5 ms·

This 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 autho

This 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 ago
Does 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 ago
  inb4 some fundamentalist crafts a cattle plague
  - lunchTime42 10y ago
    Nobody ever gets the David Brin references. To Real to be funny.
radiorental 10y ago
While 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.
- mbenjaminsmith 10y ago
  > Doing something about that number would no longer make us human. I really struggle with this. Apart from "evil" countries like China we do very little to try to steer the reproductive outcome / health of our own species. We aggressively breed domesticated animals and plants but apart from class stratification we do almost nothing to ensure a positive genetic future for ourselves. Why not? I'm not suggesting we prevent certain people from having kids (who? who decides?) but awareness of really basic concepts like "kids are expensive, have fewer or none if you're poor" simply aren't out there or are ineffective. My wife and I (I'm an entrepreneur and a software engineer, my wife is GM of a company in architectural design) very deliberately decided to have one child. Our nanny on the other hand has three (grown) children. They're all in the same income bracket as she is and all having children of their own. It's pretty well known that smarter / better educated people have fewer kids. That means that our current 7 billion is mostly those least equipped to raise the next generation and also those most likely to increase its size. Again, I'm not suggesting we have the government try to regulate reproductive rights. (Governments rapidly accumulating power via technology is another problem we have to deal with as a species.) But what about global awareness? Or what about incentivizing the poorest people to have fewer children via social programs, education, etc. And, just in case: No, you can't compare what I'm suggesting to Nazi Germany. This has nothing to do with race. I don't think race is even a meaningful concept when discussing humans. This is about us taking responsibly for our future and the health of the only planet we'll be able to call home for the foreseeable future -- by raising awareness of our collective responsibility to future generations, our strengths and weaknesses as custodians of. [Edit] Was really hoping to spark a meaningful discussion here. I think this is the elephant in the room wrt our future as a species -- as important as curbing CO2 emissions or detecting / destroying the next killer asteroid. 1. Just for the record, no, I did not call China evil. I thought that was self evident. I guess not. If I thought Chinese people were evil my son wouldn't be half Chinese. 2. Yes, there are a number of reasons poor people have more children than they should. None of those negate what I am saying. I'm suggesting we need to educate the poor on choices that will benefit themselves, their children and the human race as a whole.
  - Ygg2 10y ago
magoghm 10y ago
Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/ele...

marricks 10y ago

Does 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 ago
inb4 some fundamentalist crafts a cattle plague
- lunchTime42 10y ago
  Nobody ever gets the David Brin references. To Real to be funny.

radiorental 10y ago

While 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.

mbenjaminsmith 10y ago
> Doing something about that number would no longer make us human. I really struggle with this. Apart from "evil" countries like China we do very little to try to steer the reproductive outcome / health of our own species. We aggressively breed domesticated animals and plants but apart from class stratification we do almost nothing to ensure a positive genetic future for ourselves. Why not? I'm not suggesting we prevent certain people from having kids (who? who decides?) but awareness of really basic concepts like "kids are expensive, have fewer or none if you're poor" simply aren't out there or are ineffective. My wife and I (I'm an entrepreneur and a software engineer, my wife is GM of a company in architectural design) very deliberately decided to have one child. Our nanny on the other hand has three (grown) children. They're all in the same income bracket as she is and all having children of their own. It's pretty well known that smarter / better educated people have fewer kids. That means that our current 7 billion is mostly those least equipped to raise the next generation and also those most likely to increase its size. Again, I'm not suggesting we have the government try to regulate reproductive rights. (Governments rapidly accumulating power via technology is another problem we have to deal with as a species.) But what about global awareness? Or what about incentivizing the poorest people to have fewer children via social programs, education, etc. And, just in case: No, you can't compare what I'm suggesting to Nazi Germany. This has nothing to do with race. I don't think race is even a meaningful concept when discussing humans. This is about us taking responsibly for our future and the health of the only planet we'll be able to call home for the foreseeable future -- by raising awareness of our collective responsibility to future generations, our strengths and weaknesses as custodians of. [Edit] Was really hoping to spark a meaningful discussion here. I think this is the elephant in the room wrt our future as a species -- as important as curbing CO2 emissions or detecting / destroying the next killer asteroid. 1. Just for the record, no, I did not call China evil. I thought that was self evident. I guess not. If I thought Chinese people were evil my son wouldn't be half Chinese. 2. Yes, there are a number of reasons poor people have more children than they should. None of those negate what I am saying. I'm suggesting we need to educate the poor on choices that will benefit themselves, their children and the human race as a whole.
- Ygg2 10y ago

magoghm 10y ago

Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/ele...