Nature is a weekly magazine that publishes current research. Researchers wishing to be published must be peer reviewed in order to get their paper published. And this is a magazine that Shane was used to reading in grad school, and has lately renewed his subscription to feel better in touch with what is new in the field of science.
Most of the magazine is over my head, it's very technical and uses words I don't know and equations that don't have very many numbers in them. =) But I can glean a bit, and I enjoy it when it isn't a depressing trend that is discovered. There's a lot of bad news with the good.
In the 10 November 2011 issue, they had a small sidebar with an excerpt from 100 years ago:
"There is not the slightest doubt that birds and mammals are now being killed off much faster than they can breed. And it is always the largest and noblest forms of life that suffer most... And the worst of it is that all this wanton destruction is not by any means confined to the ignorant or those who have been brought up to it. We have had our warning. The great auk and the Labrador duck have both become extinct within living memory... When wild life is squandered it does not go elsewhere, like squandered money; it cannot possibly be replaced by any substitute, as some inorganic resources are: it is simply an absolute dead loss, gone beyond even the hope of recall."
From Nature 9 November 1911
1911. Wow! I'm also struck the term "absolute dead loss". And of course, since that publication 100 years ago, many more animals have become extinct. More animals gone beyond the hope of recall. Maybe I should look up how many.
Reading this makes me wish that we would have come farther in caring about animal extinction over the last one hundred years.
Reading this makes me sad for my children.
Reading this makes me realize that here is something that science and religion should have in common: a care for our natural world / God's creation. Should scientists care more for the environment than those who attribute the existence of our natural world to God?
I want to raise my kids with a respect and appreciation for nature, which we depend on for our very lives. And I hope that in the next one hundred years, as many other species hover on the brink of extinction, we will be willing to give more and take less from our environment.
What an interesting excerpt! And I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that science and religion should agree on this subject. It's so ironic to me that a huge percentage of Christian conservatives poke fun at "tree huggers". The derogatory nick name itself is made up of something that gives us life, created by God. And then there's the entire animal kingdom, so much of it we use for ourselves and then such a wider realm that we're so little acquainted with - but it's a great reminder of our little part in something so much bigger. Ok, that's my little rant. Good post! :D xoxo
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad you wrote this post. Been coming back to it several times thinking about my comment. I sometimes have conversations with people about environmental issues (ie global warming) and I notice that some try to negate the issues in order to keep the comfortable things they've become accustomed to without guilt. But, my thinking is- whether there is global warming or not/ whether the scientists are right, or just dramatic- we need to be mindful of our environment, we need to take care of the earth. It is our duty as people. I am kind of happy with the progress since 1911, although I'm sure it could be better. But at least its discussed and a least we're making strides. I recently watched a program about the whales. Remember the Save the Whales campaign? It actually worked! I was shocked when I heard that. I remember it so well from childhood. We CAN actually do something! Of course they were dying due to poaching I think, not the environment... so not quite the same. Anyway, I digress. The point is, I agree- we're stewards:) However- one more thing- I think extinction may be a natural course of nature, but when its due to our irresponsible behavior- that's no good. Very disjointed! Sorry!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Kelly and Calysta!
ReplyDeleteWell, the last Black Rhinoceros was recently poached and so we have those no longer... and I guess I see that as humans destroying the environment. I've been glad about Condor efforts that have been successful, as well as some local hawk and falcon experts bringing them back from the brink. All of those animals face extinction because of humans, which is a shame. (pesticides, cars and power poles)
But one thing that is interesting for me to consider: As the extinction rate skyrockets, and our environment becomes ruined, we also will die. Obviously we can't survive without the environment. But the sad part is that in ruining it for ourselves, we choose for plants and animals to die first, and that is a shame.
Also, I personally feel upset that opinion polls in our country show us as a nation behind every other nation in the world on environmental issues. We are the most in denial. (Is it because, as you said Kelly, we are a wealthy nation and love our creature comforts?) We also have an interesting attitude toward science, it's always the "so called experts" instead of respecting information. It's amazing to me that people will feel qualified to criticize a scientific study when they know absolutely nothing about it. Being married to a scientist, I guess I realize they aren't know-it-alls with something to prove. Simply people with a thirst for information and usually a passion for some area of our world. And a vast knowledge base.
AAaaaaanyway......! Feel free to share a disagreement, anyone. I expect to get other viewpoints when I share one of mine. =)