Wildlife In 'Catastrophic Decline' Due To Human Destruction, Scientists Warn (bbc.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Wildlife populations have fallen by more than two-thirds in less than 50 years, according to a major report (PDF) by the conservation group WWF. The report says this "catastrophic decline" shows no sign of slowing. And it warns that nature is being destroyed by humans at a rate never seen before. The report looked at thousands of different wildlife species monitored by conservation scientists in habitats across the world. They recorded an average 68% fall in more than 20,000 populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish since 1970.
Measuring the variety of all life on Earth is complex, with a number of different measures. Taken together, they provide evidence that biodiversity is being destroyed at a rate unprecedented in human history. This particular report uses an index of whether populations of wildlife are going up or down. It does not tell us the number of species lost, or extinctions. The largest declines are in tropical areas. The drop of 94% for Latin America and the Caribbean is the largest anywhere in the world, driven by a cocktail of threats to reptiles, amphibians and birds. Research published in the journal Nature suggests that to turn the tide we must transform the way we produce and consume food, including reducing food waste and eating food with a lower environmental impact.
Measuring the variety of all life on Earth is complex, with a number of different measures. Taken together, they provide evidence that biodiversity is being destroyed at a rate unprecedented in human history. This particular report uses an index of whether populations of wildlife are going up or down. It does not tell us the number of species lost, or extinctions. The largest declines are in tropical areas. The drop of 94% for Latin America and the Caribbean is the largest anywhere in the world, driven by a cocktail of threats to reptiles, amphibians and birds. Research published in the journal Nature suggests that to turn the tide we must transform the way we produce and consume food, including reducing food waste and eating food with a lower environmental impact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Solution (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't want to know more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes two Loonies to make a Toonie.
Signed,
a Canadian.
Dr William Rees thesis (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that!
Reminds me of Planet of the Humans (Score:5, Interesting)
This kinda reminds me of a short film, Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans. It's mostly by a guy who has worked with Moore for many years, Jeff Gibbs.
Despite the fact that Moore can sometimes be a lying sack of shit, this week one is actually pretty good, and shows what might be the only way we can save the planet that can actually work.
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE [youtu.be]
For any film with Moore's name on it, don't go quoting anything you see as fact because he has been known to stretch the truth on particular details, but the overall film is insightful.
Re: Reminds me of Planet of the Humans (Score:2)
Not famiiar with M. Moore's films, but do you have any links to credible studies or sources to the claims that his films canot be trusted? Legitimately curious and interested to sÃe the whole picture and/or debate.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he lies but he cherry-picks the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I'd cite authoritative sources and all, but this morning I'm kinda busy, so here is one article that seems to do a decent job of covering one of this films, as an example:
https://whatculture.com/film/5... [whatculture.com]
I'm sure there are more rigorous treatments around if you Google for them, but that's a start to get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought that it was a comedy where Dr. Zaius, the orangutan, got his ass kicked. I guess he found his destiny.
Re: (Score:2)
For any film with Moore's name on it, don't go quoting anything you see as fact because he has been known to stretch the truth on particular details...
Are you trying to tell me that Canadian Bacon was NOT a documentary???
Re: (Score:2)
I don't consider alcohol as a threat by itself. Are you sure those threats contain alcohol?
Re: Damn those drinkers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop spamming about the Sydney Morning Herald.
Re: (Score:2)
SMH
in which pattern?
Why surprised (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never heard of anyone advocating depopulation willing to admit their own existence is bad.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge difference between wanting birth control and wanting to commit suicide (or homicide for that matter). Also, it's perfectly possible to want to live while also recognizing that one's life has a significant footprint. So, no idea what your point is about
Re: (Score:2)
Depopulation by birth control, not by suicide/murder/killing/genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking about nukes from orbit? Asking for my friend Ripley.
Crickets (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Crickets are great fish bait too.
Yuck (Score:1)
You do realize there already are plant-based meat substitutes that are actually quite palatable? I’d gladly take a plate of Impossible burger before I’d ever consider chowing down on lawn pests.
Not that I have any issues with eating the real thing (real beef still has the substitutes beat on price), but if cows disappeared tomorrow I still ain’t reaching for a crunchy pile of crickets.
Re:Yuck (Score:4, Interesting)
Impossible burger is ridiculously processed to the point where a lot of experts saying it's not healthy. For a reliable source of non-animal protein, go with the proven things: beans and nuts.
Also, don't get hung up on all-or-nothing propositions. A 4 oz. burger can be quite tasty. If you were eating 8 oz. burgers every day, and you go to 4 oz burgers every other day, Bam! You just cut your beef consumption 75%, and you'll be a lot healthier.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, don't get hung up on all-or-nothing propositions. A 4 oz. burger can be quite tasty. If you were eating 8 oz. burgers every day, and you go to 4 oz burgers every other day, Bam! You just cut your beef consumption 75%, and you'll be a lot healthier.
The population will have tripled by the time you convince everybody of that.
Try imagining a 200% tax on burgers over 4oz. Would that work faster? It's the sort of thing that's needed...
Re: (Score:2)
Or outlawing meat, or at least mammalian meat, period. But since when did legislation prevent people from eating all kinds of animals. Bats in China; cutting shark fins off and leaving sharks to die (or kill shark but only retain fins, plus the spine) also by and for the Chinese; hunting whales by Japan (science, yummy!). Therefore, controls on population size is key. Anything that ignores it is not realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
So what are you suggesting?
[_] World war
[_] Godzilla
[_] Zombies
[_] Deadly pandemic
It seems at least one of these options is currently in its trial phase...
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the whole Climate Change thing is really just angels on the head of a pin, mostly pointless politics, and in some cases a dangerous "religion". We'll adapt one way or another. Paleo Indian: "Hey, put out that fire, or the ice will melt and we won't be able to walk to the Farallon Hills any more".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize there already are plant-based meat substitutes that are actually quite palatable? I’d gladly take a plate of Impossible burger before I’d ever consider chowing down on lawn pests.
Not that I have any issues with eating the real thing (real beef still has the substitutes beat on price), but if cows disappeared tomorrow I still ain’t reaching for a crunchy pile of crickets.
You need to get over you prejudices, if you ever try crickets you'll be converted instantly. They're damn tasty!
Companies like Pringles will go bust overnight if word ever gets out about crickets.
Re: (Score:2)
We could say the same to you: get over your prejudices about eating plant-based food.
Re:Crickets (Score:4, Funny)
Glad I don't have kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand how/why people still have kids
Because they either believe their kids will be successful enough to be among the privileged, or they believe skydaddy won’t let anything bad happen to the Earth if you pray enough.
Oh, also there’s no shortage of folks who produce rugrats because the act of procreation is pleasurable and they’re not even all that concerned with the immediate consequences of caring for their offspring. It’s not as if conception requires that you Click here to agree to the terms and conditions of produ
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody reads these things anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between doomsday predictions and hard real facts that point in a direction that's bad for everyone on the planet.
Re: Glad I don't have kids (Score:2)
No, there really isn't. From predictions about oil running out by 1980, to mass starvation by 1970, to a new ice age by the turn of the century, plenty of doomsday predictions have pointed to "hard real facts". All of them have turned out to be wrong because people suck at predicting the future.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there really isn't. From predictions about oil running out by 1980, to mass starvation by 1970, to a new ice age by the turn of the century, plenty of doomsday predictions have pointed to "hard real facts". All of them have turned out to be wrong because people suck at predicting the future.
Bringing up the nonsense ice age meme just makes you look like a denier given that it wasn't being predicted by scientists.
Re: Glad I don't have kids (Score:1)
No, you're just ignorant. Quite a few scientists predicted cooling, and wrote papers on the topic. Pretending otherwise is just historical revisionism, which would make you the "denier".
It's true that the majority of the scientists at the time were either noncommittal or predicted warming. There was a fairly lively debate over the subject. The warming models eventually won out. But that doesn't mean that the scientists who predicted cooling weren't working with "real hard facts" as the other guy sugges
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're just ignorant. Quite a few scientists predicted cooling, and wrote papers on the topic.
Even in the period you are talking about, the number of scientists talking about cooling was a very, very small proportion of scientists studying climate, most of who concluded the issue was warming. You can check this by looking at the literature of the time. Also, the issue wasn't the science so much as the reporting of it. It stems back to 1960s studies of corals in the Caribbean and ice cores which, for the first time, provided solid evidence of the Milankovitch cycles and allowed a prediction that ther
Re: (Score:2)
Stuck on Earth, yes. But aren't we going to Mars in a few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need the ecosystem .. we can chemically synthesize our essential proteins or food and use nuclear or solar energy. If we can live on bases on Mars and the moon we can live on Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that all the word "ecosystem" means to you? Food?
I think we found the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know no sealed biosphere has ever worked in isolation. They all need regular top-ups from earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Biosphere is an experiment that has been tried only a few times. We can make it work. Humans tried to make flying machines for hundreds of years until now they are they safest form of transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need the ecosystem .. we can chemically synthesize our essential proteins or food and use nuclear or solar energy. If we can live on bases on Mars and the moon we can live on Earth.
Do you seriously believe this? Do you really believe this is optimal and can scale and would be cheaper than maintaining the ecosystem?
Re: (Score:1)
as are we. I think people are still having kids for a few reasons
- they just want to, biological imperative and all that. the concious mind's interaction with the lizard brain is pretty complicated.
- human beings are terrible at long term thinking. just awful. watch people drive and understand just how bad
- "it won't be my kids". especially in the "developed" world, they think they're going to skate through while the rest of the planet suffers.
Re: (Score:2)
What drives me crazy is when people have many children. I knew a co(lleague/worker) who had ten! Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people do not chose to have kids, it's an instinct, a urge encoded deeply within the genes. You have to have kids because it's the sole purpose of life, the sole existence of your genes is to reproduce themselves. Then, you can find other bullshit explanation like "it's the greatest joy of your life", but the main reason is still an unexplainable urge.
And since it's impulse over logic, the growing population is very likely to be an ecological catastrophe. People keep following their reproductive instin
Re: (Score:2)
Most people do not chose to have kids,
Most pregnancies carried to term are voluntary, even though most pregnancies are unplanned. Almost all people have access to birth control, and most people have access to abortion. So most people definitely choose to have kids.
Re: Glad I don't have kids (Score:3)
If all people that understand that don't have kids, only people that don't understand it will have kids. You're only making matters worse by not having kids. Idiocracy starts with you.
https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
You are ignoring the large DGAF population which I consider myself a part of. Remember the cold war era when everyone believed a mushroom cloud might be spotted on the horizon at any time? People still had children. I want a child just because I want a human pet. That's what children are really. I will teach her to fetch and roll over and play dead. All that.
Re: Glad I don't have kids (Score:3, Funny)
Nope. The population will level off in a few decades and then possibly decrease.
Are you suggesting that we can't take another 50 percent increase before that happens?
Since we've come so far?
No way. The problem is mostly political and part time economics and you know it.
I'm childless myself and that ain't gonna change, but your reasoning for it is flawed.
To each their own and more power to you and everyone, but let's stop with the disproved stuff from decades ago.
A species that brings its own extinction by c
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Human population *growth rate* is forecast to come down, hitting maybe a global zero sometime in the 2nd half of the century. With a LOT of ifs.
But, as population growth rate results in compound growth, it means we're still probably adding more and more people per year in absolute terms, because the basis of the growth rate is increasing.
Also, this totally ignores the fact that geographic distribution of population growth is very uneven. Global North has stagnant population; it would rapidly dep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Earth is going to be a very unpleasant place for humans over the next few centuries, at least.
historically, this aint shit.
sit in your AC'd home and order crap from amazon. oh the humanity.
Re:Glad I don't have kids (Score:5, Informative)
No, you don't speak for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
sadly.
which is why we're here.
there's just too many people and we also affect the ecosystem disproportionately highly
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Leaving the kid-having to the blinkered, ignorant masses is the real problem here, not the people capable of looking to the future and deciding not to have any.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about this point that someone mentions idocracy. It's coming true, right now.
We need worldwide birth control. There is no socially acceptable way to solve this problem.
Re: (Score:1)
No, you don't speak for everyone.
You certainly don't speak for these guys with 14 kids:
https://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/d... [tlc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think I speak for everyone when I say that we're also happy you don't have kids.
I think I speak for every parent that mindsets change drastically the instant you become one.
The parent here, has more than one valid point, and the perhaps the current generation of "adults" running this planet should feel a little more guilty for the fucking mess left behind for our children to inherit, along with whatever wealth is left over after another wave of unchecked corruption decimates it.
You know what else is quickly going extinct? The entire middle class. Smile. You have that, to look forwa
Re: (Score:3)
At the grocery store last week, a guy was there with his kid. Both were feeding a can crushing machine from huge bags filled with aluminium cans. Once in a while, a can would not scan (partially hand-crushed cans from the looks of it). Instead of putting it aside or whatever, they were throwing them in the trash. When I asked why they were throwing them away, the man replied "we can't get our five cents back, so those cans are worthless."
That's right, that moron was throwing away perfectly recyclable alumin
Re: (Score:2)
People that take their recycles into the various places for the money back aren't doing it for feel goods. I have a dumpster and a recycling bin where I live. I do my best to separate and all that. I use to take my cans in but I stopped consuming canned beverages.
The glass, cardboard and plastic isn't worth my time to go try and get money back from. All that goes into the bin instead.
So I can totally see someone not caring about a can they couldn't recycling if they are already having to try to get money ou
Re: (Score:2)
My take from this: Ignorance of the masses is one of the biggest danger to the planet. Self-centered thinking is another.
And my take from this?
Human Ignorance doubled down on your observation and turned it into a challenge by inventing social media, which promoted the job of Attention Whore to a an esteemed and often high-paying profession. Self-centered thinking is now the norm due to mass narcissism being reduced to a societal expectation.
Pay-per-view Celebrity Suicide will be killing it in the ratings soon, with lines in Vegas betting on how they off themselves. Grab your wallets and popcorn...
Re: (Score:2)
I think I speak for everyone when I say that we're also happy you don't have kids.
You certainly don't speak for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably you want to be funny but you better think twice, and if you still want to post such crap, think about what kind of thoughts you entertain
Re: (Score:2)
On the bright side, once folks like you are dead, normal people who don't share these silly beliefs will populate the planet in your stead, and live on it just fine as they always have. Better than ever probably, because both technological advancement and finalization of centuries of work to make human habitats be mostly purged of extremely hostile elements such as poisonous snakes, large predators capable of hunting us and plant life toxic to us.
Still not good with the concept of science, I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that modern green doomers such as yourself are openly anti-science, I'll have to simply remind you that "religion is not the same thing as science".
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that modern green doomers such as yourself are openly anti-science,
For one thing I am not a 'green doomer' and I am very pro-science. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.
I'll have to simply remind you that "religion is not the same thing as science".
Climate science isn't a religion. But then I actually know some climate science and have a reasonable layman's grasp of the science so I don't rely on feelings about what I think it is but rely on actual evidence. You know, like science does.
It's good to be the apex predator (Score:2)
One thing for sure, it's good to be the apex predator.
We need to gather up all the DNA, so we can recreate creatures when we need to.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some that literally believe Noah's Ark story despite it being scientifically impossible.
There's no shortage of idiots.
Did it ever occur to you that many others view the story as a guide to a moral attitude, as in a duty to save animals?
I view it as part of a work that tells lies in order to manipulate people. Noah didn't save animals because of a moral imperative, he received a command to do it because humans would need animals.
No, that only pushes the problem further out! (Score:5, Insightful)
We must stop being in denial about the actual.core problem:
Us breeding more and more humans.
No behavior and no veganism will prevent the apocalypse, if we're more than 100 billion people! It is impossible to sustain the planet with infinite growth. Any child trying to stuff more and more candy into its mouth understands that.
We cannot do like China, and force people to have only one child. But let me be very clear: If you read this, and still go on to make more than two children... you are guilty of conspiring to mass-genocide. Not mass-murder... Mass-*genocide*! ... don't become vegan or something, like a slacktivist ... but: Have only one child! (And to avoid developmental problems, make sure it has other children to play with every day and every hour, form the first day it is born.)
And if you actually want to do something
We shoud reward that.
(Funnily enough, the wealthiest, most developed states already have a low birth rate "problem". And poor people in war zones make lots of children. So you know what to do. ... Make sure everyone is well off. ... Redistribute that wealth a bit without taking anything from anyone: Support automation that is owned by the people, so the resulting wealth is too. [That's how you get a Star Trek society] ... Reduce overpopulation as a result ... Save the planet due to it ... Tadaa: Humanity can be sustainable ... in its continued survival.)
Re: (Score:2)
100 billion people? Not happening. A more plausible scenario:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org]
Re:No, that only pushes the problem further out! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is impossible to sustain the planet with infinite growth.
While that's true, it's not impossible to sustain the planet with the current population. It's only extremely unlikely. The earth could support even more humans, but only if we used technology wisely instead of to maximize profit for the already-wealthy. Yes, I know, GLWT. But it's physically possible.
butterflies and fireflies (Score:2)
Anyone remember what butterflies look like? I can't remember seeing one for decades. Same with fireflies.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a butterfly last week and a margarinefly yesterday.
Re: (Score:1)
I live in San Diego and I see butterflies they lay their eggs on my navel orange tree. Their caterpillars resemble bird poop, a kind of disguise. I didn't see the caterpillars at first. So be observant.
I also went to Venango County, PA where fireflies, wild turkey and deer abound. The chipmunk population seems to be low this year. I believe that it's due to the trees. The following in parenthesis is from Wikipedia ( Mast seeding (or mast reproduction) is defined as the highly variable annu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the end of the world as we know it (Score:2)
I feel fine
Election year fear mongering (Score:1)
Will you please stop lying after November??
Re: (Score:2)
Now be fair, if you look at the graph in the actual article, the "decline" they cite was level during Trump's term in office (the decline ended), so they're obviously meaning this article to celebrate his stewardship of the environment and tell people they can finally stop worrying, right? Right???
Saves money (Score:2)
Wildlife isn't profitable (Score:2)
Wildlife isn't profitable, it can't invest in stocks, and only stands in the way of the progress of Capitalism. It must be destroyed! Yep, absolutely no way that could go horribly wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)