Chilling Report Suggests 1 Out of 5 Countries Could Be Headed For Ecosystem Collapse (sciencealert.com) 116
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ScienceAlert: A new insurance index from the Swiss Re Institute has found just over half of all global GDP -- nearly 42 trillion US dollars -- is dependent on goods and services provided by the natural world. In many places around the world, however, that sturdy foundation is turning to sand. The report, referred to as the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Index, shows a fifth of the world's countries currently stand on fragile ecological ground, with more than a third of their land disrupted by human activity. That's 39 countries with ecosystems that could be at risk of collapse, largely due to widespread declines in biodiversity, whether that be from deforestation, farming, mining, run-off, invasive species, or a decline in pollinators.
The index was designed to give governments and businesses a benchmark for the state of local ecosystems important to their economies, in the hope that the data can help inform relevant insurance solutions for communities at risk. Developing nations in the index with large agricultural sectors -- like Kenya, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria -- are particularly at risk due to their GDP's reliance on natural resources, but "densely populated and economically important regions" such as Southeast Asia, Europe, and America are also exposed to risk despite their economic diversification. Among the top of the rankings sit Australia and South Africa, which are also among the world's largest economies, and are both also dealing with water scarcity, pollination, and coastal protection issues. "For all 195 nations, researchers assessed the state of 10 'ecosystem services,' such as intact habitat, air quality, water security, soil fertility, coastal protection, erosion, and timber provision," the report adds. "Nearly a third of the countries -- exactly 60 in total -- were found to have ecosystems in a fragile state on more than 20 percent of their land. Only 41 countries had intact ecosystems covering the same expanse of land."
"This index doesn't necessarily mean these ecosystems or the economies that rely on them are doomed, but if we keep tracking the way we are, human activity could very well lead to tipping points and abrupt ecosystem collapse."
The index was designed to give governments and businesses a benchmark for the state of local ecosystems important to their economies, in the hope that the data can help inform relevant insurance solutions for communities at risk. Developing nations in the index with large agricultural sectors -- like Kenya, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria -- are particularly at risk due to their GDP's reliance on natural resources, but "densely populated and economically important regions" such as Southeast Asia, Europe, and America are also exposed to risk despite their economic diversification. Among the top of the rankings sit Australia and South Africa, which are also among the world's largest economies, and are both also dealing with water scarcity, pollination, and coastal protection issues. "For all 195 nations, researchers assessed the state of 10 'ecosystem services,' such as intact habitat, air quality, water security, soil fertility, coastal protection, erosion, and timber provision," the report adds. "Nearly a third of the countries -- exactly 60 in total -- were found to have ecosystems in a fragile state on more than 20 percent of their land. Only 41 countries had intact ecosystems covering the same expanse of land."
"This index doesn't necessarily mean these ecosystems or the economies that rely on them are doomed, but if we keep tracking the way we are, human activity could very well lead to tipping points and abrupt ecosystem collapse."
"Natural"? What? Anyway it's 100%. (Score:3, Insightful)
What does "natural world" mean? The world as it would be without humans in it? Literally 100% of all global GDP is dependent on "goods and services" provided by the "natural world". Workers gotta eat. For that matter, workers gotta breathe. The people who maintain satellite networks are just as susceptible to lack of these needs as the people who make tacos.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If we're suggesting solutions... how chilling is this report, exactly? Because if it's chilling enough, could we harness the cold to offset global temperature rises?
Re:"Natural"? What? Anyway it's 100%. (Score:5, Interesting)
Take Washington state as an example. Their fish stocks are depleted and their only response has been to demand the same levels of fishing from the shared stock with Canada that wiped out their supply. The rest of the world might be fine, but certain countries will have their economies collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world likely won't be fine, one of the things we know about systems on this planet is that they are often interconnected in ways in which we do not expect. This is my point. We all depend on a certain amount of stability of the biosphere for survival, let alone prosperity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"Natural"? What? Anyway it's 100%. (Score:5, Informative)
You are quibbling about semantics, not the underlying problem. Every profession and technical field has jargon which facilitates discussions of problems in that field, and pointing out that a word they use means something different to *you* is not actually making a substantive point.
Clearly, humans are part of the natural world, but we're also unique in the natural world in our ability to shape our future through rational, conscious choice. If you remove predation from a forest, the deer population will *automatically* expand until it is starving and disease-ridden. Humans in that position can anticipate those consequences and develop ways of shaping the consequences -- e.g. agriculture to increase food resources, public health measures to stem the spread of disease, an contraceptive technology.
Humans can anticipate the consequences of our choices and so shape the outcomes we live through, even when those outcomes are not in the immediate future and are not even part of our preexisting experience. For purposes of this discussion the "natural world" is that subset of the total natural world that doesn't have that ability -- in other words everything but ourselves. Choice vs. no choice is a perfectly reasonable distinction.
We can choose to eradicate wolves from the forest and then later choose to reintroduce them, based on our capacity to mentally model the complex repercussions of those acts. The wolves and deer aren't a party to our deliberations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the "could" in "if you keep smoking, you could get cancer."
Re: (Score:2)
Quantify your probabilities or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're saying no countries will ever experience ecosystem collapse, history proves you're already wrong.
Or if you're saying everyone who ever smoked a cigarette got cancer, you're also wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of surprised you're having trouble with this concept, tbh.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence to support your silly claim that ecosystem collapse in those countries is not "as certain as cancer from smoking", then I guess we're done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think people do not know much about this.
E.g. ancient Spain was covered with Oak woods.
The romans chopped of all of them for ships, in less than 100 years.
Half os Spain is now desert because of the romans (and modern incompetence to fix that problem)
The mediterranean sea was full with whales.
The Romans - possibly other cultures around - killed ALL of them
The north of Africa was once called the "grain chamber or Rome".
Due to miss-handling all north Africa is now desert.
And below it is the Sahara, basically
Anyway it's 100%. (Score:2)
Canada does pretty well on their index, but has had ecosystems collapse with dire consequences for the folks and economies dependent on those ecosystems. The east coast cod fishery is a prime example.
This study was done by a reinsurance company to give actuaries an insight into regional risk. They have ranked each 1km^2 of the Earth into percentiles. A pretty massive undertaking. The bottom 15% was considered 'fragile'. It seems reasonable to assume that this bottom 15 are the ones at risk of collap
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, that's a substantive criticism. However it is a matter of opinion about whether the conclusion carries too much weight.
Put in more value-neutral language, what we're talking about is the possibility of a rapid shift of the natural systems in certain places into a novel and unfamiliar state.
In most cases these states have less complexity than the status quo. Insofar as the people who live in those places depend on details the status quo not changing, it's something that it make sense to lend some we
Re: (Score:2)
However there's a big difference between "could" and "probably will".
Describe it in terms of numbers or GTFO. These weasel words are not scientific.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just read the report.
I suspect if you put a precise probability number on it, the error bars would have to be enormous enough to include 0 and more-probable-than-not. So at this stage a number like that doesn't really give you any kind of useful guide to action, other than you have to study this more. That's how science works; it takes years got converge on exact numbers for something like this. So my point stands: we need to continue looking into this while looking at other things we probab
Re: (Score:2)
They both have meaning and they can both be used to give a general idea of the chance of something happening, and they can both be useful in the context of what actions that can be taken and the magnitude of the consequences of those actions. "Could" is a perfectly reasonable thing to express based on the amout of effort of various courses of action and the magnitiude of the consequences of those actions. (Again, you can model all that, but the actual numbers are subject to error, unknows, etc.)
As I assume
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, don't panic! Here is the condensed version, I hope it helps: 0 or 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only art left in America is business.
No no no, you got it all wrong. The finest art is the one of being a Con Artist!!
Re: (Score:1)
The underlying problem is humans are now about 7x the carrying capacity of the planet.
We can clean things up a bit and reduce consumption a bit, but the earth starting showing long term damage back when human population was a billon.
We could stop paying for people to have kids and we could provide better education and opportunities for women.
We need to ensure it doesn't run away in the other direction (like Calhoun's Rat Universe experiments where rats went extinct with plentiful food, water, nesting materi
Re: (Score:2)
It means you are deflecting the problem with a stupid question to make it seem like a single wording of a particular phrase, somehow makes the point of the study invalid.
Natural World Mean nature that operates on its own without human interaction.
The Farm isn't part of the natural world, because we as humans are taking out life (usually plant) in a plot of land, to allow plants and animals to be mass produced at a level where they without human effort would grow in a much smaller number.
Re: (Score:2)
It means you are deflecting the problem with a stupid question
What? There's a bunch of remedial English students who never passed on this fucking site. I complain that the estimate is too low and I'm told I'm deflecting the problem?
Worse than that, the logic/formula is crazy (Score:2)
I'm all for protecting the environment. I was a Greenpeace member before most Slashdotters were alive. Which means I support things that protect the environment; I don't like absurd statements that make us environmentalists look like dumbasses.
What they did here is first decide how economically important "the ecosystem" is based on what percentage of the economy involves farming, fishing, etc. Well okay, I guess ... if you want to call a cocoa farm part of the natural ecosystem I guess you can do that.
They
Re: (Score:2)
I was a Greenpeace member before most Slashdotters were alive. Which means I support things that protect the environment; I don't like absurd statements that make us environmentalists look like dumbasses.
So how quickly did you leave Greenpeace? :-P
When I realized they sacrificed green for peace (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny. To be honest, I left when I realized the extent to which they sacrificed Green to kiss up to Peace. That is, the leaders knowingly and intentionally lied to us about nuclear power, thereby helping to ensure 40 more years of coal. They did so because the "peace" half of Greenpeace was opposed to nuclear research because of nuclear weapons.
Their advocacy is own reason we're still burning coal, which would be forgiveable if they were honest about it. If they had said "while nuclear power will dramatically cut CO2, we opposed nuclear research because nuclear weapons exist", I could respect that. Instead, they intentionally spread misinformation about nuclear power, knowingly lying to their members (including me). I don't finance people who are lying to me.
Re:When I realized they sacrificed green for peace (Score:5, Informative)
Smart move, their opposition to nuclear power was massively damaging and one of the best things that ever happened to the fossil fuel industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
I think that is a modern myth, or a /. myth even.
Greenpeace never had the power to prevent a nuclear plant and they never where pro coal. It was always renewables. And here in Germany Greenpeace was against nuclear power because of the dangers of nuclear power and waste ... it is as simple as that. Germany had control over nuclear weapons, but never produced its own and we have no reactor suitable to produce Plutonium.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think that is a modern myth, or a /. myth even.
I was there. I read the Greenpeace magazine every month, so I know what they sent me. Sometimes I went to local meetings, so I know what was said there. Because I was there. I think I may have been one of the first 20 people in the web-based Greenpeace group. I'm afraid you won't convince me that the meetings I attended never happened because "you think". I certainly know I wrote and posted, as a Greenpeace member, in the early Greenpeace forum, cit
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but like claiming that San Francisco will be underwater in 15 years
Why must we wait so long?
That's the funny part (Score:2)
I always thought the San Francisco thing was funny, for that reason. They should have said Houston or any coastal city other than San Francisco. The people making that claim ALREADY had the support of people who think San Francisco is a cultural mecca. They needed to convince more conservative people. You don't scare conservatives by threatening that San Francisco will go away.
Be cool, stay in school (Score:2)
Chilling report from a company (Score:5, Insightful)
that sells "mitigation". Color me somewhat skeptical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, if you're in your 50s like me, you've heard 'chilling' reports of everything from Malthusian population starvation to ecosystem collapse to terror over a global temperature cycle that's been repeating for at least 5 million years.
It's hard to take any of this even faintly seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to take anyone who would try to argue that today's global warming is remotely "natural" even faintly seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry to question your dogma, but there have been spikes of temp/CO2 every 120-140k years for at least 5 million years. That's not refutable.
The last one was about 120,000 years ago. That's not refutable.
So if you're insisting per dogma that THIS time it's because Republicans are driving SUVs you need to explain how:
- this is coincidentally exactly on cycle and magnitude with the previous ones
- somehow that cycle then is what...canceled?
- the mechanism that eventually reduced each of them reliably will NO
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not exactly on the same cycle and magnitude. The earth should actually be cooling right now. [skepticalscience.com]
I don't have time right now to research the extent to which our little unintentional geoengineering experiment has altered the forces that led to those cycles, but really, what happened 120,000 years ago is not relevant to our civilization. Even if the warming were completely natural, we should still act to prevent it for basically the same reasons. We may have to counteract natural climate changes in the distan
Re: Chilling report from a company (Score:1)
The earth should actually be cooling right now.
I've always read that we're still coming out of the last ice age and should still be warming, albeit slowly and slightly. Our anthropomorphic effects obviously aren't hurting that any, though.
Re:Chilling report from a company (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and the fact that the speed of this warming is only comparable to planetary megadisasters should speak for itself. Remember that it didn't normalize on a timescale relevant to a human civilization. As Carlin would say, the planet is fine, the people are fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to question your dogma, but there have been spikes of temp/CO2 every 120-140k years for at least 5 million years. That's not refutable.
The last one was about 120,000 years ago. That's not refutable.
Oh, and I can pre-empt your "but this is FASTER than ever before" I'd point to many instances of vulcanism and asteroid impact where global conditions changed MUCH more quickly for decades or centuries...and then normalized.
The 120k-140k cycle gives rise to climate changes much slower than what we are seeing now. As you point out, major volcanism and asteroid impact events can and have (millions of years ago) changed the climate more quickly, similar to what we are seeing happen to the climate now. In the last few centuries there have been no major (global scale) instances of the kind of volcanic or asteroid activity that would cause such a shift so quickly, with the minor exception of the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambor but
Re: (Score:1)
a global temperature cycle that's been repeating for at least 5 million years.
No it hasn't
Yes, it has, coward. The natural state of the Earth over the past 2 billion years is either covered in ice a mile thick or covered in megathermal forest to 50 degrees north and south latitude with no natural ice anywhere at all. Just in the past 2.58 million years, during the current Quaternary glaciation [wikipedia.org] period, the ice has advanced and retreated 8 times that we know of. We weren't genetically recognizably as human yet for more than half that time, and we weren't conventionally recognizable as human for
Re: (Score:3)
I see someone with mod points also hates science. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Re: Chilling report from a company (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, if you're in your 50s like me, you've heard 'chilling' reports of everything from Malthusian population starvation to ecosystem collapse to terror over a global temperature cycle that's been repeating for at least 5 million years.
It's hard to take any of this even faintly seriously.
You've been hearing these "chilling" reports, and yet did nothing.
We can now see the deterioration of the world ecosystem around us accelerating.
We'll only see more and more of these reports in the future, but again, nothing will be done to change direction because people will claim it's a "cycle that's been repeating for at least 5 million years."
Re: (Score:2)
if you're in your 50s like me, you've heard 'chilling' reports of everything from Malthusian population starvation to ecosystem collapse to terror over a global temperature cycle that's been repeating for at least 5 million years.
You must be an american then. As no one else either heard such bullshit or was even closely to believe it.
Re: Someone gets it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you're saying, but:
1) Technically, climate change can still be a factor in very immediate ecosystem collapse effects, and
2) It's only a distraction if you don't give a shit about what happens 40+ years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as long as it holds out through my natural life, that's good enough for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your honesty.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Someone gets it (Score:5, Interesting)
If - world wide - all governments and insurance companies stopped compensating people for living in flood zones; or even stepped in and mandate that people can only live in flood zones if they put a sufficient amount of money aside in a fund reserved for paying any and all rescue and infrastructure costs incurred as a result of them living in a flood zone. And helicopter rescues are *expensive*.
Put a money cost to taking risks, and eliminate the safeguards that are basically paying people to take risks that don't help society. Although that probably isn't actually accurate. Flood plains are flood plains for a reason. Building a house there is only "taking a risk" in the same way that "standing in the driving lane on a road is taking a risk of being hit by a car." More of a "When" not "If" sort of thing.
But you are right. Follow the money. Cut the money flow that supports the problem, and the problem will probably resolve itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is the point. By destroying so much of what kept things in balance, we are contributing to a changing climate. Just like the billions of miles of blacktop and concrete in this country. By cutting down every tree and paving over ever blade of grass, we are increasing the temperature AND causing an increase in flooding. Not to mention restricting the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
40 years from now you won't recognize life. It will be more changed from 1980 level tech than 1980 is from today.
Robots may be ripping landfills apart by then for recycling. God knows what energy tech will be like.
These are largely memes designed to authorize politicians power now.
Re: (Score:3)
1980 and today aren't all that different in terms of technology or even everyday life. If you teleported someone from 1980 into today's world, the only things that would really knock their socks off are computer/telecoms technology, battery technology, the level of inequality, and the shittiness of our politicians. We haven't invented any major environmental silver bullets since then - although perovskite solar cells in a few years might come close. And even that wouldn't be a massive energy revolution in t
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is still an issue, it often is also accelerating local ecosystem collapse.
My Father had gotten really ill last year, he got a tick born illness that wasn't a problem 10 years ago, because that was a virus that was common further south, but it moved north over the last few decades where it had reached the northern states. Other Animals in that area are also getting sick from illnesses that they don't have a defense from, because species and viruses are migrating to these areas, because the c
Re: (Score:1)
Re:And what's the solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop complaining that people keep blaming the U.S.A. Instead, learn why [scientificamerican.com] people keep blaming them.
Some quotes from the article:
Whhaaaaaatttt (Score:1)
In what Universe does the USA produce half of the globe's solid waste? Have you ever been to Europe or Asia? Do you think they live in grass huts or something. Go look at the garbage floating in the oceans. That garbage is coming from Asia, not the US.
For a fact, China has poured more concrete in the last 10 years than the USA has ever poured but go ahead an blame us, much easier than actually solving the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
From what time (date) comes your number as *most* manufacturing is/was exported to Asia. Think about electronics but also medicines and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
That was in world war II - which is over since .... well ... 70 years, roughly?
Re: (Score:2)
And they destroyed dozens of democratic elected governments and replaced them with puppet regimes, like Iraq, Iran, Chile, Argentinia ... basically every south american country got destroyed two times by the US: from the inside, by supporting fascist regimes that killed a huge deal of the population.
Why? Because one of the big food corporations of US of awesomeness is the biggest "land owner" in south america. And they fear if a "socialist government" will rule, they lose their land. Instead of e.g. paying
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the US has profited most from it, it is only fair the US pays for it. If you shit on everyone's environment, you oughta participate in the cleanup as well.
Re: (Score:2)
America must pay, because America is a large and wealthy target. Also, since Americans generally feel guilty over things that happened before they were born, Americans are likely to agree to pay.
Easy money.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanos? Please. As usual he'd do a half-assed job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Abraxas, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
I just worry he'd fat-finger the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need comics heroes if you can become an hero. Lead by example!
Re: (Score:3)
I feel the problem is that we are Looking for a Hero to solve all our problems, while real life it will just take a lot of effort.
2008 some looked at Obama as a Hero, he will save us from the failing economy, make health care cheap and affordable. All we need to do is vote for him, and he will do the rest. Others saw him as a Villein tossing out the Baby with the Bathwater, taking on problems that are not a big deal, and stepping on the rights of those who oppose him.
2016 some looked at Trump as a Hero, he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may be, I'm not. I'm looking for a bunch of an heroes from the first world who'll commit suicide, reduce the footprint of humanity and allow the rest of us, who live sustainably to carry the torch of the civilization into the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Subtle? I was being about as subtle as a T-rex in a Wuhan shop.
Re: (Score:2)
COVID-19 & SARS-CoV-2 too! :P
Malthus dung (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, not really:
https://www.wired.com/story/op... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No not really,
a the planet is not over populated.
You could argue that a few areas are, like Bangladesh.
But that's it.
Here is the TOP 20 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, I think Israel, Australia, Singapore and South Africa will do just fine
Do you have any reason in particular for thinking that? Or is it just a hunch?
Another day... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying is, obviously 10% isnt enough if your goal is to end the "population problem"
Re: (Score:2)
Mao did not kill them, nor did he order their death.
China had a huge famine at that time.
GeT A DAMN CLUe, lier!
What I'm saying is, obviously 10% isnt enough if your goal is to end the "population problem"
There is no population problem, there is a "greed" problem.