text:
Talk:Cultural bias

Untitled
I rewrote the first paragraph to make it borth more accurate and less biased.

I removed the "example' concerning anthropology. A clever and amusing anecdote, it nevertheless was not an example of cultural bias; it was merely an example of cultural difference.  As a matter of fact, in its local (i.e. the way anthropologists use this anecdote) context the anecdote is about overcoming cultural bias.

I also removed silly phrases that are inappropriate to an enecyclopedia, like "But wait...", SR

Light switch and cultural bias
Is true the "most western countries" turn the light switch on when up? I would refute that. It may be true in the US but that is the only case I know of. Dddo we have cultural bias here?? Alan Liefting 04:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's true in CanadaWilyD 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not true in Australia, here the up position is off.
 * Not true in the UK, nor (as far as I remember) in other European countries I have visited (France, Germany). TomH 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I changed it by adding information from the light switch article. A classic case of cultural bias. The guy who wrote the article is so unknowledgeable about other cultures that he thought that the US standard represented the entire Western world! At least I learnt something. Now I know where the peculiar Japanese light switches that turn on by flicking them up originally came from.

 * User:Bathrobe 18 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.161.144 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

attack on Western philosphy
''"Philosophically, people trained in Western reasoning habitually assume that accumulation of independent evidence constitutes proof of an event's occurrence, even if no person saw the event.

''Western scientific reasoning is even more generous. It assumes that independent evidence can prove theories, indicate the existence of invisible objects, and validate new forms of logic. Further, in some sense, these theories, objects and logic are only conditionally true, and can cease to be simply from a change in recorded human experience.''

 * Experiment and observation can only DISPROVE theories. Any "theory" that cannot be disproved by experiment or observation is not science. e.g. "intelligent design".

At the same time, scientific reasoning discards entire classes of explanations without consulting evidence, such as the assumption that supernatural beings cannot affect physical experiments."''

I would submit that the above is POV and off-topic. Its topic of discussion is not what is commonly understood by the term "cultural bias". It also displays towards scientific methodology what is at best a profound lack of understanding and at worst a wilful hostility.

On specific points: -

" . . . habitually assume . . ."; - POV and at the very least unproven, if not completely inaccurate;

" . . . even more generous." - POV. The rest of the paragraph shows an inability to distinguish between epistemology and ontology.

" . . . supernatural beings . . ." - inconsistent: one cannot disparage "invisible objects" and then accept this as a reasonable argument.

It is a pity this attack on scientific method does not apply to itself the rigour of its target:

"I would teach the world that scientists start by trying very hard to disprove what they hope is true. When they fail, they have a good reason for believing what they hope is true, and can even convince others of its truth. A scientist always acknowledges the possibility of error, and is less likely to be mistaken than one who always claims to be right." - Adam Hoare

I would agree that these tenous generalizations about western thought have no purpose in an article on cultural bias. I think the view that "Western Thought" equates on the whole with "Secular Rationalism" is clearly unsupportable; the comments on the scientific method belie a common misunderstanding. Although I'm not sure it bears arguing out here, science does not discard the "entire class of [supernatural] explanations without consulting evidence". The scientific method discards no evidence, and is mute on the subject of supernatural beings. Hypothetically, they may "affect physical experiments", but this hypothesis is by virtue untestable and unprovable (and, of course, un-disprovable). So, though I'm afraid I don't have much to put up in its place, I'm trimming out this part on the whole. Also, apologies for poor formatting on this post --Jaurisova6 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

attack on Western philosphy 2
I just confirm what Jaurisova6 has written, with a slight thing to add, science has considered supernatural effects. In 17th and 18th century there where efforts to measure the weight of the soul, by measuring the wight of people shortly before and after dying, an extreme case had someone dying while weighed. The result was, that the weight of a person does not change while dying. There have been since 100 years repeated experiments to find evidence of paranormal activity, all that was found could also be perfectly explained by fraud and measurement errors. At the same time, scientific reasoning discards entire classes of explanations without consulting evidence, such as the assumption that supernatural beings cannot affect physical experiments."'' This is simply wrong, science has consulted evidence before discarding gods, souls and psi powers - the evidence indicates, there are no such things. Nobody is killed by lightning strikes, because he does blasphemy against Zeus.
 * Though I agree that the sentence should probably be removed or reworded so as not to sound like an attack on science, it is true in that anything that is "supernatural" is by definition not "natural" and thus, not scientific. Science isn't concerned with such things.  As to the question of whether ghosts and other such things exists, it is incorrect to say science discards these explanations without consulting evidence - there have been attempts, but the evidence simply doesn't exist. Tzepish 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Passages I deleted
I deleted the following:

In brief, any normative belief of a human being seems to be caused by culture, and thus can be reasonably isolated as a cultural bias. - (weasel words and Blank slate POV)

As one might expect, the effects on philosophy are profound, and not merely limited to ethics.

Philosophically, people trained in Western reasoning habitually assume that accumulation of independent evidence constitutes proof of an event's occurrence, even if no person saw the event. - (Does any culture not do this?)

''Western scientific reasoning is even more generous. It assumes that independent evidence can prove theories, indicate the existence of invisible objects, and validate new forms of logic. Further, in some sense, these theories, objects and logic are only conditionally true, and can cease to be simply from a change in recorded human experience.''

At the same time, scientific reasoning discards entire classes of explanations without consulting evidence, such as the assumption that supernatural beings cannot affect physical experiments.

Now note that these assumptions can be denied, and when they are denied, large amounts of science and logic fail, taking much of our knowledge with them. - (Anthromorphizing science, with significant anti-science bias.)

''Significantly to a philosopher, none of these skeptical denials require one to be skeptical of logic or language. Thus, these forms of skepticism do not clearly invalidate themselves as a direct denial of the validity of logic or language would. This means that they might be formally valid.''

''Wittgenstein had a more practical way of classifying cultural biases. He believed the critical thing was whether we would coerce the cultural biases by locking up or medicating people who defied them. That is, whether people who violated the norms were "crazy." He considered cultural biases of this sort to be much more strongly held, perhaps grounded in human biology or physical reality in some way.'' - (Really hard to understand. This needs more context to connect it to the rest of the article.)

Kla'quot Sound 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

November 2007
I tried to resolve this amicably by informing you of my objections before reverting. I do not appreciate having my changes to other articles reverted out of spite.

 * This edit of yours is a rambling, incoherent mess. Gwen Gale 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it is incoherent. Most of my edit was focused on straightening out the blatant POV in this article. The article assumed throughout that cultural bias exists, and greatly over-represented several claims - for example that the natural sciences exhibit cultural bias, or that the laws of logic are a form of cultural bias. It is not a matter of controversy whether the natural sciences exhibit cultural bias. It is uncontroversially accept that they do not except by a very small number of individuals who aren't taken particularly seriously. My other additions were a quote which I thought was a good example of someone who thinks natural sciences exhibit cultural bias, and the section on self-refutation which I thought was relevant as it is a point which is often made. I would also like to delete the "examples" section because it has absolutely no relevance to the rest of the article. As far as I can tell, it is about how light-switch companies fail to tailor their products to a foreign market. Misodoctakleidist 05:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More Serious Opening Quote
Why not put a more reasonable quote displaying someone who believes "cultural bias" exists in the natural sciences, such as that by philosophers of science whose works are actually considered by other philosophers -- e.g. paul feyerabend. The quote in the beginning is frankly absurd and not representative of any epistemology or sociology which considers "bias" in the knowledge production of the sciences. I'll peruse Against Method for a relevant example, and I'll post it here for review... DivisionByZer0 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Source or Delete
"Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?...Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest"

This, along with the article as a whole, needs to be either adequately sourced or it needs to be deleted. Considering that the above quote is either a rhetorical device on the part of the author (if ironic in its original context, which the article doesn't present) or is just fatuous gibberish (if sincere in its original context, which, again, the article doesn't present) it either needs to be sourced (and its context elucidated) or removed. Until then this article serves no purpose other than to assault my mind. Someone should mark this for deletion unless these issues are corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.223.84 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just countries in the southern hemisphere that identify north as being northerly- the whole world in fact observes that orientation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkina (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

what
"Linguistic and ethnic groups often do not share these notational assumptions. Notational and operative assumptions can change control systems if the users implement, fom a different culture than the designers, funnel interpretations from their original world view. Safety-critical systems, according to Seidner (pp. 5-7), become responses to threats of control. Through the emergence of majority and minority categories in society, cultural biases ensue." I'm having difficulty understanding the latter half of this paragraph. It might just be that I am tired, but could someone perhaps explain it a little? Faulty (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Should Define Culture Bias not Debate Whether Or Not It Exists!
The article starts off with "The alleged problem of cultural bias...". So is it questionable that culture bias EVER occurs as a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.235.227 (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

cultural bias is when you look at a cultur different then your own, and find it wierd or not normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.51.192 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion
I am reverting this article to the state it was in in April 2015, prior to a series of edits by User:MariamPogos. These edits were clearly made in good faith, but have just made the article worse. Some of the added material is about blatant prejudice (which isn't at all the same as cultural bias), most of the references are incomprehensible, and (how ironic) the additions are themselves culturally biased, in that they are entirely about disadvantages suffered by ethnic minorities in the U.S. I have spent some time trying to improve the prose with minor tinkering, but have come to the conclusion it just all needs to go. GrindtXX (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cultural bias


text: User:Space Cadet

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Space Cadet


text:
Sex-determination system

A sex-determination system is a biological system that determines the development of sexual characteristics in an organism. Most organisms that create their offspring using sexual reproduction have two common sexes and a few less common intersex variations.

In some species, there are hermaphrodites. There are also some species in which only one sex is present, temporarily or permanently, due to parthenogenesis, the act of a female reproducing without fertilization.

In some species, sex determination is genetic: males and females have different alleles or even different genes that specify their sexual morphology. In animals this is often accompanied by chromosomal differences, generally through combinations of XY, ZW, XO, ZO chromosomes, or haplodiploidy. The sexual differentiation is generally triggered by a main gene (a "sex locus"), with a multitude of other genes following in a domino effect.

In other cases, sex of a fetus is determined by environmental variables (such as temperature). The details of some sex-determination systems are not yet fully understood. Hopes for future fetal biological system analysis include complete-reproduction-system initialized signals that can be measured during pregnancies to more accurately determine whether a determined sex of a fetus is male, or female. Such analysis of biological systems could also signal whether the fetus is hermaphrodite, which includes total or partial of both male and female reproduction organs.

Some species such as various plants and fish do not have a fixed sex, and instead go through life cycles and change sex based on genetic cues during corresponding life stages of their type. This could be due to environmental factors such as seasons and temperature. In some gonochoric species, a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex.

While diversity in sex determination systems is common throughout different biological systems, the systems beyond XY/XX/XO in mammals are often left to more advanced courses for those whose studies specialize in genetics of other organisms.

Discovery
Sex determination was discovered in the mealworm by the American geneticist Nettie Stevens in 1903.

In 1694, J.R. Camerarius, conducted early experiments on pollination and reported the existence of male and female characteristics in plants(Maize).

In 1866, Gregor Mendel published on inheritance of genetic traits. This is known as Mendelian inheritance and it eventually established the modern understanding of inheritance from two gametes.

In 1902, C.E. McClung identified sex chromosomes in bugs.

In 1917, C.E. Allen, discovered sex determination mechanisms in plants.

In 1922, C.B. Bridges, put forth the Genic Balance Theory of sex determination.

XX/XY sex chromosomes

The XX/XY sex-determination system is the most familiar, as it is found in humans. The XX/XY system is found in most other mammals, as well as some insects. In this system, females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). The X and Y sex chromosomes are different in shape and size from each other, unlike the rest of the chromosomes (autosomes), and are sometimes called allosomes. In some species, such as humans, organisms remain sex indifferent for a time during development (embryogenesis); in others, however, such as fruit flies, sexual differentiation occurs as soon as the egg is fertilized.

Y-centered sex determination
Some species (including humans) have a gene SRY on the Y chromosome that determines maleness. Members of SRY-reliant species can have uncommon XY chromosomal combinations such as XXY and still live. Human sex is determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome with a functional SRY gene. Once the SRY gene is activated, cells create testosterone and anti-müllerian hormone which typically ensures the development of a single, male reproductive system. In typical XX embryos, cells secrete estrogen, which drives the body toward the female pathway.

In Y-centered sex determination, the SRY gene is the main gene in determining male characteristics, but multiple genes are required to develop testes. In XY mice, lack of the gene DAX1 on the X chromosome results in sterility, but in humans it causes adrenal hypoplasia congenita. However, when an extra DAX1 gene is placed on the X chromosome, the result is a female, despite the existence of SRY, since it overrides the effects of SRY. Even when there are normal sex chromosomes in XX females, duplication or expression of SOX9 causes testes to develop. Gradual sex reversal in developed mice can also occur when the gene FOXL2 is removed from females. Even though the gene DMRT1 is used by birds as their sex locus, species who have XY chromosomes also rely upon DMRT1, contained on chromosome 9, for sexual differentiation at some point in their formation.

X-centered sex determination
Some species, such as fruit flies, use the presence of two X chromosomes to determine femaleness. Species that use the number of Xs to determine sex are nonviable with an extra X chromosome.

Other variants of XX/XY sex determination
Some fish have variants of the XY sex-determination system, as well as the regular system. For example, while having an XY format, Xiphophorus nezahualcoyotl and X. milleri also have a second Y chromosome, known as Y', that creates XY' females and YY' males.

At least one monotreme, the platypus, presents a particular sex determination scheme that in some ways resembles that of the ZW sex chromosomes of birds and lacks the SRY gene. The platypus has ten sex chromosomes; males have an XYXYXYXYXY pattern while females have ten X chromosomes. Although it is an XY system, the platypus' sex chromosomes share no homologues with eutherian sex chromosomes. Instead, homologues with eutherian sex chromosomes lie on the platypus chromosome 6, which means that the eutherian sex chromosomes were autosomes at the time that the monotremes diverged from the therian mammals (marsupials and eutherian mammals). However, homologues to the avian DMRT1 gene on platypus sex chromosomes X3 and X5 suggest that it is possible the sex-determining gene for the platypus is the same one that is involved in bird sex-determination. More research must be conducted in order to determine the exact sex determining gene of the platypus.

XX/X0 sex chromosomes
In this variant of the XY system, females have two copies of the sex chromosome (XX) but males have only one (X0). The 0 denotes the absence of a second sex chromosome. Generally in this method, the sex is determined by amount of genes expressed across the two chromosomes. This system is observed in a number of insects, including the grasshoppers and crickets of order Orthoptera and in cockroaches (order Blattodea). A small number of mammals also lack a Y chromosome. These include the Amami spiny rat (Tokudaia osimensis) and the Tokunoshima spiny rat (Tokudaia tokunoshimensis) and Sorex araneus, a shrew species. Transcaucasian mole voles (Ellobius lutescens) also have a form of XO determination, in which both sexes lack a second sex chromosome. The mechanism of sex determination is not yet understood.

The nematode C. elegans is male with one sex chromosome (X0); with a pair of chromosomes (XX) it is a hermaphrodite. Its main sex gene is XOL, which encodes XOL-1 and also controls the expression of the genes TRA-2 and HER-1. These genes reduce male gene activation and increase it, respectively.

ZW/ZZ sex chromosomes
The ZW sex-determination system is found in birds, some reptiles, and some insects and other organisms. The ZW sex-determination system is reversed compared to the XY system: females have two different kinds of chromosomes (ZW), and males have two of the same kind of chromosomes (ZZ). In the chicken, this was found to be dependent on the expression of DMRT1. In birds, the genes FET1 and ASW are found on the W chromosome for females, similar to how the Y chromosome contains SRY. However, not all species depend upon the W for their sex. For example, there are moths and butterflies that are ZW, but some have been found female with ZO, as well as female with ZZW. Also, while mammals deactivate one of their extra X chromosomes when female, it appears that in the case of Lepidoptera, the males produce double the normal amount of enzymes, due to having two Z's. Because the use of ZW sex determination is varied, it is still unknown how exactly most species determine their sex. However, reportedly, the silkworm Bombyx mori uses a single female-specific piRNA as the primary determiner of sex. Despite the similarities between the ZW and XY systems, these sex chromosomes evolved separately. In the case of the chicken, their Z chromosome is more similar to humans' autosome 9. The chicken's Z chromosome also seems to be related to the X chromosome of the platypus. When a ZW species, such as the Komodo dragon, reproduces parthenogenetically, usually only males are produced. This is due to the fact that the haploid eggs double their chromosomes, resulting in ZZ or WW. The ZZ become males, but the WW are not viable and are not brought to term.

In both XY and ZW sex determination systems, the sex chromosome carrying the critical factors is often significantly smaller, carrying little more than the genes necessary for triggering the development of a given sex.

ZZ/Z0 sex chromosomes
The ZZ/Z0 sex-determination system is found in some moths. In these insects there is one sex chromosome, Z. Males have two Z chromosomes, whereas females have one Z. Males are ZZ, while females are Z0.

UV sex chromosomes
In some bryophyte and some algae species, the gametophyte stage of the life cycle, rather than being hermaphrodite, occurs as separate male or female individuals that produce male and female gametes respectively. When meiosis occurs in the sporophyte generation of the life cycle, the sex chromosomes known as U and V assort in spores that carry either the U chromosome and give rise to female gametophytes, or the V chromosome and give rise to male gametophytes.

Haplodiploidy
Haplodiploidy is found in insects belonging to Hymenoptera, such as ants and bees. Sex determination is controlled by the zygosity of a complementary sex determiner (csd) locus. Unfertilized eggs develop into haploid individuals which have a single, hemizygous copy of the csd locus and are therefore males. Fertilized eggs develop into diploid individuals which, due to high variability in the csd locus, are generally heterozygous females. In rare instances diploid individuals may be homozygous, these develop into sterile males. The gene acting as a csd locus has been identified in the honeybee and several candidate genes have been proposed as a csd locus for other Hymenopterans. Most females in the Hymenoptera order can decide the sex of their offspring by holding received sperm in their spermatheca and either releasing it into their oviduct or not. This allows them to create more workers, depending on the status of the colony.

Other chromosomal systems
Other uncommon systems include those of the green swordtail (a polyfactorial system with the sex-determining genes on several chromosomes) the Chironomus midges; the juvenile hermaphroditism of zebrafish, with an unknown trigger; and the platyfish, which has W, X, and Y chromosomes. This allows WY, WX, or XX females and YY or XY males.

Mating type in microorganisms is analogous to sex in multi-cellular organisms, and is sometimes described using those terms, though they are not necessarily correlated with physical body structures. Some species have more than two mating types. Tetrahymena, a type of ciliate, has seven mating types. Schizophyllum commune, a type of fungus, has 23,328.

Temperature-dependent

Many other sex-determination systems exist. In some species of reptiles, including alligators, some turtles, and the tuatara, sex is determined by the temperature at which the egg is incubated during a temperature-sensitive period. There are no examples of temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD) in birds. Megapodes had formerly been thought to exhibit this phenomenon, but were found to actually have different temperature-dependent embryo mortality rates for each sex. For some species with TSD, sex determination is achieved by exposure to hotter temperatures resulting in the offspring being one sex and cooler temperatures resulting in the other. This type of TSD is called Pattern I. For others species using TSD, it is exposure to temperatures on both extremes that results in offspring of one sex, and exposure to moderate temperatures that results in offspring of the opposite sex, called Pattern II TSD. The specific temperatures required to produce each sex are known as the female-promoting temperature and the male-promoting temperature. When the temperature stays near the threshold during the temperature sensitive period, the sex ratio is varied between the two sexes. Some species' temperature standards are based on when a particular enzyme is created. These species that rely upon temperature for their sex determination do not have the SRY gene, but have other genes such as DAX1, DMRT1, and SOX9 that are expressed or not expressed depending on the temperature. The sex of some species, such as the Nile tilapia, Australian skink lizard, and Australian dragon lizard, has an initial bias, set by chromosomes, but can later be changed by the temperature of incubation.

It is unknown how exactly temperature-dependent sex determination evolved. It could have evolved through certain sexes being more suited to certain areas that fit the temperature requirements. For example, a warmer area could be more suitable for nesting, so more females are produced to increase the amount that nest next season. In amniotes, environmental sex determination preceded the genetically determined systems of birds and mammals; it is thought that a temperature-dependent amniote was the common ancestor of amniotes with sex chromosomes.

Other environmental systems
There are other environmental sex determination systems including location-dependent determination systems as seen in the marine worm Bonellia viridis – larvae become males if they make physical contact with a female, and females if they end up on the bare sea floor. This is triggered by the presence of a chemical produced by the females, bonellin. Some species, such as some snails, practice sex change: adults start out male, then become female. In tropical clownfish, the dominant individual in a group becomes female while the other ones are male, and bluehead wrasses (Thalassoma bifasciatum) are the reverse. Some species, however, have no sex-determination system. Hermaphrodite species include the common earthworm and certain species of snails. A few species of fish, reptiles, and insects reproduce by parthenogenesis and are female altogether. There are some reptiles, such as the boa constrictor and Komodo dragon that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, depending on whether a mate is available.

Evolution

Sex determination systems may have evolved from mating type, which is a feature of microorganisms.

Chromosomal sex determination may have evolved early in the history of eukaryotes. But in plants it has been suggested to have evolved recently.

The accepted hypothesis of XY and ZW sex chromosome evolution in amniotes is that they evolved at the same time, in two different branches.

No genes are shared between the avian ZW and mammal XY chromosomes and the chicken Z chromosome is similar to the human autosomal chromosome 9, rather than X or Y. This suggests not that the ZW and XY sex-determination systems share an origin but that the sex chromosomes are derived from autosomal chromosomes of the common ancestor of birds and mammals. In the platypus, a monotreme, the X1 chromosome shares homology with therian mammals, while the X5 chromosome contains an avian sex-determination gene, further suggesting an evolutionary link.

However, there is some evidence to suggest that there could have been transitions between ZW and XY, such as in Xiphophorus maculatus, which have both ZW and XY systems in the same population, despite the fact that ZW and XY have different gene locations. A recent theoretical model raises the possibility of both transitions between the XY/XX and ZZ/ZW system and environmental sex determination The platypus' genes also back up the possible evolutionary link between XY and ZW, because they have the DMRT1 gene possessed by birds on their X chromosomes. Regardless, XY and ZW follow a similar route. All sex chromosomes started out as an original autosome of an original amniote that relied upon temperature to determine the sex of offspring. After the mammals separated, the reptile branch further split into Lepidosauria and Archosauromorpha. These two groups both evolved the ZW system separately, as evidenced by the existence of different sex chromosomal locations. In mammals, one of the autosome pair, now Y, mutated its SOX3 gene into the SRY gene, causing that chromosome to designate sex. After this mutation, the SRY-containing chromosome inverted and was no longer completely homologous with its partner. The regions of the X and Y chromosomes that are still homologous to one another are known as the pseudoautosomal region. Once it inverted, the Y chromosome became unable to remedy deleterious mutations, and thus degenerated. There is some concern that the Y chromosome will shrink further and stop functioning in ten million years: but the Y chromosome has been strictly conserved after its initial rapid gene loss.

There are some vertebrate species, such as the medaka fish, that evolved sex chromosomes separately; their Y chromosome never inverted and can still swap genes with the X. These species' sex chromosomes are relatively primitive and unspecialized. Because the Y does not have male-specific genes and can interact with the X, XY and YY females can be formed as well as XX males. Non-inverted Y chromosomes with long histories are found in pythons and emus, each system being more than 120 million years old, suggesting that inversions are not necessarily an eventuality. XO sex determination can evolve from XY sex determination with about 2 million years.

title: Sex-determination system


text:
NMOS logic

NMOS or nMOS logic (from N-type metal–oxide–semiconductor) uses n-type (-) MOSFETs (metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors) to implement logic gates and other digital circuits.

NMOS transistors operate by creating an inversion layer in a p-type transistor body. This inversion layer, called the n-channel, can conduct electrons between n-type source and drain terminals. The n-channel is created by applying voltage to the third terminal, called the gate. Like other MOSFETs, nMOS transistors have four modes of operation: cut-off (or subthreshold), triode, saturation (sometimes called active), and velocity saturation.

NMOS AND-by-default logic can produce unusual glitches or buggy behavior in NMOS components, such as the 6502 "illegal opcodes" which are absent in CMOS 6502s. In some cases such as Commodore's VIC-II chip, the bugs present in the chip's logic were extensively exploited by programmers for graphics effects.

For many years, NMOS circuits were much faster than comparable PMOS and CMOS circuits, which had to use much slower p-channel transistors. It was also easier to manufacture NMOS than CMOS, as the latter has to implement p-channel transistors in special n-wells on the p-substrate, not prone to damage from bus conflicts, and not as vulnerable to electrostatic discharge damage. The major drawback with NMOS (and most other logic families) is that a direct current must flow through a logic gate even when the output is in a steady state (low in the case of NMOS). This means static power dissipation, i.e. power drain even when the circuit is not switching, leading to high power consumption.

Another disadvantage of NMOS circuits is their thermal output. Due to the need to keep constant voltage running through the circuit to hold the transistors' states, NMOS circuits can generate a considerable amount of heat in operation which can reduce the device's reliability. This was especially problematic with the early large gate process nodes in the 1970s. CMOS circuits for contrast generate almost no heat unless the transistor count approaches 1 million.

CMOS components were relatively uncommon in the 1970s-early 1980s and would typically be indicated with a "C" in the part number. Throughout the 1980s, both NMOS and CMOS parts were widely used with CMOS becoming more widespread as the decade went along. NMOS was preferred for components that performed active processing such as CPUs or graphics processors due to its higher speed and cheaper manufacturing cost as these were expensive compared to a passive component such as a memory chip, and some chips such as the Motorola 68030 were hybrids with both NMOS and CMOS sections. CMOS has been near-universal in integrated circuits since the 1990s.

Additionally, just like in diode–transistor logic, transistor–transistor logic, emitter-coupled logic etc., the asymmetric input logic levels make NMOS and PMOS circuits more susceptible to noise than CMOS. These disadvantages are why CMOS logic has supplanted most of these types in most high-speed digital circuits such as microprocessors despite the fact that CMOS was originally very slow compared to logic gates built with bipolar transistors.

Overview
MOS stands for metal-oxide-semiconductor, reflecting the way MOS-transistors were originally constructed, predominantly before the 1970s, with gates of metal, typically aluminium. Since around 1970, however, most MOS circuits have used self-aligned gates made of polycrystalline silicon, a technology first developed by Federico Faggin at Fairchild Semiconductor. These silicon gates are still used in most types of MOSFET based integrated circuits, although metal gates (Al or Cu) started to reappear in the early 2000s for certain types of high speed circuits, such as high performance microprocessors.

The MOSFETs are n-type enhancement mode transistors, arranged in a so-called "pull-down network" (PDN) between the logic gate output and negative supply voltage (typically the ground). A pull up (i.e. a "load" that can be thought of as a resistor, see below) is placed between the positive supply voltage and each logic gate output. Any logic gate, including the logical inverter, can then be implemented by designing a network of parallel and/or series circuits, such that if the desired output for a certain combination of boolean input values is zero (or false), the PDN will be active, meaning that at least one transistor is allowing a current path between the negative supply and the output. This causes a voltage drop over the load, and thus a low voltage at the output, representing the zero.

As an example, here is a NOR gate implemented in schematic NMOS. If either input A or input B is high (logic 1, = True), the respective MOS transistor acts as a very low resistance between the output and the negative supply, forcing the output to be low (logic 0, = False). When both A and B are high, both transistors are conductive, creating an even lower resistance path to ground. The only case where the output is high is when both transistors are off, which occurs only when both A and B are low, thus satisfying the truth table of a NOR gate:

A MOSFET can be made to operate as a resistor, so the whole circuit can be made with n-channel MOSFETs only. NMOS circuits are slow to transition from low to high. When transitioning from high to low, the transistors provide low resistance, and the capacitive charge at the output drains away very quickly (similar to discharging a capacitor through a very low resistor). But the resistance between the output and the positive supply rail is much greater, so the low to high transition takes longer (similar to charging a capacitor through a high value resistor). Using a resistor of lower value will speed up the process but also increases static power dissipation. However, a better (and the most common) way to make the gates faster is to use depletion-mode transistors instead of enhancement-mode transistors as loads. This is called depletion-load NMOS logic.

title: NMOS logic


text:
Extinction

Extinction is the termination of a taxon by the death of its last member. A taxon may become functionally extinct before the death of its last member if it loses the capacity to reproduce and recover. Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "reappears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence.

More than 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth, amounting to over five billion species, are estimated to have died out. It is estimated that there are currently around 8.7 million species of eukaryote globally, and possibly many times more if microorganisms, like bacteria, are included. Notable extinct animal species include non-avian dinosaurs, saber-toothed cats, dodos, mammoths, ground sloths, thylacines, trilobites, golden toads, and passenger pigeons.

Through evolution, species arise through the process of speciation—where new varieties of organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche—and species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. The relationship between animals and their ecological niches has been firmly established. A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance, although some species, called living fossils, survive with little to no morphological change for hundreds of millions of years.

Mass extinctions are relatively rare events; however, isolated extinctions of species and clades are quite common, and are a natural part of the evolutionary process. Only recently have extinctions been recorded and scientists have become alarmed at the current high rate of extinctions. Most species that become extinct are never scientifically documented. Some scientists estimate that up to half of presently existing plant and animal species may become extinct by 2100. A 2018 report indicated that the phylogenetic diversity of 300 mammalian species erased during the human era since the Late Pleistocene would require 5 to 7 million years to recover.

According to the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES, the biomass of wild mammals has fallen by 82%, natural ecosystems have lost about half their area and a million species are at risk of extinction—all largely as a result of human actions. Twenty-five percent of plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. In a subsequent report, IPBES listed unsustainable fishing, hunting and logging as being some of the primary drivers of the global extinction crisis.

In June 2019, one million species of plants and animals were at risk of extinction. At least 571 plant species have been lost since 1750, but likely many more. The main cause of the extinctions is the destruction of natural habitats by human activities, such as cutting down forests and converting land into fields for farming.

A dagger symbol (†) placed next to the name of a species or other taxon normally indicates its status as extinct.

Examples
Examples of species and subspecies that are extinct include:

 * Steller's sea cow (the last known member died circa 1768)
 * Dodo (the last confirmed sighting was in 1662)
 * Chinese paddlefish (last seen in 2003; declared extinct in 2022)
 * Great auk (last confirmed pair was killed in the 1840s)
 * Thylacine (the last thylacine killed in the wild was shot in 1930; the last captive tiger lived in Hobart Zoo until 1936)
 * Kauai O'o (last known member was heard in 1987; the entire Mohoidae family became extinct with it)
 * Spectacled cormorant (last known members were said to live in the 1850s)
 * Carolina parakeet (last known member named Incas died in captivity in 1918; declared extinct in 1939)
 * Passenger pigeon (last known member named Martha died in captivity in 1914)
 * Tasmanian emu (the last claimed sighting of the emu was in 1839)
 * Japanese Sea Lion (the last confirmed record was a juvenile specimen captured in 1974)
 * Schomburgk's deer (became extinct in the wild in 1932; the last captive deer was killed in 1938)
 * Quagga (hunted to extinction in the late 19th century; the last captive quagga died in Natura Artis Magistra in 1883)

Definition

A species is extinct when the last existing member dies. Extinction therefore becomes a certainty when there are no surviving individuals that can reproduce and create a new generation. A species may become functionally extinct when only a handful of individuals survive, which cannot reproduce due to poor health, age, sparse distribution over a large range, a lack of individuals of both sexes (in sexually reproducing species), or other reasons.

Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely distinguishable from any ancestor or daughter species, and from any other closely related species. Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

In ecology, extinction is sometimes used informally to refer to local extinction, in which a species ceases to exist in the chosen area of study, despite still existing elsewhere. Local extinctions may be made good by the reintroduction of individuals of that species taken from other locations; wolf reintroduction is an example of this. Species that are not globally extinct are termed extant. Those species that are extant, yet are threatened with extinction, are referred to as threatened or endangered species.

Currently, an important aspect of extinction is human attempts to preserve critically endangered species. These are reflected by the creation of the conservation status "extinct in the wild" (EW). Species listed under this status by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) are not known to have any living specimens in the wild and are maintained only in zoos or other artificial environments. Some of these species are functionally extinct, as they are no longer part of their natural habitat and it is unlikely the species will ever be restored to the wild. When possible, modern zoological institutions try to maintain a viable population for species preservation and possible future reintroduction to the wild, through use of carefully planned breeding programs.

The extinction of one species' wild population can have knock-on effects, causing further extinctions. These are also called "chains of extinction". This is especially common with extinction of keystone species.

A 2018 study indicated that the sixth mass extinction started in the Late Pleistocene could take up to 5 to 7 million years to restore 2.5 billion years of unique mammal diversity to what it was before the human era.

Pseudoextinction
Extinction of a parent species where daughter species or subspecies are still extant is called pseudoextinction or phyletic extinction. Effectively, the old taxon vanishes, transformed (anagenesis) into a successor, or split into more than one (cladogenesis).

Pseudoextinction is difficult to demonstrate unless one has a strong chain of evidence linking a living species to members of a pre-existing species. For example, it is sometimes claimed that the extinct Hyracotherium, which was an early horse that shares a common ancestor with the modern horse, is pseudoextinct, rather than extinct, because there are several extant species of Equus, including zebra and donkey; however, as fossil species typically leave no genetic material behind, one cannot say whether Hyracotherium evolved into more modern horse species or merely evolved from a common ancestor with modern horses. Pseudoextinction is much easier to demonstrate for larger taxonomic groups.

Lazarus taxa
A Lazarus taxon or Lazarus species refers to instances where a species or taxon was thought to be extinct, but was later rediscovered. It can also refer to instances where large gaps in the fossil record of a taxon result in fossils reappearing much later, although the taxon may have ultimately become extinct at a later point.

The coelacanth, a fish related to lungfish and tetrapods, is an example of a Lazarus taxon that was known only from the fossil record and was considered to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous Period. In 1938, however, a living specimen was found off the Chalumna River (now Tyolomnqa) on the east coast of South Africa. Calliostoma bullatum, a species of deepwater sea snail originally described from fossils in 1844 proved to be a Lazarus species when extant individuals were described in 2019.

Attenborough's long-beaked echidna (Zaglossus attenboroughi) is an example of a Lazarus species from Papua New Guinea that had last been sighted in 1962 and believed to be possibly extinct, until it was recorded again in November 2023.

Some species currently thought to be extinct have had continued speculation that they may still exist, and in the event of rediscovery would be considered Lazarus species. Examples include the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus), the last known example of which died in Hobart Zoo in Tasmania in 1936; the Japanese wolf (Canis lupus hodophilax), last sighted over 100 years ago; the American ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis), with the last universally accepted sighting in 1944; and the slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris), not seen since 2007.

Causes

As long as species have been evolving, species have been going extinct. It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. The average lifespan of a species is 1–10 million years, although this varies widely between taxa. A variety of causes can contribute directly or indirectly to the extinction of a species or group of species. "Just as each species is unique", write Beverly and Stephen C. Stearns, "so is each extinction ... the causes for each are varied—some subtle and complex, others obvious and simple". Most simply, any species that cannot survive and reproduce in its environment and cannot move to a new environment where it can do so, dies out and becomes extinct. Extinction of a species may come suddenly when an otherwise healthy species is wiped out completely, as when toxic pollution renders its entire habitat unliveable; or may occur gradually over thousands or millions of years, such as when a species gradually loses out in competition for food to better adapted competitors. Extinction may occur a long time after the events that set it in motion, a phenomenon known as extinction debt.

Assessing the relative importance of genetic factors compared to environmental ones as the causes of extinction has been compared to the debate on nature and nurture. The question of whether more extinctions in the fossil record have been caused by evolution or by competition or by predation or by disease or by catastrophe is a subject of discussion; Mark Newman, the author of Modeling Extinction, argues for a mathematical model that falls in all positions. By contrast, conservation biology uses the extinction vortex model to classify extinctions by cause. When concerns about human extinction have been raised, for example in Sir Martin Rees' 2003 book Our Final Hour, those concerns lie with the effects of climate change or technological disaster.

Human-driven extinction started as humans migrated out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago. Currently, environmental groups and some governments are concerned with the extinction of species caused by humanity, and they try to prevent further extinctions through a variety of conservation programs. Humans can cause extinction of a species through overharvesting, pollution, habitat destruction, introduction of invasive species (such as new predators and food competitors), overhunting, and other influences. Explosive, unsustainable human population growth and increasing per capita consumption are essential drivers of the extinction crisis. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 784 extinctions have been recorded since the year 1500, the arbitrary date selected to define "recent" extinctions, up to the year 2004; with many more likely to have gone unnoticed. Several species have also been listed as extinct since 2004.

Genetics and demographic phenomena
If adaptation increasing population fitness is slower than environmental degradation plus the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations, then a population will go extinct. Smaller populations have fewer beneficial mutations entering the population each generation, slowing adaptation. It is also easier for slightly deleterious mutations to fix in small populations; the resulting positive feedback loop between small population size and low fitness can cause mutational meltdown.

Limited geographic range is the most important determinant of genus extinction at background rates but becomes increasingly irrelevant as mass extinction arises. Limited geographic range is a cause both of small population size and of greater vulnerability to local environmental catastrophes.

Extinction rates can be affected not just by population size, but by any factor that affects evolvability, including balancing selection, cryptic genetic variation, phenotypic plasticity, and robustness. A diverse or deep gene pool gives a population a higher chance in the short term of surviving an adverse change in conditions. Effects that cause or reward a loss in genetic diversity can increase the chances of extinction of a species. Population bottlenecks can dramatically reduce genetic diversity by severely limiting the number of reproducing individuals and make inbreeding more frequent.

Genetic pollution
Extinction sometimes results for species evolved to specific ecologies that are subjected to genetic pollution—i.e., uncontrolled hybridization, introgression and genetic swamping that lead to homogenization or out-competition from the introduced (or hybrid) species. Endemic populations can face such extinctions when new populations are imported or selectively bred by people, or when habitat modification brings previously isolated species into contact. Extinction is likeliest for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones; interbreeding can swamp the rarer gene pool and create hybrids, depleting the purebred gene pool (for example, the endangered wild water buffalo is most threatened with extinction by genetic pollution from the abundant domestic water buffalo). Such extinctions are not always apparent from morphological (non-genetic) observations. Some degree of gene flow is a normal evolutionary process; nevertheless, hybridization (with or without introgression) threatens rare species' existence.

The gene pool of a species or a population is the variety of genetic information in its living members. A large gene pool (extensive genetic diversity) is associated with robust populations that can survive bouts of intense selection. Meanwhile, low genetic diversity (see inbreeding and population bottlenecks) reduces the range of adaptions possible. Replacing native with alien genes narrows genetic diversity within the original population, thereby increasing the chance of extinction.

Habitat degradation
Habitat degradation is currently the main anthropogenic cause of species extinctions. The main cause of habitat degradation worldwide is agriculture, with urban sprawl, logging, mining, and some fishing practices close behind. The degradation of a species' habitat may alter the fitness landscape to such an extent that the species is no longer able to survive and becomes extinct. This may occur by direct effects, such as the environment becoming toxic, or indirectly, by limiting a species' ability to compete effectively for diminished resources or against new competitor species.

Habitat destruction, particularly the removal of vegetation that stabilizes soil, enhances erosion and diminishes nutrient availability in terrestrial ecosystems. This degradation can lead to a reduction in agricultural productivity. Furthermore, increased erosion contributes to poorer water quality by elevating the levels of sediment and pollutants in rivers and streams.

Habitat degradation through toxicity can kill off a species very rapidly, by killing all living members through contamination or sterilizing them. It can also occur over longer periods at lower toxicity levels by affecting life span, reproductive capacity, or competitiveness.

Habitat degradation can also take the form of a physical destruction of niche habitats. The widespread destruction of tropical rainforests and replacement with open pastureland is widely cited as an example of this; elimination of the dense forest eliminated the infrastructure needed by many species to survive. For example, a fern that depends on dense shade for protection from direct sunlight can no longer survive without forest to shelter it. Another example is the destruction of ocean floors by bottom trawling.

Diminished resources or introduction of new competitor species also often accompany habitat degradation. Global warming has allowed some species to expand their range, bringing competition to other species that previously occupied that area. Sometimes these new competitors are predators and directly affect prey species, while at other times they may merely outcompete vulnerable species for limited resources. Vital resources including water and food can also be limited during habitat degradation, leading to extinction.

Predation, competition, and disease
In the natural course of events, species become extinct for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: extinction of a necessary host, prey or pollinator, interspecific competition, inability to deal with evolving diseases and changing environmental conditions (particularly sudden changes) which can act to introduce novel predators, or to remove prey. Recently in geological time, humans have become an additional cause of extinction of some species, either as a new mega-predator or by transporting animals and plants from one part of the world to another. Such introductions have been occurring for thousands of years, sometimes intentionally (e.g. livestock released by sailors on islands as a future source of food) and sometimes accidentally (e.g. rats escaping from boats). In most cases, the introductions are unsuccessful, but when an invasive alien species does become established, the consequences can be catastrophic. Invasive alien species can affect native species directly by eating them, competing with them, and introducing pathogens or parasites that sicken or kill them; or indirectly by destroying or degrading their habitat. Human populations may themselves act as invasive predators. According to the "overkill hypothesis", the swift extinction of the megafauna in areas such as Australia (40,000 years before present), North and South America (12,000 years before present), Madagascar, Hawaii (AD 300–1000), and New Zealand (AD 1300–1500), resulted from the sudden introduction of human beings to environments full of animals that had never seen them before and were therefore completely unadapted to their predation techniques.

Coextinction

Coextinction refers to the loss of a species due to the extinction of another; for example, the extinction of parasitic insects following the loss of their hosts. Coextinction can also occur when a species loses its pollinator, or to predators in a food chain who lose their prey. "Species coextinction is a manifestation of one of the interconnectednesses of organisms in complex ecosystems ... While coextinction may not be the most important cause of species extinctions, it is certainly an insidious one." Coextinction is especially common when a keystone species goes extinct. Models suggest that coextinction is the most common form of biodiversity loss. There may be a cascade of coextinction across the trophic levels. Such effects are most severe in mutualistic and parasitic relationships. An example of coextinction is the Haast's eagle and the moa: the Haast's eagle was a predator that became extinct because its food source became extinct. The moa were several species of flightless birds that were a food source for the Haast's eagle.

Climate change
Extinction as a result of climate change has been confirmed by fossil studies. Particularly, the extinction of amphibians during the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse, 305 million years ago. A 2003 review across 14 biodiversity research centers predicted that, because of climate change, 15–37% of land species would be "committed to extinction" by 2050. The ecologically rich areas that would potentially suffer the heaviest losses include the Cape Floristic Region and the Caribbean Basin. These areas might see a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels and rising temperatures that could eliminate 56,000 plant and 3,700 animal species. Climate change has also been found to be a factor in habitat loss and desertification.

Sexual selection and male investment
Studies of fossils following species from the time they evolved to their extinction show that species with high sexual dimorphism, especially characteristics in males that are used to compete for mating, are at a higher risk of extinction and die out faster than less sexually dimorphic species, the least sexually dimorphic species surviving for millions of years while the most sexually dimorphic species die out within mere thousands of years. Earlier studies based on counting the number of currently living species in modern taxa have shown a higher number of species in more sexually dimorphic taxa which have been interpreted as higher survival in taxa with more sexual selection, but such studies of modern species only measure indirect effects of extinction and are subject to error sources such as dying and doomed taxa speciating more due to splitting of habitat ranges into more small isolated groups during the habitat retreat of taxa approaching extinction. Possible causes of the higher extinction risk in species with more sexual selection shown by the comprehensive fossil studies that rule out such error sources include expensive sexually selected ornaments having negative effects on the ability to survive natural selection, as well as sexual selection removing a diversity of genes that under current ecological conditions are neutral for natural selection but some of which may be important for surviving climate change.

Mass extinctions
There have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life on earth, and four in the last 350 million years in which many species have disappeared in a relatively short period of geological time. A massive eruptive event that released large quantities of tephra particles into the atmosphere is considered to be one likely cause of the "Permian–Triassic extinction event" about 250 million years ago, which is estimated to have killed 90% of species then existing. There is also evidence to suggest that this event was preceded by another mass extinction, known as Olson's Extinction. The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (K–Pg) occurred 66 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period; it is best known for having wiped out non-avian dinosaurs, among many other species.

Modern extinctions

According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70% believed that the Earth is currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction, known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20% of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). A 2014 special edition of Science declared there is widespread consensus on the issue of human-driven mass species extinctions. A 2020 study published in PNAS stated that the contemporary extinction crisis "may be the most serious environmental threat to the persistence of civilization, because it is irreversible."

Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all plant and animal species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly, the current rate of global species extinctions is estimated as 100 to 1,000 times "background" rates (the average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth), faster than at any other time in human history, while future rates are likely 10,000 times higher. However, some groups are going extinct much faster. Biologists Paul R. Ehrlich and Stuart Pimm, among others, contend that human population growth and overconsumption are the main drivers of the modern extinction crisis.

In January 2020, the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity drafted a plan to mitigate the contemporary extinction crisis by establishing a deadline of 2030 to protect 30% of the Earth's land and oceans and reduce pollution by 50%, with the goal of allowing for the restoration of ecosystems by 2050. The 2020 United Nations' Global Biodiversity Outlook report stated that of the 20 biodiversity goals laid out by the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010, only 6 were "partially achieved" by the deadline of 2020. The report warned that biodiversity will continue to decline if the status quo is not changed, in particular the "currently unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, population growth and technological developments". In a 2021 report published in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, some top scientists asserted that even if the Aichi Biodiversity Targets set for 2020 had been achieved, it would not have resulted in a significant mitigation of biodiversity loss. They added that failure of the global community to reach these targets is hardly surprising given that biodiversity loss is "nowhere close to the top of any country's priorities, trailing far behind other concerns such as employment, healthcare, economic growth, or currency stability."

History of scientific understanding

For much of history, the modern understanding of extinction as the end of a species was incompatible with the prevailing worldview. Prior to the 19th century, much of Western society adhered to the belief that the world was created by God and as such was complete and perfect. This concept reached its heyday in the 1700s with the peak popularity of a theological concept called the great chain of being, in which all life on earth, from the tiniest microorganism to God, is linked in a continuous chain. The extinction of a species was impossible under this model, as it would create gaps or missing links in the chain and destroy the natural order. Thomas Jefferson was a firm supporter of the great chain of being and an opponent of extinction, famously denying the extinction of the woolly mammoth on the grounds that nature never allows a race of animals to become extinct.

A series of fossils were discovered in the late 17th century that appeared unlike any living species. As a result, the scientific community embarked on a voyage of creative rationalization, seeking to understand what had happened to these species within a framework that did not account for total extinction. In October 1686, Robert Hooke presented an impression of a nautilus to the Royal Society that was more than two feet in diameter, and morphologically distinct from any known living species. Hooke theorized that this was simply because the species lived in the deep ocean and no one had discovered them yet. While he contended that it was possible a species could be "lost", he thought this highly unlikely. Similarly, in 1695, Sir Thomas Molyneux published an account of enormous antlers found in Ireland that did not belong to any extant taxa in that area. Molyneux reasoned that they came from the North American moose and that the animal had once been common on the British Isles. Rather than suggest that this indicated the possibility of species going extinct, he argued that although organisms could become locally extinct, they could never be entirely lost and would continue to exist in some unknown region of the globe. The antlers were later confirmed to be from the extinct deer Megaloceros. Hooke and Molyneux's line of thinking was difficult to disprove. When parts of the world had not been thoroughly examined and charted, scientists could not rule out that animals found only in the fossil record were not simply "hiding" in unexplored regions of the Earth.

Georges Cuvier is credited with establishing the modern conception of extinction in a 1796 lecture to the French Institute, though he would spend most of his career trying to convince the wider scientific community of his theory. Cuvier was a well-regarded geologist, lauded for his ability to reconstruct the anatomy of an unknown species from a few fragments of bone. His primary evidence for extinction came from mammoth skulls found in the Paris basin. Cuvier recognized them as distinct from any known living species of elephant, and argued that it was highly unlikely such an enormous animal would go undiscovered. In 1812, Cuvier, along with Alexandre Brongniart and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, mapped the strata of the Paris basin. They saw alternating saltwater and freshwater deposits, as well as patterns of the appearance and disappearance of fossils throughout the record. From these patterns, Cuvier inferred historic cycles of catastrophic flooding, extinction, and repopulation of the earth with new species.

Cuvier's fossil evidence showed that very different life forms existed in the past than those that exist today, a fact that was accepted by most scientists. The primary debate focused on whether this turnover caused by extinction was gradual or abrupt in nature. Cuvier understood extinction to be the result of cataclysmic events that wipe out huge numbers of species, as opposed to the gradual decline of a species over time. His catastrophic view of the nature of extinction garnered him many opponents in the newly emerging school of uniformitarianism.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a gradualist and colleague of Cuvier, saw the fossils of different life forms as evidence of the mutable character of species. While Lamarck did not deny the possibility of extinction, he believed that it was exceptional and rare and that most of the change in species over time was due to gradual change. Unlike Cuvier, Lamarck was skeptical that catastrophic events of a scale large enough to cause total extinction were possible. In his geological history of the earth titled Hydrogeologie, Lamarck instead argued that the surface of the earth was shaped by gradual erosion and deposition by water, and that species changed over time in response to the changing environment.

Charles Lyell, a noted geologist and founder of uniformitarianism, believed that past processes should be understood using present day processes. Like Lamarck, Lyell acknowledged that extinction could occur, noting the total extinction of the dodo and the extirpation of indigenous horses to the British Isles. He similarly argued against mass extinctions, believing that any extinction must be a gradual process. Lyell also showed that Cuvier's original interpretation of the Parisian strata was incorrect. Instead of the catastrophic floods inferred by Cuvier, Lyell demonstrated that patterns of saltwater and freshwater deposits, like those seen in the Paris basin, could be formed by a slow rise and fall of sea levels.

The concept of extinction was integral to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, with less fit lineages disappearing over time. For Darwin, extinction was a constant side effect of competition. Because of the wide reach of On the Origin of Species, it was widely accepted that extinction occurred gradually and evenly (a concept now referred to as background extinction). It was not until 1982, when David Raup and Jack Sepkoski published their seminal paper on mass extinctions, that Cuvier was vindicated and catastrophic extinction was accepted as an important mechanism. The current understanding of extinction is a synthesis of the cataclysmic extinction events proposed by Cuvier, and the background extinction events proposed by Lyell and Darwin.

Human attitudes and interests

Extinction is an important research topic in the field of zoology, and biology in general, and has also become an area of concern outside the scientific community. A number of organizations, such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature, have been created with the goal of preserving species from extinction. Governments have attempted, through enacting laws, to avoid habitat destruction, agricultural over-harvesting, and pollution. While many human-caused extinctions have been accidental, humans have also engaged in the deliberate destruction of some species, such as dangerous viruses, and the total destruction of other problematic species has been suggested. Other species were deliberately driven to extinction, or nearly so, due to poaching or because they were "undesirable", or to push for other human agendas. One example was the near extinction of the American bison, which was nearly wiped out by mass hunts sanctioned by the United States government, to force the removal of Native Americans, many of whom relied on the bison for food.

Biologist Bruce Walsh states three reasons for scientific interest in the preservation of species: genetic resources, ecosystem stability, and ethics; and today the scientific community "stress[es] the importance" of maintaining biodiversity.

In modern times, commercial and industrial interests often have to contend with the effects of production on plant and animal life. However, some technologies with minimal, or no, proven harmful effects on Homo sapiens can be devastating to wildlife (for example, DDT). Biogeographer Jared Diamond notes that while big business may label environmental concerns as "exaggerated", and often cause "devastating damage", some corporations find it in their interest to adopt good conservation practices, and even engage in preservation efforts that surpass those taken by national parks.

Governments sometimes see the loss of native species as a loss to ecotourism, and can enact laws with severe punishment against the trade in native species in an effort to prevent extinction in the wild. Nature preserves are created by governments as a means to provide continuing habitats to species crowded by human expansion. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity has resulted in international Biodiversity Action Plan programmes, which attempt to provide comprehensive guidelines for government biodiversity conservation. Advocacy groups, such as The Wildlands Project and the Alliance for Zero Extinctions, work to educate the public and pressure governments into action.

People who live close to nature can be dependent on the survival of all the species in their environment, leaving them highly exposed to extinction risks. However, people prioritize day-to-day survival over species conservation; with human overpopulation in tropical developing countries, there has been enormous pressure on forests due to subsistence agriculture, including slash-and-burn agricultural techniques that can reduce endangered species's habitats.

Antinatalist philosopher David Benatar concludes that any popular concern about non-human species extinction usually arises out of concern about how the loss of a species will impact human wants and needs, that "we shall live in a world impoverished by the loss of one aspect of faunal diversity, that we shall no longer be able to behold or use that species of animal." He notes that typical concerns about possible human extinction, such as the loss of individual members, are not considered in regards to non-human species extinction. Anthropologist Jason Hickel speculates that the reason humanity seems largely indifferent to anthropogenic mass species extinction is that we see ourselves as separate from the natural world and the organisms within it. He says that this is due in part to the logic of capitalism: "that the world is not really alive, and it is certainly not our kin, but rather just stuff to be extracted and discarded – and that includes most of the human beings living here too."

Completed

 * The smallpox virus is now extinct in the wild, although samples are retained in laboratory settings.
 * The rinderpest virus, which infected domestic cattle, is now extinct in the wild.

Disease agents
The poliovirus is now confined to small parts of the world due to extermination efforts.

Dracunculus medinensis, or Guinea worm, a parasitic worm which causes the disease dracunculiasis, is now close to eradication thanks to efforts led by the Carter Center.

Treponema pallidum pertenue, a bacterium which causes the disease yaws, is in the process of being eradicated.

Disease vectors
Biologist Olivia Judson has advocated the deliberate extinction of certain disease-carrying mosquito species. In a September 25, 2003 article in The New York Times, she advocated "specicide" of thirty mosquito species by introducing a genetic element that can insert itself into another crucial gene, to create recessive "knockout genes". She says that the Anopheles mosquitoes (which spread malaria) and Aedes mosquitoes (which spread dengue fever, yellow fever, elephantiasis, and other diseases) represent only 30 of around 3,500 mosquito species; eradicating these would save at least one million human lives per year, at a cost of reducing the genetic diversity of the family Culicidae by only 1%. She further argues that since species become extinct "all the time" the disappearance of a few more will not destroy the ecosystem: "We're not left with a wasteland every time a species vanishes. Removing one species sometimes causes shifts in the populations of other species—but different need not mean worse." In addition, anti-malarial and mosquito control programs offer little realistic hope to the 300 million people in developing nations who will be infected with acute illnesses this year. Although trials are ongoing, she writes that if they fail "we should consider the ultimate swatting."

Biologist E. O. Wilson has advocated the eradication of several species of mosquito, including malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Wilson stated, "I'm talking about a very small number of species that have co-evolved with us and are preying on humans, so it would certainly be acceptable to remove them. I believe it's just common sense."

There have been many campaigns – some successful – to locally eradicate tsetse flies and their trypanosomes in areas, countries, and islands of Africa (including Príncipe). There are currently serious efforts to do away with them all across Africa, and this is generally viewed as beneficial and morally necessary, although not always.

Cloning

Some, such as Harvard geneticist George M. Church, believe that ongoing technological advances will let us "bring back to life" an extinct species by cloning, using DNA from the remains of that species. Proposed targets for cloning include the mammoth, the thylacine, and the Pyrenean ibex. For this to succeed, enough individuals would have to be cloned, from the DNA of different individuals (in the case of sexually reproducing organisms) to create a viable population. Though bioethical and philosophical objections have been raised, the cloning of extinct creatures seems theoretically possible.

In 2003, scientists tried to clone the extinct Pyrenean ibex (C. p. pyrenaica). This attempt failed: of the 285 embryos reconstructed, 54 were transferred to 12 Spanish ibexes and ibex–domestic goat hybrids, but only two survived the initial two months of gestation before they, too, died. In 2009, a second attempt was made to clone the Pyrenean ibex: one clone was born alive, but died seven minutes later, due to physical defects in the lungs.

title: Extinction


text:
MidasWWW

MidasWWW is one of the earliest (now discontinued) web browsers, developed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). It ran under Unix and OpenVMS. The last release was version 2.2. The 16 Nov 1992 sources were made available in June 2015 at GitHub.

title: MidasWWW