io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 4:55 PM
Tue Nov 24
24 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
02:07 PM
Drop Siberia's weather over the mid-east: Presto! No conflict requiring peace talks...
01:48 PM
01:33 PM
People always have, and always will, kill each other.
01:41 PM
02:04 PM
02:18 PM
01:28 PM
religious stuff also can be a source for a war as well.
and i feel that global warming is both manmade and our earth climate cycles.man is definately putting lots of chemicals into earth that normally would not be there in the levels they are now so surely that must have an effect.
01:09 PM
You betcha!
01:57 PM
12:49 PM
02:24 PM
12:47 PM
01:49 PM
02:16 PM
02:22 PM
12:38 PM
In film terms. Its Emmerichs disaster followed by Bays 'Splosions'!! Scary.
12:36 PM
12:55 PM
01:09 PM
12:34 PM
Not to mention probably fighting over scarcer food and water as fresh water sources like mountain glaciers disappear.
12:47 PM
when the fresh water runs out...or there isn't enough arable land folks are going to get mad...
12:53 PM
02:19 PM
BTW: somebody said it: it's amazing people's capability of not seeing the obvious when their paycheck depends on not seeing it
02:59 PM
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I disagree Charlie. It's highly likely that environmental damage from human created chemicals and toxins have caused susceptibility to this syndrome in frogs.
Frogs are kind of the "canary in the coal mine" of nature. Their skin is very permeable and almost sponge-like. They very readily absorb just about anything in the ecosystem and are usually one of the first species to show signs of distress due to environmental insults.
This is why it's very important to never pick up frogs you might find (however cute they are). They will absorb whatever is on your hands right through their skin.
Just FYI...
11/04/09
11/04/09
Not only that, we're the reason chytrid is now everywhere.
[www.edgeofexistence.org]
"The recent surge in amphibian extinctions and the discovery of chytridiomycosis follows a recent and unprecedented increase in the human-derived movement of amphibians across the globe. Species are transported beyond their natural range to meet the needs of research laboratories, food supplies, captive collections and pest control. The three most commonly introduced species are the North American Bullfrog, Rana catesbiana, the African-clawed frog, Xenopus laevis and the Cane toad, Bufo marinus. All three species are known to be asymptomatic carriers of B. dendrobatidis-infection."
We took amphibians that have a defense against the infection and put them in contact with amphibians all over the world that were utterly vulnerable to it. #ecology
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/05/09
So what? It's still plain old natural selection whether the fungus was distributed by humans or birds.
Extinction and survival are what the environment are made of.
-Kle. #ecology
11/05/09
It all depends on what sort of future Earth you prefer. We have more say over it every day. As a consequence, one day we'll be living on exactly the Earth we deserve, whatever that may be. #ecology
11/06/09
"Deserve" is a rather silly term.
Environmental preservation (while pleasant) is a hugely more "unnatural" process than extinction.
The set of species existing on Earth at any one time is no more perfect than the set of species existing in some other era. Trying to "freeze frame" the global environment is it's state as of some given baseline year is probably impossible, and sort of perverse.
-Kle. #ecology
11/06/09
I don't personally know of anyone advocating the arbitrary "freeze frame" of the global environment. I suppose they're out there, but usually this is just one of those well-worn environmental strawmen.
I merely advocate that given the vast array of services the natural world provides us with (billions if not trillions of dollars worth, for free), a gradual rate of global extinctions has perhaps more short-term utility to us than a rapid rate. Those who are "freeze framing" are only acting as a counterweight. It just makes good business sense not to imperil such a good deal so long as we still depend on it, and it's hard to determine exactly what will and won't imperil it so it's prudent to err on the side of caution.
And I frequently hear the argument that it's "natural" for human beings to drive other animals into extinction, yet it's "unnatural" for human beings to protect species (or networks of species) that provide us with a benefit, either directly or indirectly. The asymmetry always struck me as strange, especially since one would have to include something as fundamental as agriculture in the latter category. Perhaps that is unnatural; it still seems to be a good idea, regardless. #ecology
11/07/09
Sure.
Still no real reason to get all worked up about a frog.
-Kle. #ecology
11/04/09