago:

The strange history of atmospheric oxygen

Many of us think a lot about oxygen. This includes how the normal body handles oxygen in health, but particularly how this is complicated by lung disease. Few of us are aware that as human inhabitants of the earth, we have a unique privilege. This is ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So we aren't the only species to have had negative effects on other species during earth's history. In fact, all heterotrophs have some adverse impacts in this way, and autotrophs like plants compete with others and may actively harm them through allelopathy.


Depends on your point of view and moral stand point. We have changed and continue to change the status quo, and we are presently causing a mass extinction event. However, the 5 other or so mass extinctions have not involved humans at all. To decide our impact is "negative" you have to bring a particular set of sensibilities to bear—values such as "more biodiversity is good" or "other species have a right to exist". I think you also have to view humans as somehow (how?) not part of nature (which is clearly absurd).

Perhaps we feel that humans are bad because their impacts have been so wide-ranging. But that's just a question of degree and not character. Pathogens in particular are likely to have "routinely" eliminated whole species in the past.

(Personally, I feel the strongest arguments for preserving biodiversity are the same aesthetic and historical ones which surround cultural heritage like works of art. Notions of "rights" are not universal, appeals to utility ["undiscovered drugs in the rainforest"] vulnerable to technological change.)

I mourn the loss of biodiversity as it's something I value highly. But I also turn away from simplistic "humans are evil"-type statements.

I'm sorry, I put the pre-history thing badly: I meant not long (in planetary terms) before the dawn of recorded history with the first clay tablets.

Mass extinction by us is OK because its happened before and the arguments for preserving biodiversity have to relate to human cultural values and self-interest. Fabulous philosophy.

I do not say humans are evil. I say promoting them at the expense of the remainder of the planet's life forms is a poor and ultimately self-defeating idea and human population growth is one of the worst and most damaging aspects of this headlong rush to disaster.

John

 

[THE_FERN]

(Given that we're humans, many believe that all philosophy relates to human cultural values, pretty much by definition.)

Biodiversity has recovered after previous mass extinctions. It's difficult to put good metrics on this, but you can argue there are perhaps more species alive today than there have ever been (or at least we have comparable numbers to the most diverse periods). We can't talk about diversity of body plan etc—how similar these species are to one another and whether that has changed through time because quantifying this is too difficult. The important point is the time lag between mass extinction and recovery of diversity. That lag is millions of years. This is really the issue with the 6th mass extinction. Given time, life will likely diversify and adapt as it has in the past. It'll just take millions of years to do it (and the species which evolve will be different of course). During that lag earth will be a less rich place.

Even if there were no humans we would expect all the species currently alive to eventually disappear, become extinct with new ones arising in their place. So it's not extinction itself which is the issue, and preservation of the status quo is not possible long-term.

 

[Binastro]

I would actually talk about 11 billion humans as likely.

The world's population is 3 or 4 times larger than when I was a child.

Humans will destroy the Moon, Mars and the moons of the planets if they carry on as normal.

I used to be an active supporter of Prof. O'Neill s ideas of cities in space with 100,000 people in each at the Lagrangian points in our solar system.
There were six feet thick shrouds around these cities to counteract radiation.
There is a Sci-fi movie that contains all these elements, but I can't recall the name.
I wrote extensively about this.
Late 1970s with the cities built by now.
Maybe Space Studies Institute.
I was a idiot.

The actual reality would have been wars between these cities.

40 shuttles continually were to be used.
Material was slung from the Moon into space using very high speed slings. from the airless Moon.

The observations here on the forum will have little effect as to the actual outcome.

In all likelihood we will become extinct from a comet or rogue asteroid impact.
A comet can come from the direction of the Sun and we would hardly see it before impact.

This may be next week or in a million years or more.
It is just a matter of chance.

An optimist might hope that humans can at least learn to live together and become a long lived species.
My fried thinks humans will be gone in two hundred years.
I, of course, don't know.
We may be a passing phase on this Earth or live long into the future.
Personally, it doesn't matter much to me as I am elderly.
But as a lifetime astronomer, I do see the bigger picture.

Here's hoping.

Regards,
B.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I'm no behavioural expert but this bear looks scared to me?

Slovakia: Bear filmed during attack in Liptovský Mikuláš

A 49-year-old woman and 72-year-old man are hospitalised during the attack in Liptovský Mikuláš.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dantheman]

Funnily enough I randomly watched this video early this morning -

 

[Farnboro John]

(Given that we're humans, many believe that all philosophy relates to human cultural values, pretty much by definition.)

Biodiversity has recovered after previous mass extinctions. It's difficult to put good metrics on this, but you can argue there are perhaps more species alive today than there have ever been (or at least we have comparable numbers to the most diverse periods). We can't talk about diversity of body plan etc—how similar these species are to one another and whether that has changed through time because quantifying this is too difficult. The important point is the time lag between mass extinction and recovery of diversity. That lag is millions of years. This is really the issue with the 6th mass extinction. Given time, life will likely diversify and adapt as it has in the past. It'll just take millions of years to do it (and the species which evolve will be different of course). During that lag earth will be a less rich place.

Even if there were no humans we would expect all the species currently alive to eventually disappear, become extinct with new ones arising in their place. So it's not extinction itself which is the issue, and preservation of the status quo is not possible long-term.

I still think that this is a casual attitude and hope that whatever happens, there won't be a highly intelligent successor species that looks in wonder and says "can you believe what these ****wits knowingly did?!!!"

John