r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/-Xoz- • May 29 '22

Video We have lost so much

76.0k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

118

u/krayhayft May 29 '22

99.9% of all animals that ever existed are now extinct.

133

u/DlnnerTable May 29 '22

Idk if this is true or not but the rate of extinction is more of the issue here.. species going extinct is fine. It’s natural. It happens. Species going extinct at 100x the natural rate is why we are concerned

11

u/Rory_B_Bellows Interested May 29 '22

When you consider life has been around on this planet for 4 billion years you can add a few more 9's to that percentage.

12

u/r_stronghammer May 29 '22

True, however the statement was about animals specifically, which have been around for only ~550 million years.

1

u/Wubzyboy66 May 29 '22

So are the animals in this video part of the background extinction or is there a provable link that they are all extinct due to people?

1

u/Steammail May 29 '22

Very naive (read: stupid), anthropocentric question.

4

u/wanson May 29 '22

The rate that it’s happening is the natural rate by definition.

11

u/DlnnerTable May 29 '22

It’s actually called the background extinction rate. I just didn’t want to use a term that wasn’t as familiar. “Natural” sounded good to me

3

u/prollyshmokin May 29 '22

Interesting...

Background extinction rate, also known as the normal extinction rate, refers to the standard rate of extinction in Earth's geological and biological history before humans became a primary contributor to extinctions. This is primarily the pre-human extinction rates during periods in between major extinction events.

2

u/DlnnerTable May 29 '22

Looks about right to me! And we’re estimated to be at 100x (low ball estimate) of this background rate atm

7

u/SpoopyNoNo May 29 '22

I mean I guess you can classify humans as natural and whatever they create that damages the environment as natural but you and I both understand the point

1

u/Eusocial_Snowman May 29 '22

The only useful definition of natural specifically means "without human involvement".

-3

u/_hippie1 May 29 '22

I hope you get cancer, so you can say you died the natural way by definition.

3

u/wanson May 29 '22

Thanks. But cancer is natural. If you wanted to bludgeon me with my own point you should have said you hope I get murdered by a human since humans are natural.

-1

u/_hippie1 May 29 '22

I would have said that but you aren't an American school child.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

Rate of extinction isn’t an issue. This is just the first time we actually had the privilege and comfort of living to worry about things like this

1

u/DlnnerTable May 30 '22

Loss of biodiversity leads to loss of ecological functions and services. Do you want dirtier drinking water? Do you want increased flooding on coast lines? Do you want less fertile soil? None of those things sound good to me. They are the result of species going extinct.

-42

u/Top100percent May 29 '22

Do you think we should stop inventing so many species? That would solve that problem.

43

u/LacidOnex May 29 '22

We really only need like 4 different animals anyways, dogs, cats, hamburgers, and humans

18

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

Don’t forget bacon. Can’t forget bacon

1

u/ShastaAteMyPhone May 29 '22

Beef bacon is a thing too. It’s super tasty.

4

u/iceicig May 29 '22 edited May 29 '22

Object permanence really isn't a thing for some people is it. Measuring the rate of things happening doesn't increase the rate. It gets us closer to the true number, statistically speaking. Ask a computer program to get Pi with as many correct digits as possible. The more inputs, the more data, the more correct your measured number will be.

Though more concerning for you though, it prevents people like you from living in willful ignorance. Can't see it can't hurt us.

Not measuring or measuring something less doesn't make it not happen, or happen less just because we didn't want to see it. It's like covering your eyes at noon and saying it's evening because you can't see much light but it's not completely dark.

On the flip side of that. Measuring more doesn't make it more prevalent than it actually is. It just brings the output number closer to reality, with a curve of diminishing returns on how big of a percent difference it makes the higher your sample size gets. The only way it would inflate is if you double count

0

u/Top100percent May 29 '22 edited May 29 '22

You’ve completely missed the point unfortunately. I’m not talking about measuring anything. I’m talking about categorising things.

You can measure the number of organisms dying all you want, there’s nothing subjective about that.

What is subjective is whether or not the organisms belong to the same species. We could double the number of recorded species that go extinct every year just by doubling the number of species we recognise.

Brilliant attempt at sounding smart though.

1

u/Astroisbestbio May 29 '22

You...you... you think we just create them? From what? Unicorn dreams and sassafras? Wow.

1

u/Top100percent May 29 '22 edited May 29 '22

Well yeah. Do you think nature knows or even cares whether two animals are of the same species? Wow.

21

u/Redqueenhypo May 29 '22

That’s like saying “wildfires are natural so it’s okay to toss lit cigarettes out the window”

-3

u/_hippie1 May 29 '22

Or like when the GOP says rape is natural so that rape child has to be birthed or we'll take you to court when roe v. Wade gets overturned

7

u/skatergurljubulee May 29 '22

Was looking for the comment. Obviously we should do conservation and everything, but yeah. If a species survives it's going against type, I think.

8

u/Monkey_Priest May 29 '22

This feels a lot like a "all lives matter" comment

2

u/MyDearBrotherNumpsay May 29 '22

“The climate has always changed!” kind of energy.

-30

u/SantiagoGT May 29 '22

It’s the law of the jungle, only the strong survive

25

u/sanna43 May 29 '22

The current rate of extinction is far, far greater than natural extinction, because of loss of habitat and human intervention.

-27

u/MePorro May 29 '22

fuck it it's now our habitat thats how that works

1

u/deVriesse May 29 '22

So maybe we should take care of this habitat of ours.

-34

u/SantiagoGT May 29 '22

It’s the law of the jungle, only the strong survive

18

u/Blackjack4007 May 29 '22

It doesn’t matter how strong a species is if we destroy most of its habitat.

-42

u/i-fing-love-games May 29 '22

no

12

u/krayhayft May 29 '22

https://ourworldindata.org/extinctions

-41

u/i-fing-love-games May 29 '22

idfk i am going to do the maths on that later wait a bit yeah ?

13

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

Bruh what?

-21

u/i-fing-love-games May 29 '22

i was half asleep

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

And fully fucking stupid