"Question is how can we possibly know that more species are becoming extinct now than in the last 65 million years?"
'Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we're facing, let’s take you through one scientific analysis...
The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.
These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year.
If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.
But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true - that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet - then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year.'
That information is from
wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/Okay so the period Watson gave was 60 years. And lets assume he was using the highest of the figures above. Meaning that there are 100000000 species on this planet, 0.1% are going extinct each year, and that is 10000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.
Now:
0.1% of 100000000 = 100000 species are going extinct each year.
100000 / 365 = 274 species are going extinct each day.
100000 x 60 = 6000000 species will go extinct between 1985 and 2045 (Keeping in mind that the situation is worsening not improving.)
Last 65 million years :
100000 / 10000 = 10 species went extinct each year
10 x 65000000 = 650000000 speciees went extinct since 65 million years ago. ( None of these calculations included the fact that roughly the same number of new species came into existance as there were species going extinct in the last 65 million years. Now however, very few new species are coming in due to the shrinking wild places)
So Paul Watson was wrong on that count, but I just think he was trying to impress upon people the scale of the mass extinction going on as we speak.
"And all recorded statistics regarding the species that we discuss here show that they have a healthy sustainable population"
Not all, many yes, but Sea Shepherd do fight for endangered animals too, like the sharks being targeted by shark finning operations. And Japan do catch endangered whales too, the Minke whale is not the only whale being caught.
"in the case of the grind on the Faroe Islands this has been the case since 1548"
With this its not so much whether they are endangered or not, it is the methods involved in killing them. They are terrified as they are herded into the bays, and then they have to watch their family be killed before they are killed aswell. That is the difference between killing a pig in solitude in a calm environment, quickly and painlessly, and killing these animals in terrifying, sometimes slow, with its families dying screams in its ears. And the Pilot Whale meat is toxic. You are poisoning yourself with every bite, your own doctors proved this. Yet you continue to ignore this advice and stubbornly eat it "like a spoiled child in kindergarden".
"If Sea Sheperd really cared about species going extinct they should focus their resources and energy elsewhere "
Like on Fin WHales? Or the endangered sharks having their fins brutally cut off before throwing them back into the sea? Or the Humpback whales at James Prince Point where SSCS have been quite recently? What about the Taiji dolphin slaughter? Or are they not good enough for you?
"endangering human lives"
Im soryy but SSCS purposely avoid people, and aim away from where there is anybody working on the ship to avoid hitting them, and I remember in 2009 the Japanese whalers were throwing metal object from their ship directly at the people on the inflatable boats, and they also directed their LRad at the helicopter pilot, which could have caused him to lose control of his helicopter. Thats just one whaling season. And Japanese whalers caused more endangering of lives than the SSCS volunteers.
"the only goal being sensationalism and lust for media "
That is not the only goal, yes in part they need to grab the medias attention, but the SSCS volunteers DO care about the whales. If you saw Paul when he was watching a whale being dragged up a slipway for the first time, you would not say that he does not care. They care. They do this because they care. Why else would anybody spend months on a ship in the freezing antarctic with no pay. (Yes Watson claims a high wage but he DOES care about the whales)
"Most serious organisations"
You know this because you represent every serious organisation on the planet?
"ost serious organisations know that in order to stop the harvesting of a resource, you have to somehow diminish the demand/availability of said resource either through education/information or change in legislature"
Yes, doing that would help. But it is also very costly for Japan to be constantly trying to defend their supply of whales from SSCS. SSCS have cost them a lot of money, and it is arguable about what would be most effective. I personally think that might be a very good way of doing it, but neither you or me are in charge of SSCS, they are using the methods they think will be most effective. And they are doing a good thing, for a good cause.
shonan2 If Japan end their whling operation , many others would follow suite, Japan are the major player in this, end their whaling operation and it will be a lot easier to end the rest. Happy?