Uchneat RCL2 Blog

Megatherium

This week I am gonna look at what I think is one of the more well-known prehistoric mammals, the giant ground sloth Megatherium.

Megatherium lived between 5 million and 10 thousand years ago in South America. Though it may be difficult to see the resemblance, as mentioned above, Megatherium is in fact a species of ancient ground sloth. Ground sloths were once a very widespread and diverse family of animals, ranging in size from modern sloths to this species here, which reached 12 feet tall when on their hind legs and rivaled the size of modern bull elephants.

What was Megatherium? | Natural History Museum — Brotha starving

Like most animals that grew this large, size was probably an evolutionary defense against the many predators in South America at the time, such as giant crocodilians and big cats.

Despite its bearish appearance, megatherium was (most likely) a herbivore just like modern sloths, though there is weak evidence that it could have scavenged meat if necessary. Its size also probably came in handy for this herbivorous lifestyle, as it could stand on its hind legs to reach the taller vegetation that was untouched by other animals, similar to how elephants do today. As pictured above, you can see how the extremely thick and short hind legs, as well as a strong pelvis were able to support this behavior. It also appears to have used its muscular and thick tail as a tripod for further support. Although it was primarily quadrupedal, footprints have indicated that megatherium was not limited to just standing against a tree in this position and could actually walk fully bipedally.

Megatherium had large claws on all four limbs just as modern sloths do, and these actually prevented it from placing its feet flatly on the ground, forcing it to walk on the sides of its feet as pictured above. The claws on its forelimbs could be used to pick through vegetation and bring branches closer to itself while foraging. It also had a more narrow snout than any other sloth, and the long overhang on both the upper and lower jaw suggest that it had prehensile lips (meaning that they could grab stuff) to allow it to more carefully select what it ate.

Megatherium went extinct close to 10,000 years ago, which means it would have had plenty of overlap time with humans. As is the case with most large animal species of this time, unrelenting hunting was likely a significant cause of their extinction. This is further evidenced by cut marks in their bones which look to be made by stone tools. This time period also lines up with an extinction event (called the Quaternary Extinction Event) which brought the end to many species of megafauna, mostly due to climate and environmental changes that they could not adapt to quickly enough.

That’s pretty much all for this animal, it’s just another one that I think is interesting to visualize as something that was real given how different it looks from any of the animals we see nowadays. I hope you found at least something of interest in all of these blogs, I realize that it isn’t the most impressive passion but I think that looking at these unique animals is a thought-provoking topic that is worth sharing.

Sources:

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-was-megatherium.html

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Megatherium

https://allthatsinteresting.com/megatherium

Thylacoleo

This post is going to focus on Thylacoleo, Australia’s marsupial predators.

Climate change the likely killer of Australian marsupial lion | UNSW Newsroom — Thylacoleo recreation

Thylacoleo lived in Australia between 2 million and 46 thousand years ago, and is roughly the size of a large dog. As the name “marsupial lion” suggests, thylacoleo was in fact a marsupial, meaning it carried its young in a pouch attached to its stomach. It was fairly unique among marsupials in that it was a carnivore. The only other case of

predatory marsupials I was able to find is Thylacines, which were coyote-like marsupials.

This animal’s habitat it believed to have been dry and open forests. It had an enlarged claw on its thumb as well as forelimbs that were more developed than its hind limbs. These traits suggest it may have been well adapted to climbing, and though they could run were probably not fast, possibly living a similar lifestyle to jaguars. It is also possible that this trait was necessary to remain safe from other predators of the time, such as the alligator-sized monitor lizard megalania.

Despite being commonly called a marsupial lion, thylacoleo has no relation to actual lions such as those in Africa, and the resemblance is a case of convergent evolution. Instead, the closest living relatives to this animal are koalas and wombats. Its ancestors were also herbivorous wombat-like animals, which places thylacoleo in a unique situation, as carnivores are rarely evolved from herbivores so closely as this.

Bones, Thylacoleo Carnifex Skull. — Thylacoleo skull showing dentition

Thylacoleo is also extremely eye-catching due to its strange arrangement of teeth. A pair of its upper and lower molars are enlarged and form flat, shearing blades, and other molars are either reduced or entirely absent. It also has adapted its front teeth to be long and sharp, serving the same purpose as canine teeth in most other mammal predators. This really serves to show how herbivores developed carnivorous traits, given its rabbit-like appearance and the development of grinding teeth into more of a cutting function.

The sources I have found state that Thylacoleo had the strongest bite force of any animal living or extinct, but pretty much every animal I have researched so far seems to, so I am pretty sure that that’s an exaggeration. Though maybe not the strongest ever, it would make sense for thylacoleo to have had an extremely strong bite force, as muscle connections in the jaw and the presence of incisors so far back in the mouth would indicate considerable jaw strength. This as well as the highly developed forelimbs and thumb claw described earlier suggest that thylacoleo was probably able to tackle and kill prey that was much larger than itself.

There isn’t much else about Thylacoleo, but I think it is a really interesting animal for a lot of reasons. Usually when I think of marsupials I think of kangaroos or koalas or whatever other herbivorous animals, so to think that there were once marsupial predators in Australia is cool to me. They also have such a unique dentition which is something that I feel tends to be pretty consistent in animals, so it really adds to the allure of this animalthat it has such a weirdly-designed mouth. Overall this is just another one of those animals that changes the way I look at the area where it used to live, because to know what used to live in Australia and how different it is from what is there today is something I find so cool to think about.

Sources:

https://australian.museum/learn/animals/mammals/thylacoleo-carnifex/

https://prehistoric-fauna.com/Thylacoleo-carnifex

Coelacanth

This blog will feature an especially interesting species of ancient fish, the coelacanth. These are among the most primitive fish, originating hundreds of millions of years before the dinosaurs.

Coelacanth are what is known as lobe-finned fish, which is a reference to their fins being attached to fleshy limbs each articulated using a single bone. It is almost like having an arm upon which the fins are then formed. This is most obvious in the tail and front/pectoral fins of the fish pictured above. That fat, wide structure that ends in a thin row of fins was a staple characteristic of ancient fish. It is believed that lobe-finned fish such as these eventually evolved into amphibians, reptiles, and eventually fully terrestrial quadrupeds. In essence, fish like this are the ancestor to all life on land.

Debatably the most incredible feature of the Coelacanth in particular is that it is still alive today.

Coelacanths | National Geographic — Coelacanth photographed off the coast of Africa

Fossil evidence suggested that this animal had gone extinct 80 million years ago, until 1938 when a Museum Curator in South Africa found a dead Coelacanth in a pile of by-catch from local fishing boats. Following this first sighting, more specimens were seen in outdoor fish markets, and between 1938 and the early 2,000s several populations of coelacanth were identified in the West Indian Ocean, along the Eastern and Southern coasts of Africa as well as in Indonesia.

Coelacanth | Smithsonian Ocean — ANother shot of the Coelacanth

Coelacanths live in underwater caverns, between 100 and 500 meters deep,typically near areas of volcanic activity. Areas such as this attract many other fish, cephalopods, and other aquatic animals which the coelacanth feeds on. It is an extremely primitive fish, so it relies on a form of feeding called passive drifting. This boils down to the fish swimming aimlessly and eating whatever it happens upon. More complex hunting behaviors are not likely due to the extremely small brain of the Coelacanth, which occupies only 1.5% of its brain cavity, the rest of which is filled with fat. It seems as though its only instincts as far as hunting are to identify what in its environment is edible, through smell or sight, and then to consume it.

Two species of Coelacanth have been identified so far, the Comoros Coelacanth and the Sulawesi Coelacanth, each named for the islands near which they have been found. The total population of Coelacanths remaining in the world is unknown, though it is estimated to be in the ballpark of 10,000, though the Comoros Coelacanths found near Africa are significantly more vulnerable, with an estimated remaining population of 500 or less. However, Coelacanths are more or less safe from fishing by humans, as their scales and flesh produce large amounts of oil and urea which give them a poor flavor and can cause sickness. They are still accidentally caught in nets, though this is infrequent due to their cave-dwelling behavior, and they will never be intentionally hunted.

Chinlea These ancient fish are representative of a once incredibly diverse clade that was the dominant form of fish on the planet at one point, and can be considered living fossils. This is one of few animals I can think of that provides us living proof as to what animals looked like hundreds of millions of years ago, and is certainly the oldest example of this.

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/animal/coelacanth

https://australian.museum/learn/animals/fishes/coelacanth-latimeria-chalumnae-smith-1939/

https://animals.net/coelacanth/

Issue brief first paragraph: reducing vegetable oils

As society evolves, we are constantly seeking improvements to the systems we have in place, and especially when it comes to our food. Making food healthier, cheaper, and able to sustain our constantly growing population is becoming a priority now more than ever, and one of the major crops people have begun to rely on for this is soy. On the surface, soy appears to be a miracle cure: it can be used for meat and dairy substitutes, animal feed, oil, and many other common products. Despite this, low crop yields and heavy reliance worldwide have made this crop a top agricultural contributor to deforestation, right behind palm oil and beef production. In our quest to make food cheap and scalable, we have neglected to make it sustainable.

While it may yet be impossible to shift entirely away from soy and other seed oils, due to the dependence of the animal agriculture industry on soy and other similar crops, there are ways that the impact of these crops can be slowed and mitigated for the future. On a more realistic individual level, reading ingredients in food and selectively avoiding those produced with certain seed oils and vegetable oils, especially soy and palm, can reduce the demand for these crops. On a larger, more impactful scale, modern food can be made more sustainable by implementing restrictions on the amounts of some ingredients in food, and the outright banning of others. A perfect place to start is with soy, the most space-inefficient and among the most widespread of modern mass-produced crops.

Sources:

https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/vegetable-oils-and-animal-fats#:~:text=Destroy%20future%20and%20existing%20food,the%20environment%20for%20many%20years.

https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/the-environmental-impact-of-vegetable-oils

Vegetable oil spills hurt environment, too

Purussaurus

In this blog I will be highlighting debatably the largest and most impressive of the ancient crocodilians, the Purussaurus.

Purussaurus, The Prehistoric Predator More Powerful Than T.Rex

Purussaurus is actually a giant species of Caiman, which are crocodilians in the same family as alligators. Many species of caiman still exist today, but none that resemble this massive animal. The normal length for this species was likely around 35 feet long, with some specimens being estimated to be over 40 feet long and 18,000 pounds, making Purussaurus twice the length and weight of the largest modern crocodiles.

Comparison of the body size of a human with that of a Nile crocodile... | Download Scientific Diagram — Size comparison between Purussaurus and Nile Crocodile

Purussaurus brasiliensis - ZooChat — Purussaurus Skull

The skull of this animal could be around 5 feet long on its own, and was also one of the most distinctive features of this animal when compared to similar species due to its shape. The blocky, rounded skull and perfectly flat top of the head is not a feature seen in any modern crocodilians, though its vaguely similar to the rounded tips of alligator snouts.

This animal lived during the Miocene period, going extinct only 5 million years ago, in central South America, where most caiman still reside today. It was doubtlessly the top predator of its wetland ecosystem, preying on anything smaller than itself, including other crocodilians as well as the giant sloths which inhabited the same area. It had the strongest bite force of any four-legged animal so far known, able to produce over 15,000 pounds of force, which is about twice the bite force of a great white shark. It is also believed to be able to swim at the same speed as modern crocodiles, which is about 16 mph at full speed.

As is the case with any massive animal species, Purussaurus likely went extinct due to climate change. When the environment changes in a given ecosystem, smaller animals are able to move or adapt more easily if necessary, whereas larger animals such as this are immobile and much less adaptable to change as a result. This is probably why smaller crocodile species have survived since the age of the dinosaurs, while massive species such as Purussaurus are only around for relatively short periods of time. Larger animals also have much smaller population densities, so individual deaths have a much greater impact on the welfare of the entire species. This is why elephants are in such danger of extinction, because individual deaths can lead to an exponential decline in population.

How accurate is this. Not the size numbers. The sizes themselves. Was purussaurus truly bigger than deinosuchus : r/Paleontology — A comparison of a few of the world’s ancient crocodilian species

One of the things I find most interesting about this species is that it was not especially unique, as there were many species in other time periods that closely rivaled its size. Crocodyliforms such as this have existed in an incredible range of variety throughout the history of the Earth, and modern alligators, caimans, gharials, and crocodiles represent a very narrow view of what once lived here. Purussaurus is merely the one I find most interesting, but there are have been many that walked on long legs like horses, ate only plants, or had whale-like mouths, and it is fascinating to me to think that if evolution had been slightly shifted in one way or the other, we could be coexisting with any one of them. It almost makes the crocodyliforms we know today seem boring by comparison.

Sources:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/purussaurus

Purussaurus

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/p/purussaurus.html

Air Pollution

In my eyes, air pollution is a complicated issue to discuss. It is without a doubt the most substantial result of human activity, and perhaps the most difficult to reverse. However, there are several views one can assume concerning this issue. First is the idea that it is a real problem that can be realistically fixed. Second is the opposite, that this is hopeless and there is no point in trying to reverse it. Among others, there is also the view that human activity resulting in massive air pollution is simply another driver of the natural ways in which the world is always changing. Before exploring the moral discussion, I will lay out some background information on the problem itself.

Air pollution is mostly caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from machines and vehicles that burn fossil fuels, generating excess carbon in the atmosphere. Most obviously, this causes a reduction in air quality for people and animals, which is often toxic to breathe. Another major effect this has is forming greenhouse gases, which insulate the Earth’s atmosphere and cause the ambient temperature to rise as a result. This causes well-known events such as reduction of polar ice caps and rising sea levels, but the temperature rise can also disrupt weather patterns which result in more severe storms, drought, and other weather concerns. This in turn disrupts farming and the global supply chain, leading to poverty and hunger in many less developed countries.

An additional, though much less commonly known problem with increased carbon in the atmosphere, is the acidification of the ocean. Carbon dioxide in the air dissolves into the ocean which lowers the pH of the water, making it more acidic, and this is problematic to many smaller marine organisms which are very sensitive to chemical changes in their environment. This causes a domino effect up the food chain, harming every organism which relies on these micro organism, and the organisms that depend on those organisms, and so on. This decreasing health of the ocean affects people too, as we depend on the ocean for food and manufacturing materials.

Warming the oceans also makes it easier for algae to grow, which can then form massive blooms which can be toxic and release toxic gases into the air when washed up on land. These blooms floating on the surface themselves cause water to warm as well, promoting the growth of more algae in a sort of feedback loop.

The obvious remedy to this course of events is to substantially reduce carbon-emitting practices, but this solution is anything but simple. Transport of people and goods is entirely dependent upon burning gasoline, from airplanes to boats to the 1.5 billion cars in the world. Machines used in manufacturing also operate by burning fossil fuels. For electrical appliances and machines, electricity is most often derived from burning coal to power electrical generators, since this is cheaper than greener sources of energy.

Even in products designed to be “green,” such as lithium batteries in electric cars or wind turbines, generate massive carbon emissions while sourcing their materials and manufacturing them. Windmills, for example, require invasive and destructive mining to acquire the necessary metals, and those materials are then formed through the use of coal-burning blast furnaces. Though these are all still greener options than relying on fossil fuels for power, most countries lack the energy infrastructure to rely on them for more than a small portion of their power.

All of this discussion is disrupted by an odd moral dilemma: as humans, are we obligated to care at all?

For clarity’s sake, I am of the opinion that yes, it is our responsibility to reverse the damage we have caused to the best of our abilities. But arguments can be made to the contrary.

One misleading aspect of this issue is that it is so frequently called “climate change.” The changing of the climate is not in itself the problem, as the Earth’s climate is supposed to change and would be doing so without human interference. The problem lies within the rate at which the climate is currently changing. Human activities have caused global environmental conditions to change faster than life can adapt to it, which is leading to the current extinction rate being hypothesized to be 100-1,000 times higher than before human activity. It is being called a new mass extinction by many scientists.

However, this itself is also not necessarily unnatural. Mass extinctions have happened several times in the past, three of which happened within 200 million years of each other and the most recent of which occurred 65 million years ago. All of these occurred due to natural events. The Ordovician and Devonian mass extinctions were both due to the rapid cooling of the planet, the exact opposite of the problem that air pollution is causing today. It could be argued that as animals, human activity in generating air pollution is a natural factor causing this change and disrupting the natural way of things is useless.

In favor of a solution, however, one could argue that it is only reasonable to act in the best interest of the world upon which our species depends, and by doing this we would be acting in the best interest of our species. After all, humans are affected by air pollution and climate change just as the rest of the world is, the difference being that we have the tools to cope with it. The fact is, we recognize the harm we are causing, and although it will take a long time to do so, we have the intelligence and tools capable of reducing it, so there is no reason we shouldn’t. Maybe, the fact that something is natural or isn’t doesn’t matter, and what matters is that it could be better, both for us and for the rest of the planet. The knowledge that it is within our power to improve the quality of life across the globe is powerful, though we have yet to take full advantage of it.

Though I am in favor of the latter mindset, I do not want to persuade you in either direction. I find this to be a deeply layered and confusing, yet intriguing debate and only aim to provoke deeper consideration of it.

Sources:

https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms#:~:text=Warmer%20temperatures%20prevent%20water%20from,warmer%20and%20promoting%20more%20blooms.

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=43516673cd9c

Species going extinct 1,000 times faster than in pre-human times, study finds

Late Devonian Extinctions

Livyatan Melvillei

For this blog I wanted to discuss an often overlooked variety of prehistoric animals, the whales. In my opinion, the most impressive animal of this group was Livyatan Melvillei, a toothed whale that rivaled sperm whales in size and appearance.

Livyatan lived between 5 and 10 million years ago during the Miocene era. Remains have only been found in Peru near the Southern Pacific, but like most whales, these animals likely had a much wider range.

Gigantic Macroraptorial Sperm Whale Tooth (cf. Livyatan) from the Miocene of Orange County, California | bioRxiv — Far right tooth belongs to an orca, followed by a sperm whale tooth, and the last 4 belong to Livyatan

As said earlier, these whales strongly resembles sperm whales given their toothed jaws and bulbous head, but unlike their more gentle relatives, Livyatan was an apex predator of its time. Sperm whales have a thin and weak lower jaw, and no teeth on the upper jaw, limiting their diets to soft-bodied animals like squid. In contrast, Livyatan had a wider, robust mouth with massive teeth on the upper and lower jaws. Its relative jaw muscle size was comparable to that of killer whales of today, and had the largest teeth of any carnivore in history, at about the size of a two liter soda bottle. Their teeth were also densely packed and curved outwards to provide extra grip on struggling prey. They likely used these capabilities to feed on baleen whales.

Livyatan melvillei – biblical Leviathan? | DinoAnimals.com — Skull recreation displaying the curved teeth and depression which held the spermaceti and melon organs.

Given their predatory adaptations and their inherent intelligence as mammals, it is possible that Livyatan used hunting strategies similar to that of killer whales, such as tiring their prey out via direct pursuit and then drowning them once they were exhausted. With orcas, this is usually done in groups, but Livyatan’s size suggest it was possibly a solitary animal. It is also possible that they used their large melon (the big round part of their head) to ram prey, or struck from below to capture prey as great white sharks do. Livyatan also had a bulbous forehead, as mentioned and pictured before, which is a trait shared by sperm whales. Beluga whales look most similar to livyatan in this regard. This structure is made up of the melon and the spermaceti organs, which are used in echolocation, which was et another tool Livyatan had at its disposal while hunting.

Oftentimes, people draw comparisons between Livyatan and Megalodon (a giant shark) due to their similar size and predatory nature. There was a period of time in which both of these animals would have existed simultaneously, and it is therefore possible that they were in direct competition with one another. Megalodon would have possessed a stronger bite and was maybe 5 feet longer, but livyatan would have possessed superior speed and intelligence, so it is hard to say which of these animals would have been apex.

Megalodon and Livyatan size by SameerPrehistorica on DeviantArt — Megalodon and Livyatan size comparison

Overall, Livyatan Melvillei would have been an incredible animal to see alive, and comparing them with sperm whales, serve as an impressive example of how the food chain shifts over time.

Sources:

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/l/livyatan.html

https://www.nyit.edu/medicine/livyatan_melvillei

https://carnivora.net/livyatan-melvillei-v-sperm-whale-t8891.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/behold-leviathan-the-sperm-whale-that-killed-other-whales

Waste Production

Waste production is another of the most powerful threats to sustainability efforts, and incorporates not just pollution from garbage, but pollution from manufacturing byproducts as well. This is most often discussed in the context of plastics and their cheap, often negligent disposal. There are steps that can be taken to mitigate this issue, but doing so requires cooperation and will likely be more expensive than current methods, so it would take a serious combined effort for the world to see this change. Nonetheless, it is possible.

As previously mentioned, plastic is the primary contributor to this issue, seeing as nearly every consumer product that is manufactured and purchased every day is made from plastic. In theory, these plastics can be recycled, but the reality is that only around 9 percent of plastic collected gets recycled, and the rest is put in a landfill or incinerated. This does not account for the large percentage of plastic that isn’t recycled or thrown into a landfill, and is just tossed about. This is in in part due to the fact that very few kinds of plastic containers can actually be recycled using current technology, those being #1 and #2 plastic jugs and bottles. In total, roughly 79 percent of plastic ends up as pollution, and most of what is pollution on land eventually makes its way into the ocean.

This is problematic as animals get entangled in plastic material, or try to eat it. The more extensive issue is that plastic does not decompose as organic substances do, but rather it simply degrades into incredibly small pieces called microplastics. Microplastics are debatably even worse than “visible” pollution, because when ingested, they cause innumerable health effects, namely reproductive, neurological, pulmonary, and immune system issues. Furthermore, they cannot be tracked, and traces of microplastics have been found in many marine species. It is likely we all consume microplastics everyday. So if plastic waste and microplastics are such an issue, why not invest more in recycling?

The main reason why plastic is recycled at such a low rate is because proper processing and recycling is more expensive than alternatives such as landfills and incineration, with no obvious economic benefit (good health isn’t profitable). This means that the market for recycling and recycled goods is not very profitable and therefore extremely weak. Landfills and incineration are, in theory, better than nothing, but landfills require massive areas of land to be cleared to accommodate the trash and are inconstant need of expansion. In addition, landfills generate toxins and greenhouse gases. Incineration is no better because of the toxic gases it produces.

The second half of the recycling problem the world’s distribution of wealth. On average, more developed countries produce far more plastic waste per person than less developed countries. However, these developed countries are better equipped with facilities and technology with which to process this waste and deal with it in a less consequential manner. Meanwhile, less developed nations purchase their plastic products from these developed countries, but have mismanaged waste processing systems that lead to most plastic ending up as free pollution. As a result, these countries become the top contributors of plastic waste in the ocean.

As was the case with monocrop agriculture, discussed in my prior civic issue blog, waste production is a problem that grows exponentially alongside the human population. As the human population grows, demand for goods increases, the vast majority of which are packaged in plastic. Theoretically, plastic could be recycled into more product packaging after it is used and thrown out, but this recycling isn’t happening at the rate it needs to, so instead, more and more plastic is produced everyday which will inevitably end up as a pollutant once it is used. As a reference, roughly 380 million tons of plastic are produced annually, and 2.5 million plastic bottles are thrown away every hour as of now, and these numbers will follow the population growth trend. 79% of these objects will end up in the environment.

While the above information seems depressing and hopeless, there are alternatives and solutions which show promise. Firstly, further development of countries could help to reduce waste. Already, companies can be observed setting plastic waste reduction goals, and government targets and economic incentives are also in place. As countries develop, demand for and production of plastic goods increases, but plastic processing facilities also improve, allowing more of these materials to actually be recycled. This is evidenced by the current compound annual growth rate of the value of the recycling market, which is set to increase by over double by 2028.

We also have many other alternative materials such as aluminum and paper which can be used to substitute many plastic products. For example, plastic beverage bottles, which contribute to 14% of plastic waste worldwide, can alternatively be made out of aluminum, which is equally durable to plastic but completely recyclable. This substitute material can also be used for cups, plates, and other mass produced personal items. Glass and ceramics can replace many of the larger jars and jugs that aluminum is too expensive for. While not biodegradable, glass is at least inert and will not break down into harmful components like microplastics. Paper is also often used as a substitute to plastic bags.

As you may have noticed, these are the exact same materials that everything was packaged in before the invention of plastic. Plastic was implemented for its cheapness, so while these alternatives may be more expensive than plastic packaging, at least we know that their mass production is possible given that it used to be the standard, although it would have to be scaled up to the current population. The way I think about it is that paying extra for a product that is not packaged in plastic is both paying for the product and paying towards solving the plastic pollution problem, so it is not more expensive for no good reason.

Overall, solid waste production is a daunting challenge we face in the modern age that continues to worsen the longer we sweep it under the carpet. However, efforts have been made to work towards more sustainable disposable items, and further steps can be taken. We are moving in the right direction, but still have a long way to go. My judgement is that the biggest challenge to further implementing sustainability strategies is cooperation between nations with conflicting interests. However, that should not stop those of us with more aligned sustainability goals to at least get started, and set an example for other developing countries.

Sources:

https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/3712999-why-most-plastic-isnt-getting-recycled/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/02/us-plastic-waste-recycling

https://www.nature.com/articles/502615a

https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution

The Best Eco-Friendly Alternatives for the Plastic in Your Life

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/manufacturing-pollution-37013.html

Inostrancevia

After learning about the more recent Daeodon of the Eocene period, I am going to take you way back to the other side of history to talk about an animal called Inostrancevia, an animal that predated the oldest dinosaurs and represented a transitional state in evolution between reptiles and mammals.

Inostrancevia lived in the middle to late permian period, between 265 and 252 years ago, in what is now Western Russia. It grew to a length of roughly 11 feet long and a weight of around 1,000 pounds, which is about the same size as a grizzly bear. Its general body shape was also somewhat similar to bears, though it had a longer tail, lower hips, and canine teeth that grew to be nearly 6 inches long.

These are a pretty confusing species as far as classification. Given how old they are and their general appearance, they are often assumed to be dinosaurs (Diapsids), but they are actually Synapsids, a group which includes both mammals as well as reptiles that very closely resemble mammals. It is difficult to place them exclusively in either the mammal or reptile category simply because Inostrancevia has so much in common with both.

For instance, Inostrancevia had relatively short legs that were splayed out to the sides of its body, which is a characteristic trait of reptiles. You can see this with turtles, crocodiles, and lizards in the way they lay flat on their stomachs. Mammals tend to have longer legs that support the animal from directly below, which they have fold under them to sit. Inostrancevia also appears to have laid eggs. However, the arrangement of its teeth, nasal cavities, and overall head shape are very mammalian traits, and it is debated whether or not Inostrancevia had hair.

File:Inostrancevia alexandrii skeleton 23.JPG - Wikimedia Commons — Inostrancevia has a reptile-like stance, but a more mammalian head.

Way back in the Permian period, the region of Europe in which this animal lived had a much drier climate, like a cold desert, so the environment likely functioned like a colder version of Africa’s grasslands. Inostrancevia was almost certainly the apex predator of its environment, and filled the same ecological niche as big cats do today. It is believed that they were ambush hunters, but analysis of their bone structure suggests that they were extremely coordinated and fast runners. Their massive canines also suggest that they hunted like Jaguars or tigers, lunging onto prey and using their teeth to latch on and take the animal down. This is further supported by how far back these canines were seated, so that they could still use them to kill, but they were out of the way of the shorter front teeth which could then be used to rip at meat more precisely when eating.

Inostrancevia alexandri – Scaled Beast — Better angle of the position and size of the canines

Though this was an extremely well-adapted and successful species, Inostrancevia could not survive what became known as “The Great Dying,” a series of volcanic eruptions that led to ocean acidification, a dramatic greenhouse gas effect, and other catastrophic environmental changes. This would go on to wipe out 95% of both land and ocean species, and forms the boundary between the Permian and Triassic periods, allowing dinosaurs to rise as the dominant form of life on earth.

Sources:

Inostrancevia

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/i/inostrancevia.html

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Synapsida

Monoculture Farming

Monoculture farming is a method of farming in which an entire plot of land is planted with one single crop. The vast majority of modern farming is monoculture, though while the most economically efficient method, it is detrimental to the environment. However, population circumstances today leave us few alternatives to meet the global need, making monoculture farming one of the most tenacious obstacles standing between us and conservation.

Agriculture is extremely important and provides the vast majority of the ingredients in our food and clothing, and is used worldwide with hundreds of plants for this reason. Needless to say, modern society could not function without monoculture farming. Chances are, if you live in Central PA, you have seen fields of corn or soybean stretching for miles at a time. These are all monoculture fields, consisting of only one species of crop to be harvested and replanted in a perpetual cycle.

Economically speaking, this is an incredibly efficient method of farming, and has been a massive industry since the 1950s when America experienced its Green Revolution. By planting only one crop, farmers can manage their crops easily, without the extra considerations needed when other species of plants are present. Harvesting is also much simpler than traditional cropping, and when planted in neat rows, allows machinery to be used. All of this ultimately reduces time and resource costs, therefore generating greater profits. However, this cheap and efficient monoculture system cripples the environment in an abundance of ways.

Monoculture farming (also known as monocropping) disrupts the natural state of an ecosystem, in which many species interact and affect each other in a “checks and balances” sort of system. Pests are controlled by predators and the diversity of species close together inhibits the spread of disease in a natural system, but these factors are eliminated in a monoculture farm, so pests and disease spread like wildfire. Not only does this decrease farming efficiency, but it leads to the use of pesticides and other chemicals that flow into the ground and eventually end up in waterways which poison natural ecosystems. Herbicides used to remove weeds and fungi have the same effect.

Monocropping over time also leads to depletion of nutrients from the soil, increasing the risk of erosion and disrupting the natural chemical balance of the ground. This issue is most often solved with synthetic fertilizer, but even this chemical is harmful as it washes away and disrupts the natural chemical composition of the land and water where it ends up. Tilling soil and irrigation further increases the frequency of soil, containing all of the above chemicals, washing away into the environment.

The best way to exemplify the impact of this issue is by examining the effects of monocropping in Pennsylvania on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Pesticides, herbicides, and sediment from fields runs into creeks, which eventually end up in the Susquehanna river, which eventually leads to the Chesapeake Bay. These chemicals and sediments contain high levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorous, which are necessary for life to thrive, but in excess can render water toxic. This leads to toxic algae blooms, poisoning fish, and the cultivation of diseases transmissible to any animal (including people) that allows the water inside its body. This is just one example of the chemical effects of monocropping.

Monocropping is also perhaps the largest contributor to deforestation and unsustainable land use worldwide. Monoculture farming is used to produce the cotton for clothing, grain, and other ingredients needed in food, as well as the seed oils in most processed food. Seed oils are derived from rapeseed, oil palms, soybean and many other crops, all of which require massive areas to farm and harvest. Cosmetic and hygiene products also contain such ingredients. The modern demand for these products requires a monumental scale of monocropping, which is done worldwide. This means that precious ecosystems in the Amazon rainforest, Africa, America, and countless other regions of the world are razed and farmed in ever-growing quantity. Below is a visualization of the island of Borneo, near Indonesia, between 1950 and 2020, showing how ~60% of the forest has been cleared for timber, palm oil, and rubber production. For a size reference, Borneo is the third largest island in the world. It is home to many rare species such as orangutan and clouded leopards, most of which are critically endangered due to such farming practices.

Monoculture farming itself is a mammoth problem, but there is an underlying issue caused by the ever-growing human population. With all of the side effects of this method of production, the sensible thing to do would be to stop, but as previously mentioned, the global demand for resources does not allow us to turn back. With the speed and volume at which goods must be produced to sustain the current population, monocropping is the cheapest and most efficient way to meet demand; traditional cropping would not produce nearly enough resources, and would exponentially increase land use and associated deforestation. Humans also consume massive amounts of meet, particularly beef in the United States and Europe. Food grown to feed livestock takes up roughly 26% of the planet’s habitable land, and the livestock itself takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural farmland, yet supplies only 20% of the world’s calories. There are more sustainable ways to farm, such as 3-crop rotations, cover cropping, and natural pest management involving ecologically engineered fields, but 78% of farming occurs in poor or developing countries, where the cheapest option is the only option. With all of this in mind, it seems as if we have dug ourselves a hole.

This is a difficult issue, because as humans, we simply must feed our population, though we must also be aware of our presence on the planet and reduce the effects of our farming practices on the environment. Despite our best efforts, however, the global population continues to increase at an exponential rate, which means increased demand and increased farming to match.

So how do we win a losing battle?

Sources:

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

https://www.cbf.org/issues/agriculture/nitrogen-phosphorus.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monoculture

How Industrial Agriculture Affects Our Soil