11 ms·
Biodiversity falls below ‘safe levels’ globally
- toodlebunions 10y agoWell that is depressing.
- astazangasta 10y agoHere is some light in your tunnel: biodiversity falls because the fitness landscape has suddenly and dramatically changed. Humans have put new and startling pressures on each and every ecosystem on this planet, especially, recently, through the changes associated with global warming. Some fitness gradients are impossible to climb: genetic diversity is currency, and you need a lot of it to overcome more difficult shifts in the evolutionary landscape. As the world changes, species spend down this genetic currency (through death and selection). Now the world is impoverished. But there is a solution: we, humans, can take our boots off the throats of the rest of God's creatures. We have the capability to be good ecological citizens of this planet, perhaps more than any other species. We can create our own energy sources; we can refine and recycle our material inputs, producing a tight, closed loop of biomass and energy around ourselves. With this light touch on the world, the negative pressure we place on the downtrodden masses of creatures by disturbing their ecological spaces will vanish. And the denizens of Earth will then reacquire the wealth of diversity that is the natural reward of merely living.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoI want you to name one time in the history of humanity, that we sustained a "Light Touch".
- astazangasta 10y agoThe history of humanity is constantly adding new chapters.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoExpecting something totally radical and new from technology is one thing, expecting it from human nature is delusional.
- mwfunk 10y agoThe last 10,000 years (hell, the last 100 years, or even the last 10 years) of societal change would beg to differ!
- Aelinsaar 10y agoPoint me to the change in human nature, and not the change in technology please.
- astazangasta 10y agoHuman nature changes constantly, because our nature is determined by culture. Culture is the difference between a society built on hate and fear and one built on mutual love and trust; human societies have taken these forms and many others. And yes, "technology" is part and parcel of culture and our nature. The people of today are hyper aware, part of and responsible to a global culture. They are vastly different from the serf of a thousand years ago or the hunter of ten thousand.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoYou're just making another claim, not offering any evidence. EDIT: At best you're making the admission that our "nature" is static, but our tech and resulting society change. It's not a fundamental change, and is subject to reversion in the absence of the tech, or in extreme stress.
- astazangasta 10y agoIf you're going to be so difficult you'd best start off by defining human nature. Do you mean our genetics? That, too, is changing constantly.
- carapace 10y agoThe reign of Good King Asoka. Also, all of human history (millions of years) before the invention of agriculture. In any event, today it is clearly do or die.
- douche 10y ago"Good" King Asoka, who conquered and burned his way across India, killing hundreds of thousands, before converting to Buddhism? In the same era that the Romans were depopulating the large fauna of North Africa, Europe and the Middle East to water the sands of the arena with their blood, and the Han Dynasty was reshaping the landscape of central China with massive irrigation projects? I think you need to try again... Not that we were any better before we settled down as agriculturalists. Within a relative eyeblink of the first humans crossing the Bering land bridge into North America, virtually all of the large mammals went extinct in short order, and that was when we were still hunting with Clovis points on the end of a stick.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoWe're going to die.
- Retra 10y agoWell, that was always true.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoIt's not particularly honest to name a period best known for its lack of historical documentation as an example of... anything.
- mirimir 10y agoIt seems that hunting tech was enough: http://biology.unm.edu/fasmith/Web_Page_PDFs/Lyons_et_al_2004_EER.pdf http://biology.unm.edu/fasmith/Web_Page_PDFs/Lyons_et_al_200...
- upen 10y agoThis is depressing!! These kinda things justify that we are heading towards a mass extinction
- placeybordeaux 10y agoWe are in a mass extinction. It is called the Holocene extinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bborud 10y agoSite splashed popup in my face after a few seconds. Closed tab. Annoying begging behavior.
- quadrangle 10y agouse uBlock Origin dude
- the_other 10y agoThat's a plaster over a wound. It would be better not to have sustained the injury in the first place - and the reader didn't create the pop-up. My present interpretation of pop-ups is that the author or their publisher holds their advertisers or their subscriber list as more important than their content: in these circumstances it's reasonable to assume the content isn't worth reading. There are exceptions.
- quadrangle 10y agoYeah totally. Don't mean to do victim-blaming. But we still live in a bullshit world full of obnoxiousness where you should do things to protect yourself even if that's not fair to expect ideally.
- the_other 10y agoI nearly did the same. It's a frustrating trend in web design.
- _rpd 10y agoThe paper http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288 says "Across 65% of the terrestrial surface, land use and related pressures have caused biotic intactness to decline beyond 10%, the proposed “safe” planetary boundary." How is "biotic intactness" defined?
- mturmon 10y agoThat is from the abstract. From the paper: We asked how much of the Earth’s land surface is already “biotically compromised” (exceeds the boundaries of 10% loss of abundance or 20% loss of species). This measure (10% abundance or 20% species) is used throughout the full paper and the 23-page supplementary material. The general area of quantitative biodiversity study is in its infancy. It is not as well-developed as other study areas within Earth system science. For example, there are no universally-agreed-upon variables that must be monitored, like temperature, sea level, etc., that exist for other areas. So biodiversity-related measurements tend to be side-effects of other measurements for other purposes. For instance, habitat loss could be indirectly measured by classifiers run on satellite-produced ground imagery. Here's some information on NASA's biodiversity research program: http://cce.nasa.gov/cce/biodiversity.htm http://cce.nasa.gov/cce/biodiversity.htm
- kartD 10y agoIs it possible to use a form of AI to add the required diversity to genes? for example make multiple versions of the Banana plant. I'm sure it's possible but just very far into the future. Can someone with better knowledge confirm?
- maxerickson 10y agoYou can pretend that recombinant reproduction is a sort of statistical optimization process. Variations are created and then placed in the environment to see which are more successful. Bananas are an interesting example. The species is quite diverse, it's just that there's only a few cultivars that are commercially interesting. Many of them are full of big hard seeds or fibrous or not very sweet or whatever. Lack of pollinators is one of the explanations I'm considering for my Zucchini not setting any fruit. Not fun to consider that in this context.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pvaldes 10y agoStart hand pollinating your zucchini plants and you will have fruits again. This should be enough if you have only a few plants. If is not the case, either buy some bumblebees or try with some of the parthenocarpic varieties of zucchini that do not need pollinators. Feed well your plants, Zucchini and pumpkins love having generous amounts of old manure
- maxerickson 10y agoYeah, I've already been experimenting with hand pollination. The plants seem to be super healthy.
- flippyhead 10y agoThis is indeed very depressing. A very excellent book about the scope of this problem is "The Sixth Extinction" [1]. One crazy anecdote from the book: the author explains how rare it should be to witness any extinction of a species within one's lifetime. The average "background" rate of extinction is something like one per one thousand years. During the course of writing the book, the author personally witnessed something like five species go extinct. It some ways this is an incredible time to be alive, but in many it's the most depressing time one could imagine... ever? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnat...
- marricks 10y agoDoes the book go into animal agriculture's massive impact on species extinction? It seems a massive contributor so often over looked. Just one fact, up to 91% of the deforestation of the Amazon since the 1970's has been for cattle![1] [1] Livestock's Long Shadow http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
- lunchTime42 10y agoinb4 some fundamentalist crafts a cattle plague
- lunchTime42 10y agoNobody ever gets the David Brin references. To Real to be funny.
- radiorental 10y agoWhile I completely agree we are in unprecedented times of our own[1] making... I will call into question the idea of a 'background extinction rate of 1 species /1000 years'. We currently have a deeper understanding of our planet's ecosystem compared to any time in our recorded history. If someone from 1000 years ago observed an extinction, it does not mean there were not many other species coming to a natural end. [1] We are a product of nature, the current imbalance of primary predator over the food chain is a product of both our intelligence and growth. It's a well understood predator/prey cycle. You cannot have who were are without what we cause, as much as we'd like to think otherwise. The issue, fundamentally, is 7 billion humans on the planet. Doing something about that number would no longer make us human. Fasten your seatbelts, there's some turbulence ahead, putting your trays in the upright position will have little effect on the outcome.
- gajjanag 10y agoIf one is interested in a take on this problem by an anthropologist/archaeologist turned epic fantasy writer, touching upon some of the thoughts in the comments here, see: http://www.steven-erikson.com/index.php/commentary-endgame-vol-1-and-2-by-derrick-jensen/ http://www.steven-erikson.com/index.php/commentary-endgame-v.... On the downside this is a rather long essay, on the plus side it does not require familiarity with the author's work.
- Asooka 10y agoSo... we're fucked.
- Razengan 10y agoIt's an scary thought: It may not be that intelligent life is so rare in this universe, but rather that it is very rare for intelligent life to sustain itself for long enough to colonize the galaxy.. For all that we've learned and have built, we still don't have a Plan B. No foreseeable alternative to this planet if it goes belly up, one way or the other. What's worse, we're still not over our politics and economics and artificial borders; all the things that keep us rooted here and actually headed backwards into primitivity. Even if Elon Musk or some other zillionaire launches a successful extraterrestrial habitation program, sooner or later it will fall prey to the same old national interests from back home.
- ekianjo 10y ago> For all that we've learned and have built, we still don't have a Plan B. No foreseeable alternative to this planet if it goes belly up, one way or the other. It's not like it's easy either. Sending massive amounts of stuff in space requires a lot of energy, and terraforming would require even more massive investments if we were to settle on any other planet even close to us.
- hvidgaard 10y agoWhich is exactly one of the most compelling reasons to speed up fusion research. Near unlimited power changes everything.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoWhat barriers prevent us from realizing "near unlimited power generation" from fusion? What haven't we figured out yet? Are there any "hard limits" imposed by physics in the way of energy-surplus fusion (analogous to the constant "c" for information propagation rate?)?
- drjesusphd 10y agoWell, one gets only so much energy out of every reaction. But this is such an absurd amount of energy that it's hardly the technological bottleneck. The nuclear physics of fusion is the easy part. To get a burning fusion reaction, you need to satisfy the Lawson criteria [1], which can be seen as a constraint on the "confinement time", into which goes all the plasma physics. Empirically and theoretically, the most important factor in maximizing the confinement time is the strength of the magnetic field. We can just about able to create magnets that are strong enough, but they aren't strong enough structurally: the force they exert on the plasma is enough to break the magnets themselves. From what I've seen and heard, the two most important bottlenecks are structural strength of strong (superconducting) magnets, and the robustness of blanket material to neutron bombardment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
- peterburkimsher 10y agoI read this article while listening to Where Do The Children Play? - Cat Stevens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4DCxAi020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4DCxAi020 As a young adult, what can I do to help?
- thenewregiment 10y agoThe world is ending if you did not know already. The world within the next few years will start being ruled only by hate. Sorry for being such a realist. Only a nuclear warfare can save Mother Earth.
- praptak 10y ago"We know biodiversity loss affects ecosystem function" This statement is so weak it's almost a tautology. What do we really know about the effects of biodiversity loss? How sound is the "safe limit" and what do we expect to happen when biodiversity falls below it?
- pvaldes 10y agoIf we eliminate at random some parts of a machine, the machine could work for a while but wouldn't be a surprise if a cascade of malfunctions appear. Is the same with ecosystems. When they run smoothly people often do not notice the advantages and that this is the work of thousands of years. > What do we expect...? Short answer: Nothing good. Maybe a few golden years and then less water, less food, worst climate and war. Long answer: Some people do not see any problem because the ecosystem is quickly replaced for another ecosystem. This new scenery can have even more diversity if the disturbance is mild, like if we change a young forest by a meadow, so yes, we can breed cows in the rain forest or turn a coastal eucaliptus forest in a weat field... but only for a few years. There is a prize attached. Such ecosystems can be also easily disturbed and turn into a oligoculture of the most tougher species, than are often poisonous or unedible. Therefore humans suffer also with the change. Sometimes entire civilizations dissapear, like in the case of the Mayan empire; in other cases all humans can ever be entirely eradicated, like in the Easter Island case. We have historical registers of deserted cities all aroung the world by a greedy management of natural resources. Desertification, deforestation or a bad harvest by new plagues, lead typically in our species to war for the resources. We are not much unlike lemmings in this sense. The concept of war today is totally different to "a few people trowing spears and arrows".
- Hydraulix989 10y agoIsn't this "extinction" just natural selection? "Winner takes all" is a feature, not a bug of natural selection.
- m4x 10y agoIt's not much of a feature if we destroy parts of a beautiful ecosystem as part of "winning" Even if you don't think it's a crime to destroy an ecosystem, it's extremely foolish given that we depend heavily on it for our survival. If we damage or destroy it, what will happen to us?
- Hydraulix989 10y agoThe word "destroy" is pretty subjective and loaded. Sure, some nations have less than spectacular track records when it comes to being a good citizen of our planet, but nobody is intentionally "nuking" large swaths of land and resources for the sheer thrill of destruction either. Instead, we're building skyscrapers and reaping the benefits of modernization through technological progress. I'm sure one can find "beauty" in the paleolithic era as well, but if you were suddenly stuck living there, you'd find that free wifi is one of the last creature comforts you'd end up missing.
- raytracer 10y ago> Sure, some nations have less than spectacular track records when it comes to being a good citizen of our planet Does anyone have a good track record? Isn't utilizing natural resources to the detriment of the ecosystem as a whole a feature of human civilization?
- Reason077 10y agoRemove the apex predator and biodiversity will quickly recover.
- JBReefer 10y agoIt actually works exactly the opposite way, see wolves in Yellowstone or Shark overfishing
- pvaldes 10y agoIs just the opposite. Apex predators generate biodiversity and even entirely new types of ephemeral ecosystems.
- Reason077 10y agoBut does this still hold true when the Apex predator is Humans?
- hedgew 10y agoI'm skeptical. Biodiversity, like cute animals, seems like one of those things that's emotionally appealing but may not be important beyond that. That's why scientists use terms like "ecological roulette" and ambiguous statements about how biodiversity actually affects the world and us. If people genuinely cared about the welfare of animals, they'd have to accept uncomfortable truths like the fact that wild animals suffer immensely, and that nature itself is cruel. In many cases it may actually be beneficial from an utilitarian perspective to have some species die off. Being infested with painful or mind-controlling parasites, and being slowly gnawed to death are ordinary events for wild animals. They suffer some of the worst fates on this planet. In some cases, like mosquitoes and malaria, killing off species might be the most heroic and useful action in the history of Earth.
- soundwave106 10y agoA few things immediately come to mind on why at least some biodiversity may be important beyond cute animals: A) We still lean on natural processes for agriculture (for instance, pollination plays a huge role in the production of certain fruits, and some species act as natural deterrents to crop pests). Biodiversity ensures that some of these natural processes we rely on are still functional and resilent to disease and other "cruelties of nature". (The same concern could also be said for biodiversity of cultivated crops, although that's a bit different of an issue than what is highlighted in the paper.) B) Biota oriented drug discovery still is pretty big even now. Less biodiversity means that we will have to lean more heavily on synthetic chemistry.
- placeybordeaux 10y agoYou seem to be making a false connection. People that care about biodiversity without caring about the welfare of individual animals.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- avindroth 10y agoI wonder if experiential diversity has increased. Surely the decrease of biodiversity is painful for mother earth, but perhaps there is greater variation in the the experiences of all living organisms. EDIT: Just a runaway thought: why is biodiversity important? If we are optimizing for the general well-being of humans and living beings on earth (which is the frame of reference I am using), then extinction of a species while increasing experiential diversity seems worthwhile. In addition, the extinction of a species is only sad to those who remember. Many cultures have merged in history to become nations we see today, but nobody misses the oh-so-glory days of a specific Northern German tribe in BC 500. As to the beauty we experience from diversity of species (seeing them, interacting with them), I would much rather enjoy technological experiences over that natural experience. Perhaps this makes it sound all too all-or-nothing-esque, but it seems that there is a general assumption that increased biodiversity is good beyond measure.
- raytracer 10y ago> why is biodiversity important? Healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters. > Many cultures have merged in history to become nations we see today, but nobody misses the oh-so-glory days of a specific Northern German tribe in BC 500. I assume certain indigenous people don't appreciate being conquered. > I wonder if experiential diversity has increased. Why do you suppose experiential diversity has increased?
- jonathankoren 10y ago> I assume certain indigenous people don't appreciate being conquered. Who mourns for the visigoths? No one. As for contemporary conquered indigenous peoples, they're dying or acculturating out. Today, too many are just fetishized "nobel savages" selling tourists crappy silver and turquoise trinkets and velvet paintings of moonlit wolves and men in feathered headdresses in between hands of blackjack.
- kardos 10y ago> If we are optimizing for the general well-being of humans We're a culture in a petri dish and we can see the end of the agar supply (resources/biodiversity). No cause for alarm because it's not exhausted yet?
- mcarlise 10y agoNumerous reports over the past several years have elluded to the 'sixth' extinction. We with this paper, and others there seems to be a lot of evidence that many species are rapidly reaching extinction. There is a well known species interaction principle, which basically summarizes to - the growth of species A is negatively correlated with the growth of species B. This is especially well defined in predator/prey relationships. But let's just take a simple growth pattern (logistic growth) - which is continous population growth in an environment where resources are limited: dN/dt = rN[k-N/k] r - rate of increase N - population size k - carrying capacity 'k' is my favority ecological parameter. It's the theoretical limit an environment can hold a certain population of a species. The idea is, when a species surpasses k, population growth will decrease and/or even become negative until resoures are abundant again (sort of like an asymptote). I always felt that Humans are the only species that alter their environment's 'k' through technology. For example, houses, heating, energy, etc.. all allow us to live in environments that we might not have been able to. This allows us to expand our population size much higher. So are we going to surpass 'k' so high, that when we finally run out of resources we drive ourselves and other species into mass extinction? And will the environment be able to recover quick enough for our species population to stablize and recover?
- musha68k 10y agoWe should tweak 'k' by drastically reducing our ecological footprints - through next-gen (internet) technology: - less travel needed because of worldwide VR/AR presence - less food transports because of local/home-grown/urban farming (think permaculture/machine-learning inspired farmbots) And much more good stuff like that! :)