Researchers Find Roads Shatter the Earth's Surface Into 600,000 Fragments (phys.org) 143
An international team of conservation scientists have released a new global map of roadless areas that shows that the Earth's surface is shattered by roads into more than 600,000 fragments. While roads allow humans to travel to nearly every region in the world, they severely reduce the ability of ecosystems to function effectively. Phys.Org reports: Recent research carried out by an international team of conservation scientists and published in the journal Science used a dataset of 36 million kilometers of roads across the landscapes of the earth. They are dividing them into more than 600,000 pieces that are not directly affected by roads. Of these remaining roadless areas only 7 percent are larger than 100 km2. The largest tracts are to be found in the tundra and the boreal forests of North America and Eurasia, as well as some tropical areas of Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. Only 9 percent of these areas undisturbed by roads are protected. Roads introduce many problems to nature. For instance, they interrupt gene flow in animal populations, facilitate the spread of pests and diseases, and increase soil erosion and the contamination of rivers and wetlands. Then there is the free movement of people made possible by road development in previously remote areas, which has opened these areas up to severe problems such as illegal logging, poaching and deforestation. Most importantly, roads trigger the construction of further roads and the subsequent conversion of natural landscapes, a phenomenon the study labels "contagious development."
Roads? (Score:5, Funny)
Where we're going we don't need roads.
Re: (Score:2)
So then maybe we have an excuse to have flying cars after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
While reading the article, I thought. This first comment has to be the quote from Back 2 the Future. Then I scrolled down. Thank you for not letting me down!
"roads trigger the construction of further roads" (Score:3)
Re:"roads trigger the construction of further road (Score:4, Funny)
People denying the existence of roads may be roads themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
roads are triggering.. roads cause ptsd.. roads need trigger warnings.
Re: (Score:1)
Does this mean that roads are sentient? Apparently they reproduce...
Re: (Score:2)
Jeremy Clarkson featured this squirrel bridge in the current week's Grand Tour
The story of Hugh Pine (Score:2)
https://www.goodreads.com/book... [goodreads.com]
"Hugh Pine, a porcupine genius, works with his human friends to save his less intelligent fellow porcupines from the deadly dangers of the road."
Anyone who saw the video version of this on CBS Storybreak might remember the refrain: "Looks like it's gonna be a hot day today":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
More seriously, ecological and evolutionary theory (including island biography) shows how the size of a habitat and how habitats are connected affects the distribution and
Don't tell the chickens (Score:2)
"It didn't! Its dreams were SHATTERED!"
(queue the Rolling Stones)
Re: (Score:3)
Cue, you fucking 'dromie.
Innumeracy. (Score:1, Insightful)
("Shatter?" Unless the claimant can find lots of roads which have created fault lines in the Earth's crust, that's a troll at best, and more likely a deliberate falsification to support an agenda.)
Re: (Score:1)
It's because the root claim is preposterous. Ecosystems span roads no problem. They don't span cities too well though.
Re:Innumeracy. (Score:5, Informative)
"Ecosystems span roads no problem." Naive.
http://journals.plos.org/ploso... [plos.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.safepassagecoalitio... [safepassagecoalition.org]
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, you are.
Said like someone who lives in a city, probably an apartment, and knows jack shit about actual ecosystems, but feels because they drink soy latte, and own a bike, they are a gaian dream.
Hint: generally, ecosystems span roads more easily than roads span ecosystems.
In fact roads are one of the easiest constructs for them to span. malls, stadiums, towns, cities - all much much worse.
Roads result in a bit of roadkill - probably less than the many MANY others causes of death in the wild.
Roads with c
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, 600,000 sounds like a really small area when you think that my block would be a section defined by roads. Later on in the article (which is an article that discusses the actual article) it says "They are dividing them into more than 600,000 pieces that are not directly affected by roads." So the 600k sections represent areas that we haven't really screwed up yet. I noticed on their map that they don't include Antarctica so I don't know if that's in with their calculations. There's one section w
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you've not been to wilderness or semi-wilderness areas? Roadkill (and its railway cousin, train-kill) are just the visible surface of the iceberg. Roads segment ecosystems: its true. Even snails that get trod on on pavements are an illustration.
Re: (Score:2)
Roadkill is not relevant to every kind of road. Looking at the map of Europe, they must have included maintenance roads in natural parks that are completely closed to traffic under normal circumstances.
Unlike the US, much of Europe won't allow "maintenance roads" at all in nature preserves. They are devoid of structures that require maintenance by road.
In rural areas there is also less need for roads than in the US, because of the universal right of passage which many countries have, where people can use your roads and pass over your property, and you are not allowed to prevent them. If I wanted to get from A to B, I wouldn't need a public road going around C's property - I would simply use his road. O
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the claimant can find lots of roads which have created fault lines in the Earth's crust
Who said anything about fault lines, who said anything about the crust? The roads have most definitely created lines on the earth's surface. English doesn't care for your pedantry.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a completely idiotic statement. It implies that roads cover 20% of the planet's surface. Nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ummmmm yeah..... your number include the liquid portion. In addition you are falling victim to the fallacy of averages (in this case the mean).
Re: (Score:2)
A better word than "shatter" would be "segment".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you care so much about humanity's effect on the planet, wouldn't the proper course be to kill yourself and remove your effect from the rest of us?
So now we know, what's the next step? (Score:1)
To 'fix' critical ecosystems, could we 'bury' sections of roads (either by tunneling, or building 'hills' over the top of existing roads? (the latter being easier in places which cut through hills already)
Should future roads be built underground/at the treetop level?
Data for data's sake is fine, but recommendations need to come out of this.
When did Science start publishing the Unabomber? (Score:1)
Seriously it sounds an awful lot like his manifesto.
Re:Typical enviro extremism (Score:4, Insightful)
The article actually advocates the protection of the most ecologically rich already roadless areas, not the destruction of roads. Roads in lots of these areas wouldn't necessarily be beneficial to humankind. It's just that in many of these areas there is insufficient protection of the habitats in them.
Obviously, there can be a smarter strategy for humans than the two extremes of no farming and killing everything that you seem to outline in your post.
And, most environment researchers (or academics of any type) are definitely not rich, especially if you take into account the atrocious salary for early career researchers who make less than bus drivers.
Re: (Score:1)
you know nothing. Mann's salary is public look it up, it was quite modest for a prominent scientists ~300K/yr, if I recall. If his grants are a like any normal university, half immediately goes to overhead. The remainder is divided over multiple years and pays for labor hours of his research team, who generally earn less than the private sector.
You have also selected one of the most prominent scientists in the world and are using that as a counter claim that AGW researchers are rich? Something tells me this is a typical investigative inquiry for all things you don't like, lol. You can't be taken seriously.
$300,000 a year salary sounds pretty rich to me. Certainly very affluent. Especially when you get to fly around to junkets and conferences and get all the nice health and retirement benefits that the State provides to administrators. So that salary doesn't even include the expense account and the benefits, nor does it include side money for giving speeches and publishing books (he has at least 3 commercial books that I'm aware of). So, yea, Mann has gotten rich off AGW alarmism, and he's not the only one
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical enviro extremism (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to mod you down, but I thought I'd take the time to publicly berate you instead.
The article in question is a scientific, scholarly article, written by actual environmental researchers. It appears[0] to have done what you would expect of a scientific article -- it has identified a possible problem (environmental fragmentation due to roads), and had done some measurements surrounding the issue. And that's it. The article isn't judging you. It's not judging society. Indeed, right in the very first sentence of the abstract it says:
Roads have done much to help humanity spread across the planet and maintain global movement and trade.
About the only conclusion the authors draw is that more should be done to protect the existing large tracts of land without roads (totalling about 7% of earth surface). And that's it. They don't call you a bad person for using roads. They aren't trying to guilt people into ripping up existing roads. All they are saying is "roads are great; we need roads; they cause some problems; and we have a measurement to frame the problem". Nothing more. There is no complaining going on. This is science, not ethics, so get a grip already. The one with a huge bias here isn't ./ or the articles authors, it's you.
Yaz
[0] -- I unfortunately haven't been able to access the full article. While I do have access to a number of scientific article databases, this article was just published today, and doesn't appear to be indexed in any of them just yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This. For the love of FSM, somebody mod this up. Scientists want to offer their findings to the world with the hope that they will make it a better place to live. Far too many of the posts on this site have called into question the good faith of scientists in this regard.
It tales a lot of study, work, and determination to become a scientist. Despite what some may suggest, the financial rewards are modest. Scientists put their hearts into what they do. They deserve to be heard when they have something to say
Re: (Score:1)
You clearly didn't read the summary. It skipped over the fig leaf and jumped almost directly into all of the ways that you and your roads are killing the planet.
Re:Typical enviro extremism (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly didn't read the summary. It skipped over the fig leaf and jumped almost directly into all of the ways that you and your roads are killing the planet.
No, I went one better and went and found the actual paper the article is based on.
The summary didn't make any judgement of you or anyone else either. It listed a variety of problems caused by roads -- and that's it. If you feel personally slighted by the list, that's your problem.
Again -- nobody said anything about tearing up roads, or that we shouldn't use them. Roads cause some problems, and help with others. Adults can discuss the cons of something without it implicitly becoming about trying to ban or tear that item out of existence. Indeed, instead of going insane and assuming they are being judged by a scientific paper, rational adults would instead have a discussion on how we might be able to mitigate the problems, while continuing to enjoy the benefits.
Instead, we seem to have too many babies around here who read a list acknowledging problems with roads and assume "They hate roads! I use roads! Therefore they hate me/civilization/everything I stand for!", when no such things were stated or implied.
Now if you're interested in putting on your adult pants and discussing like an rational human being, a more interesting discussion would be on the relative benefits of mitigation strategies, such as wildlife overpasses/underpasses. Parks Canada [pc.gc.ca] is considered one of the major world experts on practical wildlife crossing research, and has some interesting materials online discussing the problems and solutions.
See how that works? Someone identifies a problem. Someone else identifies possible solutions. The solutions are evaluated. Nobody goes berserk and simply tears everything apart, nobody calls anyone names, nobody assumes anyone is a bad person. Like an adult. Try it for yourself.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
So, your response to "Why is Slashdot so biased?" is that you didn't even read the piece being discussed. Brilliant!
And now that you've been shamed into reading it, you are pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly says, and responding to things that no one said. Double brilliant!
Re: (Score:3)
The headline could have said "roads split ecosystems..." instead of using the very negative phrase 'shatter the earth'. It was intended to provoke exactly the response you are railing against.
No, it was a very descriptive phrase. You're the one putting emotions into it.
What does it look like when you shatter something? That's exactly what it looks like. There's nothing negative about that. it's descriptive.
Re: (Score:1)
The intention of articles such as this is clearly to make people feel bad about... well, their existence, really. Just by our sheer presence we are destroying the world, and here is further evidence, it says. If you are a citizen of a Western country your footprint is several earths. Never mind the way you _actually_ live; it's all about where you were born that determines if you are destroying the planet.
Slashdot is rapidly becoming an eco-site instead of a tech site, with plenty of articles intended to in
Re:Typical enviro extremism (Score:5, Insightful)
The intention of articles such as this is clearly to make people feel bad about... well, their existence, really.
No, it isn't. And there is something seriously wrong with the psyche of anyone who reads a scientific article and that is what they pull out of it.
The article reported on a scientific paper, and that is all. Stop trying to "read between the lines" on everything to pick out intentions that are not there. You only wind up reinforcing your own prejudices.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, you might have noticed that both me and the OP were talking about _the article on slashdot_, not the scientific paper. And second, you seem mightily sure about the contents of the paper, despite not having read it.
What _is_ the reason for the article being on slashdot, do you suppose? How is this "news for nerds, stuff that matters"? The only thing I can imagine is that it fits in with the new slashdot policy of having far too many eco-articles, and the slant of those is most definitely that "
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even know how Slashdot works? Users submit articles, articles that are always going to reflect the submitters biases to some degree. If only some submitters submit stories, that is what we get. If you want to counteract those biases, submit stories that reflect your bias. The greater variety of stories we get, the better.
Re:Typical enviro extremism (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, fixing population growth is the only permanent solution to our environmental footprint because otherwise the "greener" we get we'll just grow to be 10 billion, 20 billion, 50 billion and so on until no matter how green we are individually the sheer number of straws on the camel's back will break it. That said, how much environmental impact we make is not insignificant - unfiltered pollution and unchecked use of toxic materials could easily be the difference between a sustainable population of 100 million and 100 billion.
So yes, I think it's a valuable point. But if you're using it as a blocker in that there's no point discussing anything else until we got population growth under control it's an excuse. Not least of which because we mostly have, it's not a population boom anymore because the birth numbers - which are the only thing that ultimately matters - are slowing down. Average children per woman was 5 in 1964 and less than 2.5 now with a replacement population of about 2.1, so from almost +3 to less than +0.4 on a downward trend.
We will be 10 billion-ish because of the fill-up effect of the population pyramid equalizing and the continuing advances in medical science, but nothing like in the past. But the pressing issue is whether the planet can sustain 10 billion people polluting as much as the worst of us or whether we're already past the sustainable limit. If we are we either need to downsize the population a lot - unlikely in the short term, at least - or we need to get so much greener that 10 billion is sustainable. It's certainly not harder than the other option.
P.S. I think the expansion is often far more resource consuming than the mere continuation, like we build houses and roads and as long as roughly the same number of people live there we just need to maintain them and slowly repair/replace them as necessary. If we're growing though we need to make new houses and new roads because in the game of musical chairs there's eventually some people left over that can't fit in what we already have. That in itself is a good reason to limit growth, it's more sustainable to carry on than to constantly expand, which means you constantly have to take resources from somewhere new.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a common and erroneous claim. Those who want population growth usually want it for religious reasons or for cannon fodder. Those who want economic growth want it because it accompanies a higher standard of living.
Raising children is a heavy economic burden that depresses the economy for the time it takes to raise them. Most politicians aren't willing to wait 20 years. Government policies that
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure you know how science (as a profession) works. These guys wrote the paper for a reason. They did the research for a reason. There's a grant manager and staff writing contracts, doing accounting and presenting reports to an NGO board about this work... all for a reason. This didn't just happen because of scientific curiosity, and it's absolutely insulting to scientists to remove us from policy and moral debates. I think if anything, we got into science to win those debates. (If you can't tel
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Roads introduce many problems to nature. For instance, they interrupt gene flow in animal populations, facilitate the spread of pests and diseases, and increase soil erosion and the contamination of rivers and wetlands. Then there is the free movement of people made possible by road development in previously remote areas, which has opened these areas up to severe problems such as illegal logging, poaching and deforestation. Most importantly, roads trigger the construction of further roads and the subsequen
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really not understand how this is left-wing environmentalist misanthropism?
Which doesn't preclude it from being truth.
Can you reference any studies that came to opposite conclusions?
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly you're both right or wrong depending on how you look at it.
Raisey's response to the article and to its source was reasonably calling out their obvious agenda and use of biased language.
However, the word 'shattered' doesn't appear to have appeared in the original study (they used fragmented), so it was at least mostly scientific (again, with an agenda but not quite so inflammatory)
My objection to the original study would be their arbitrary addition of 1km margins to every road before calculating, whi
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's science. We all benefit from the wealth of knowledge that scholarly articles from the academic world [twitter.com] provide for us.
Re: (Score:2)
The very name "sustainable development" has come t
Re: (Score:3)
We have close to 7.5 billion people on the planet. Without roads people would be living in poverty. Unless you have a reasonable alternative you cannot complain.
Fewer people.
Underground roads.
Robots.
With the current level of automation, 7.5 million seems like a more sustainable number of people than 7.5 billion. As automation increases, this can be decreased.
Re: (Score:1)
We have close to 7.5 billion people on the planet.
The problem is that NUM_PEOPLE * RESOURCES_USED_PER_PERSON exceeds the sustainable level on our planet.
The fix would be to try to get both the size of the human population and the amount of resources used per person to decline. The birth rates are already decreasing in many parts of the world (except Africa and India), but it is challenging to reduce or limit the resource usage per person.
It's easy to be an environmentalist when you are wealthy and have a beautiful and large home.
That is part of the human nature: seeing flaws in others but not in oneself. For example, the Megaupload founder Kim Dot
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the source (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the majority of the world already lives in poverty so no real change.
Re: (Score:2)
the majority of the world already lives in poverty so no real change.
No, India and China are much better off compared with 25 years ago. Africa has taken off since 2000 and is starting to experience a meaningful rise in living standards. And nihilist attitudes prevent progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have a reasonable alternative you cannot complain.
In some places they have under-passes designed specifically for wildlife to go through. That seems like a solution that can be employed without destroying civilization.
Between the extremes, try to look for a middle-ground solution. Usually you'll find it.
In other news... (Score:2)
... the human species is responsible for devastation across all ecosystems on the planet. Over 7 billion of these creatures are multiplying like a cancer. They consume vast quantities of resources, they destroy ecosystems. There is plastic waste in the ocean, overfishing which is decimating the fish population, pollution of ecosystems, and radiocative waste from nuclear bombs and powerplant accidents. And new humans begat even more of these damaging beasts.
Re: (Score:3)
environmental extremists.
With that addition, I agree wholeheartedly.
But then, most extremism is bad for most people.
Most environmentalist are very concerned for what's good for people.
Re: (Score:2)
You kind of left out a word. It would rephrase to two words: - environmental extremists.
Environmental "extremists "are influential however, and their ideas are likely to take hold with all.
Especially with environmentalism; yesterday's extreme is tomorrow's everyday normal.
Thus they're not really extremists ----- that's just the temporary status of some, while the rest of the environmentalists
catch up with them.
Look how Global Warming theory progressed?
Not only did the idea and its proponents shift over
Re:And here's today's proof (Score:4, Informative)
... completely ignoring the fact that people need the environment to survive. We need air, plants/animals and water. They don't need us.
Re: (Score:2)
People also need roads to survive. People don't need any type of roadless environment.
As for animals and plants, when they start to show empathy for us, they'll have earned our empathy in return. (You may worship them as you wish, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
If people would need roads to survive, they would have evolved wheels instead of legs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
that environmentalists don't care about what's good for people.
Actually they do, which is kind of the point of environmentalism, ensuring that people can continue to use the earth as they have done in the past.
People don't care about what's good for people.
too bad nothing goes under or over (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad nothing goes under or over, that would shatter this stupid story title.
Re: (Score:2)
And, obviously, there are self-appointed experts eager to choose who is allowed to breed. Marvelous!
It can be randomized.
Or we can let nature choose by measures like banning childhood medicine for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
And, obviously, there are self-appointed experts eager to choose who is allowed to breed. Marvelous!
Why don't we just do a fitness test instead of appointing experts?
Pool the limited number of "breeding tokens" and use a volley of competitive strategy games to eliminate people from being awarded a token;
starting with ---- Must score 100,000 points on Tetris within 3 attempts.
Next competitive Warcraft II, Civilization, then Chess, Scrabble, Scotland Yard, Acquire, Shogun , Chutes and Ladders, Euphor
Re: (Score:3)
This is something that a 100 meter rise in the sea level will solve quite easily.
Listen here Peter Parker (Score:2)
Crap, crap, MEGA CRAP.
Exactly who does this surprise? (Score:3)
So who is surprised wildlife habitat has been divided into x times 1000 little bitty chunks, each too small to support the wildlife?
Too many people, not enough land.
I'm getting to hate
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always hearing about cars hitting deers. In my neck of the woods it's cars hitting squirrels.
Maybe in your neck of the woods. I-70 in Pennsylvania has those Jersey barriers running all up and down the road, with no gaps or dips or anything.
One night at 4 AM I was driving down I-70 and right after a blind curve my headlights fell across a herd of deer in the middle of the freeway, all trying to figure out how to get past this stupid concrete barrier that's too high for deer to jump over. So of course I find myself slamming on the brakes and swerving the car through a wild stampede at about 50 mph.
Gosh! (Score:2)
This just in: Researchers report that 600,000 is a very big number that you should be super impressed by. That is all.
Rewrite... (Score:3)
Researchers Find Roads Shatter the Earth's Surface Into 600,000 Fragments
Loaded word presenting a non-neutral POV. Reword and try your submission again.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent. Though I did read "prickle of excitement" as "trickle of excrement" on the first pass.
The solution (Score:2)
Flying cars.
Remember, you heard it here first.
So How Many Fragments From (Score:2)
The humans and vehicles running across the surface are there?
Click-whore (Score:1)
Click-whores gets fucked in the ass, after they die.
The rest of us go to heaven.
not a problem ! (Score:2)
According to this, um, 1950s Popular Science magazine we will have flying cars any day now. Problem solved, no need for those pesky roads all over the place.
Deer crossings (Score:5, Funny)
They need to stop putting deer crossings in places with high traffic.
Bullshit - Pardon my french (Score:2)
The roads they are talking about are not in metropolitan centers. If plants before "man" can transverse from Europe and Asia to the the Americas then I doubt a simple two lane "road" is going to stop nature.
Never miss an opportunity to spread alarmist crap (Score:1)
The vast majority of the 'roads' in the study are the little two-laners that twine everywhere, but have no effect on ecosystems other than to limit the spread of wildfires. An ecosystem is disturbed when a major, fenced-off highway carries a lot of traffic, and as the article admits the primary impact is the human population the road brings, rather than the road itself.. Around here the perennial debate is, do we fence off the rural Interstate as the construction standard specifies or do we let elk and coyo
Re:Never miss an opportunity to spread alarmist cr (Score:4, Informative)
> but have no effect on ecosystems other than to limit the spread of wildfires
This claim is not well founded, I'm afraid. Even the most casual look at Google shows thousands of well written articles on the difficulty, and many well researched scientific papers on obvious and subtle effects. Slower moving animals like snakes and turtles are devastated by roads, and can lose genetic diversity because they can't safely cross roads to cross breed with even nearby habitats. And animals that need to migrate due to winter or due to local food depletion often have profound difficulty finding safe and effective ways past piles of fenced in highway.
Forget roads, time to split BEAVERS wide open !! (Score:2, Insightful)
If anyone should examine a topo map of North America and give a reasonable estimate as to which major land contours, lake systems and other land features were either caused (or prevented) by the specific actions of BEAVERS, the rodents would be singled out in an IPCC report as a major cause of 'climate change', exposed by CNN, trash-talked on The View, sold bogus 'log pullers' [youtube.com], and hunted down near extinction. We could begin by interesting Europeans in beaver pelt clothing...