The human Pangaea

16 comments on “The human Pangaea ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robert Guyton 1

   9 December 2020 at 9:03 am

   I guess the situation we find ourselves in now (as described by LPRENT) was inevitable; how could it have been otherwise – we're clever devils, us humans and can't/didn't resist the temptation to try everything, go everywhere. We've forced enormous change across the globe and beyond; from dead-frog-filled ponds to junk-littered space and the issue is an on-going, cumulative, worsening one.

   I was particularly hard-hit when the chytrid fungus was first reported, having been fascinated by frogs for as long as I can remember, catching and keeping them, crouching beside ponds watching them for hours on end, reading about them, collecting models of them and so on, and on, and on (my parents would have said) but only now learned of the "salamander-devouring" fungus (thanks, LPRENT!) and so am absorbing that bad news now. When I go out into my forest garden, I thrill to the birds there; tui, bellbird, fantail and others, but wonder, why are there so few? Where are the kokako, the huia, the laughing owl, the pouaki? That's not even thinking about the gecko that once would have been prolific here, perhaps living alongside of the tiny, silent native frogs that now eke out their existence on a few off-shore islands. Bats, tuatara; don't even think about it, I tell myself.

   I guess the question is, was the game lost the moment we started down this track of expanding our interests in the world, or are we enabled, by the same braininess that brought us here, to do something about the seemingly deadly situation we've created?

   And I wonder too, where the answer to that question comes from; our heads or our hearts?

   Presuming, of course, there is an answer.
2. WeTheBleeple 2

   9 December 2020 at 9:28 am

   The palette of plants at our disposal has greatly increased our potential to create human inhabited paradise, while the invasives that arrived alongside more desirable species threaten to make any effort at 'taming nature' an arduous task.

   While a concerted focus on the natural world is desirable, I'm sure nature would prefer to avoid the gaze of man and his machinations right now.

   We have Eden at our fingertips and accountants on our backs.

   The price of ecosystem services must be factored into accounting, as it stands industries accounting of their activities is dishonest and skewed to support more destruction.

   Only when people and planet are more important than celebrity and money will we solve our problems (in a sustainable manner).
   • kejo 2.1

     9 December 2020 at 12:49 pm

     The clash between the laws of Physics (fixed) and the seemingly more powerful laws of commerce (ever manipulated) is not much recognised. It seems to me that the laws of ..natural systems should be taught as a foundation subject at university. I have never met anybody with a double degree in Physics and Commerce. They could be a severely conflicted person. Regards, Keith
     • WeTheBleeple 2.1.1

       9 December 2020 at 7:40 pm

       I do like this thinking. Environmental science was the closest I saw to common sense at uni, where they looked at ecology with mankind as a component. I also liked that they sourced information widely rather than peer reviewed work only.

       Environmental science mostly churns out advisors for larger scale construction and industrial efforts. These advisers might slow, but rarely halt, environmental destruction.

       The person with the knowledge is rarely ever the boss. Only laws can stop bosses from making final calls that go against wiser employees.

       Or, as you suggest, wiser bosses. If only.
   • Robert Guyton 2.2

     9 December 2020 at 9:44 pm

     http://www.twisted-tree.net/the-best-invasive-plants
3. Craig H 3

   9 December 2020 at 9:33 am

   A reduction in international travel looks essential to me and international tourism should be first cab off the rank in that.
4. JanM 4

   9 December 2020 at 9:50 am

   "I’ve never eaten food that is native to NZ". I grow and eat NZ spinach and occasionally drink kawakawa tea
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.1

     9 December 2020 at 2:58 pm

     A lot of fish and shellfish consumed in NZ are also native species.

     But a good observation that there is very little native terrestrial food consumed. Pukeko are an exception, as are muttonbirds (only sort of terrestrial!).
5. cathy-o 5

   9 December 2020 at 10:29 am

   i went to the Mary Dreaver lecture in Onehunga a couple of weeks ago or so. Siouxsie Wiles was the speaker. Totally fascinating, i would never have imagined anything like Bioluminescent Superbugs, but that is her field.

   as many people have warned us, more pandemics are inevitable. and as we have also been warned we are running out of antibiotics.

   a thing that stayed with me from the lecture is the chronic underfunding of Infectious Diseases research. seems a bit odd doesn't it, given Covid-19 and so on

   here's the link for donations

   https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/giving/donate/a-z-list-of-funds/new-medicines-to-kill-superbugs-fund.html
6. greywarshark 6

   9 December 2020 at 5:37 pm

   Myrtle Rust – part of the march of diseases that are killing off us and various of our icon species.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/432493/myrtle-rust-infection-kills-mature-tree-on-east-cape
   "The disease is a threat to the important and substantial mānuka and kānuka honey industry. Using the new app to accurately identify species of Myrtaceae in New Zealand will make it easier to monitor and report cases of myrtle rust.

   "By using the key, anyone, from farmers and trampers to gardeners and park users, will be able to identify plants to check for and report the tell-tale yellow spores, and diseased leaves," said Dawson.

   The NZ Myrtaceae Key is available from the Google Play store and the iPhone app store as a mobile app suitable for undertaking identifications in the field, or through a web-based browser hosted by Manaaki Whenua.
   .

   War of the Worlds H G Wells? Are the tiny things more fitted to survive than we bigger things?

   The Martians (also known as "Molluscs" or "Sarmaks") are a race of aliens from the planet Mars, who tried to invade Earth when their own homeworld became an inhospitable, frozen desert. Despite their primitive appearance, their intelligence and technology far exceeded our own prior to the invasion…

   The Martians on Earth are eventually killed by earth-borne bacteria, of which their immune systems couldn't cope due to having destroyed diseases on their home world of Mars. https://waroftheworlds.fandom.com/wiki/Martian
7. Stuart Munro 7

   9 December 2020 at 7:04 pm

   It's been going on for awhile – most folk aren't aware of the keystone role chestnuts once played in US forest ecology – again, wiped out by human introduced fungal disease from Asia. There is some hope of a GE'd cure, but we ain't there yet.
   • Robert Guyton 7.1

     9 December 2020 at 7:55 pm

     For the chestnuts, more hope from the very, very few trees that survived and the "minders" who are quietly multiplying them again. I suspect our kauri will need that some sort of saving. Localisesd seed saving and propagation is the longer-lasting insurance against extinctions; ge just doesn't cut it for me, nor do cryogenic seed vaults. Give the people the material, let them weave stories around them and coupled with the plants will to survive, we'll enjoy success.
     • Stuart Munro 7.1.1

       9 December 2020 at 8:07 pm

       GE may be appropriate in this case – Asian chestnuts resist the blight. There are reports of centuries old ancient chestnut groves with surviving roots, perenially losing fresh foliage to the blight as they put them out. The Asian chestnut is a much smaller tree, not the forest giant. There are other efforts to breed resistance – thus far not successful. It's like they lost their kauri.

       American Chestnut Recovery Strategy | Ontario.ca
   • WeTheBleeple 7.2

     9 December 2020 at 8:09 pm

     In NZ we have the Kauri under threat, also a keystone species. However, the phytophthora responsible may have been here for some time. This lends weight to the theory some environmental factor is responsible. Some aspect of land use change to pasture and pine favors the pathogen compared to kauri forest soils. Then we traipse it in.

     https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/efp.12502

     Plants are not the only species affected by imbalances in soil microbes. The practice of ingesting small amounts of soil microbiota from our air and diet is considered an immune primer, but what manner of soil is being ingested by humans today?

     Invasive organisms only arise when they have a niche to get a foothold in. Often they'll sit till something disturbs the environment and then they proliferate. Ploughs, salts, cides, clearance all disturb microbial communities.

     It stands to reason part of the solution to microbial invasion is ecosystem restoration.
8. Phillip ure 8

   9 December 2020 at 9:46 pm

   sometimes the body of a post does not appear on my phone..

   this is one of those times..
9. RedLogix 9

   10 December 2020 at 11:33 am

   From a strict evolutionary perspective maybe as many of 99% of all creatures who ever lived are extinct. Change is the constant feature of this landscape, and disease an ancient enemy; this human pangea being but one very recent event. There are two broad responses to change; one is to avoid it, the other to confront it. Each carries it's own risk/reward.

   Avoiding change, attempting to withdraw and isolate is an excellent short-term strategy. Initially at least, any new threat is poorly understood therefore minimising engagement is the correct action. But longer term it's a very poor response, the lack of learning and adaptation leads to stagnation and increasing vulnerability over time.

   Confronting change is of course the high risk option initially; one never knows whether something new is benign or deadly, so losses will be inevitable. Yet longer term the survivors of this strategy will learn and adapt sooner, will become more competitive and less vulnerable over time.

   (Ideally a species will combine the best of both strategies, and in a very broad sense this is part of why humans have been so successful, the feminine tends toward avoiding risk, the masculine toward confronting it, so in combination we adapt quickly with minimal losses … but this is a tangent to my point.)

   In essence this acknowledges the OP's core argument, that all change and in this instance an anthropomorphic one induced by the human propensity to travel across otherwise relatively isolated biological zones, is inducing entirely unintended pandemics with a largely unknown threat potential.

   The 'avoidance' strategy here would be to confine humans to cities, minimise our contact and impact on the wild world, allowing it time to find a new ecological balance. The 'confrontation' strategy would have us fully embrace a 'survival of the fittest' paradigm and accept that the anthropocene era we are in will mean both losses and victories, that sustaining a 'pristine natural world' in some sort of permanent stasis is an illusory goal.

   Without attempting any kind of prescriptive solution, I suggest that the intelligent approach would engage the best of both strategies; reducing and decoupling human dependency and impact on the natural world of photosynthesis, and invoking a transformation of our agricultural processes toward a more sophisticated harmonisation with living processes.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS