28 ms·

Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

expertentipp 8y ago
> “We are rapidly running out of time,” said Prof Johan Rockström, a global sustainability expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “Only by addressing both ecosystems and climate do we stand a chance of safeguarding a stable planet for humanity’s future on Earth.” This is what happened the last time European bison crossed Polish-German border. Bison is under strict protection in both countries and there are ongoing efforts to reintroduce the specie. No negative consequences whatsoever for anyone. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.polskieradio.pl%2F5%2F3%2FArtykul%2F1857538%2CNiemcy-przy-granicy-z-Polska-zastrzelono-zubra-z-lubuskiego-stada https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=h...
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  You say that but local development has to keep it in mind. There's a similar tale about wolves in my side of Europe (more to the west), they've been spotted on occasion. They feed on local livestock though, which is causing direct economic damage (not to mention cleanup). Of course, sheep will also fall into the water and drown on occasion, or end up on their backs and die.
betageek 8y ago
Is this true? It is hard to believe that killing off 60% of animals on the planet would leave us with a functioning ecosystem. It's also very hard to work out what the facts are here without finding yourself in climate change denial land, a place I do not want to visit.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Ecosystems are mostly local - what this represents is the erasure of the rainforests and their conversion to largely animal-free cropland. The impact of that is yet another large CO2 emission.
  - titzer 8y ago
    > Ecosystems are mostly local I think this is a misconception. Everything is interconnected. Did you know that some species of bird migrate up to 8700mi every year? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration) So do many insect species (butterflies!), fish, whales, sharks. And, as apex predators with wide ranges, sharks have a huge impact on ecosystems across the globe (and losing them is very, very bad: https://www.livescience.com/9716-loss-top-predators-causing-ecosystems-collapse.html https://www.livescience.com/9716-loss-top-predators-causing-...). We're royally fucking up the entire planet.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    > the erasure of the rainforests and their conversion to largely animal-free cropland. Additionally, even when natural lands are converted to grazing land for farm animals, rather than cropland, the number of animals is still likely to decrease. Wild animals are strongly tilted toward small species and the same piece of land will support many fewer large animals even if the total animal biomass is similar.
- seren 8y ago
  How do we know with still have a functioning ecosystem ? For example, there is a massive extinction of bees going on, the only reason we don't see a massive impact is that we have industrialized bee productions. https://theconversation.com/a-bee-economist-explains-honey-bees-vital-role-in-growing-tasty-almonds-101421 https://theconversation.com/a-bee-economist-explains-honey-b... > In 2017, beekeepers in North Dakota, Idaho, Florida and other states shipped 1.7 million colonies to California to pollinate almond trees, or about 64 percent of the total population as of Jan. 1. The bees travel in semi-truck loads of 400 to 500 colonies each.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    US honeybees are livestock, they aren't a native species. They travel in semi-truck loads of 400 to 500 colonies each! The apparent decline in native insects is very concerning.
    - Chris_Jay 8y ago
      Wild honeybee colonies used to exist, though granted they were a new import.
- cbkeller 8y ago
  Geologist here! The report in question [1] and supplement [2] seem pretty think-tank-y, but I would say they pass the sniff test to first order (if we have a biologist or ecologist around, they could probably say better). The focus on animals makes it relatively plausible -- these are charismatic and easy to observe, but a lot of the ecological heavy lifting / biogeochemical nutrient cycling is really carried out by microbes, which are are probably doing better. Microbes also represent most of Earth's genetic diversity, and will pretty certainly survive any mass extinction we throw at them. In any case, the Guardian article is correct in claiming that >Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction This is pretty well accepted among geologists and paleontologists, as far as I've seen. Here's one relatively recent perspective on the issue, which covers some of the back-and-forth: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_full_report_spreads.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_full_re... [2] http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_supplement_for_lpi.pdf http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_suppl...
  - betageek 8y ago
    Thanks for at least trying to answer the question, just to be clear, I'm 100% convinced in climate change and some kind of extinction happening, just querying the '60% of all animals' headline.
    - cbkeller 8y ago
      It also looks like the claim here is something like "the total animal population has decreased by 60% on average over all studied localities since 1970" rather than the more dire "60% of all animal species have gone extinct since 1970" so we're not anywhere near the 90% species extinction of the Permo-Triassic yet!
  - ifdefdebug 8y ago
    >> Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction. >This is pretty well accepted among geologists and paleontologists Do they believe humanity will be one of the survivors?
pmontra 8y ago
Human population skyrocketing, animal population crashing, not a surprise. Even not taking into account pollution and exploitation of natural resources, it's a competition for space.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  There's a lot of space to go around though, most of it undeveloped for e.g. agriculture, and a lot of developed space is under-utilized due to focusing on livestock.
  - qubax 8y ago
    > There's a lot of space to go around though Not really. There is a finite amount of arable rich land which can support life. A lot of "space" is frozen or desertified wasteland. > most of it undeveloped for e.g. agriculture Agriculture is the most destructive human enterprise. Most of the animals ( insects and rodents ) that are killed are due to agriculture. You have to kill all the animals in the land to create a farm. Then you have to constantly spray insecticide and herbicides to keep animals and weeds off the farm. > and a lot of developed space is under-utilized due to focusing on livestock. Raising livestock is far less destructive than agriculture. Primarily predators like coyotes, wolves and bears are victims of raising livestock.
FriedPickles 8y ago
If this headline feels overwhelming to you, I highly recommend this article by Stewart Brand: https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinction https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinc... Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species.
- jfk13 8y ago
  > Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species. Really? "Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate ... as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century"[1]. I'm sure estimates vary widely, but that sounds rapid to me. [1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...
  - bhelkey 8y ago
    I believe the point was that number in the title (60%) referred to animal populations not species.
- snailletters 8y ago
  Stewart Brand recently hosted Chris D. Thomas to talk at the Long Now Seminar about anthropocene speciation [0]. The premise is that current wild species are under severe duress due to changing environments, however nature is thriving in the age of extinction. 0. http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-great-anthropocene-speciation-event/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-g...
  - cbkeller 8y ago
    There's some recent discussion here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 I don't know if the citations therein are cherry-picked, but oddly enough it seemed like mostly what you might call "public intellectuals" on the "it's not so bad" side and lower-profile ordinary lab/field scientists on the "doom and gloom" side - a bit of a reversal from the usual trope
dao- 8y ago
Don't worry, look at the bright side. E.g. I heard the US economy enjoys a 4% growth rate and that can only be a good thing! Right?
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  HN doesn't really do sarcasm. There is an interesting point here though, we will never get a grip on this problem whilst the primary focus of politicians is growth. The idea that you can fix this without some lifestyle sacrifice is probably false. If we want a sustainable future it won't include foreign holidays, personal cars, juicy steaks and shiny toys.
  - trentnix 8y ago
    And by what conditions would the problem be judged as fixed? I’ll believe it’s a real crisis when the people insisting it is actually live like it is. But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle sacrifice”, I remain skeptical. If such a sacrifice is indeed necessary, you should get started immediately and not wait for the government to force that sacrifice on you.
    - dao- 8y ago
      I stopped eating meat five years ago and made the decision not to get a car. It's a start but it's not enough. I'd welcome the government forcing more change on me, but more importantly I want the government to encourage if not enforce change on a larger scale (like the EU banning old-school light bulbs some years ago), because that's what governments are there for. I can't do that on my own and the looming ecological disaster is too severe to sit back and hope that enough people will wake up before it's too late.
      - trentnix 8y ago
        Centuries of fear-mongering by those warning of ecological disaster and yet we've experienced no global ecological disasters. But you want government forcing change despite many, many examples (within a century!) of that resulting in political, and subsequently human, catastrophe. You might want to think this through...
pingec 8y ago
When I was a child about 20 years ago, I remember going snorkelling near my home in the North Adriatic Sea quite often. I could see crabs, starfish, sea urchins, sea horses, octopuses under rocks and loads of fish. I went back there recently and was shocked to find the water looked clear but there were no animals left inside except for a few fish and a crab here and there. This makes me really sad and pessimistic about the future of the planet and its living conditions for all living beings on it.
- nervousvarun 8y ago
  My equivalent of this is frogs. Frogs and the rhythmic noises they made at night were the "white noise" of my childhood.
  - Rotareti 8y ago
    My equivalent of this is insects. My family and I made a lot of trips with our car in the 90th. The front of the car was full of squashed insects when we arrived. There was a constant knocking on the windshield. The amount of insects that I find on my car today is far less. I think it's about 10-20% of what it was in the 90th. I'm worried.
    - neetdavid 8y ago
      This has to be one of the funniest takes I've seen
      - r7000 8y ago
        http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/26/windscreen-phenomenon-car-no-longer-covered-dead-insects/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/26/windscreen-ph...
        neetdavid 8y ago
montenegrohugo 8y ago
Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be felt by your grandchildren. They will be felt by me and you. They are starting to appear already. What can we do to change this? This cannot be fixed by individual action. Buying an electric car and using recyclable shopping bags is not enough. I implore you to be politically active, to consider support for candidates that at least acknowledge that there is a problem. Consider a carbon tax. Consider big, international efforts to clean up our oceans. Consider sexual education efforts in developing nations. Consider carbon re-capture efforts. There's a ton of things we can do, but we have to start doing
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock. Climate change will cause famine, natural disasters and mass migrations. Poverty, overpriced health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase.
  - feistypharit 8y ago
    Sadly, I think this is right. The "fix" involves one group of people telling another group of people what to do. That never goes over without a fight. Especially when it will involve land, life and death, and reproductive rights. I think what we're seeing with government's moving more right wing is the first step of this. These people are already operating on this assumption and plan on being the ones doing the telling.
    - trentnix 8y ago
      It's a shame you've been downvoted on this point, and it's more evidence Hacker News is becoming more like Ars: upvotes are votes of agreement as opposed to votes that you providing insight. And your comment is not only extremely insightful, it is exactly right - the current global political climate is a populist reaction by people tiring of being told by elites what they should and should not have and what they should and should not believe. All of the fixes being proposed are, if we are honest, some form of rationing or another. That will necessarily reduce the quality of life of a large group of people, and they won't accept that no matter how strongly bureaucrats insist they should. So such insistence will need to be backed by force, because it will be resisted by force.
ivanhoe 8y ago
60% of animals or 60% of animal species?
- kalleboo 8y ago
  From the article: > Between 1970 and 2014, the latest data available, populations fell by an average of 60%.
- mfukar 8y ago
  Out of the 16700 populations tracked - spanning ~4k species - their average decline since 1970 is ~60%.
- isp 8y ago
  Neither. The best explanation I've seen is: https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1057210578429755393 https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1057210578429755393 "the average population has declined by 60%. If you have two populations, white rhinos (8 animals) & pigeons (a billion animals), and four of each of them die, then "the average population" has declined by more than 50% but the total number of animals has declined by 0.0000007%"
anoplus 8y ago
Some companies are willing to harm humans and the environment for profit. I am active against a gas processing project in Israel, planned to be built near residents. Thousands of people joined the battle to protect their water and air against the blind tycoon greed. Government hands are tied by threats and bribe. Press are under incredible pressure to keep silent about the protests. We demand building the rigs 120km off shore at original drilling spot, without at least harming people directly. Unfortunately, demands for renewable clean energies have no chance the near future. It would be best to avoid polluting the sea all together
- temp364364 8y ago
  This is just pure NIMBY-ism. You should be ashamed. Even the Green groups in Israel support the current solution. Building the gas infrafracture on-shore would have expanded jobs and the industrial base. Instead this was moved off-shore 20-km. Now you are fighting even this. This is just richer/educated/organized people acting in the most selfish way possible. Its disgusting. Its no wonder Israel is the country with the highest OECD inequality. To be clear. I am financially secure. I have multiple degrees. I work in tech and dont "need" an industrial job. I think we need more solar, more EV, less population, etc. But i am also realistic and compassionate to the rest of the population.
  - anoplus 8y ago
    I would like to correct myself a bit. I am not sure there is bribe involved and in what decisions but I highly suspect it. I don't think companies are willing to harm people, but I strongly suspect they care too little about citizens' health and environment. Some greens groups support the project, and some groups are against it. I know that "Minstry of the environment" support the project as awell as the currently running petrochimical plant in a local city. The said petrochimical plant is shown to increase cancer rates in the area dramatically for up to 10km away. I know the Minstry suppose to review the plant critically suffers from conflicts of interest. Officials that worked in the minstry got jobs in the plant they were suppose to validate The new plant is planned to be placed 10km from shore and not 20km. There are 2 plants built far away on Israel coast without risking citizens which proves its possible to build the new one similarly. Nobel Energy originally wanted to build it 120km away themselves, but were denied. Minstry of Energy stated the only reason it wants the plant 10km away is so it will be easier to "guard" it. But they all very reluctant to discuss the environmental risks publically. Protesters against the 10km plan are not selfish at all. They want to keep the plant far away from people in general. I don't trust they say it will be very clean since a similar plant, "Tamar" in the southern coast measured to have a pollution 30 times greater than promised. And most importantly. If the 10km partners think they are right about it why they are so scared of bringing it to national media for public discussion?
thelastidiot 8y ago
More rats and cockroaches in New York, more mosquitoes in Hawaii, more seagulls in Boston, more pigeons in San Francisco, more crows in the bay area, what is this article talking about?!
- nwatson 8y ago
  Humans are the new ecosystem. Animals, plants, beings that live out a symbiotic or parasitic relationship with us and our imprint will thrive ... those that don't likely suffer.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    But this new ecosystem would not survive on its own – e.g try feeding billions of humans without animal pollination…
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  There is far more wildlife in my small garden than the farmers field across the road from me.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  I don't know if the population of these species is increasing globally but it seems the ones you listed are very unique in the way they relate to humans – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that human overpopulation and profligate consumption make a few species' population to thrive (e.g if they feed on human waste, share habitats, etc) while still causing a mass-extinction event and an ecological collapse (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction). Multiple independent species have shown that in Europe, the insect biomass has dropped by more than 75% in the last 3 decades. In France, bird populations have fallen by 33+% over the last 15 years, but migratory birds are disappearing even faster (e.g the meadow pipit population has declined by nearly 70%). edit: s/strive/thrive
  - chrisweekly 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
de_watcher 8y ago
Why are there no comments about the expansion? I'm really disappointed in you people.
mlcrypto 8y ago
Those animals weren't suited to reproduce in the modern era and were thus eliminated. End of story
- RankingMember 8y ago
  Let's see how glib you are when humanity succeeds in wrecking the environment enough to begin exterminating itself.
- fredoliveira 8y ago
  Wow, won't the modern era be a ton of fun without a functioning ecosystem, huh. Why care about all the "unsuitable" animals we're wiping. Our bitcoin and iphones sure are worth not having a world for our kids. Sigh.
- gldalmaso 8y ago
  So we are heading to a world populated only by rats, pigeons and cockroaches and you are fine with it?
- abootstrapper 8y ago
  Human's are changing the environment faster than animals can adapt via natural selection. Your philosophy boils down to lining up all the animals, shooting them in the head, and expecting some of them to evolve bullet proof heads. That's not how evolution works. Human's are part of the ecosystem and we're slitting our own throats by ignoring the damage we're doing to it.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  Reproduction isn't the problem, we're killing them and wrecking their habitat. If I burn your lands and level your cities, killing the majority of your fellow beings in the process, would you just conclude you didn't reproduce enough in modern era?
throwaway487548 8y ago
This problem has no solution. Now we are in the stage "growth vs. animals and nature". Growth will win. The second stage would be some human populations vs. other human populations. Also learn about these very efficient viruses which are wiping themselves out by killing all its hosts too quickly. From the point of view of the Rest Of Nature humanity is a virus.
pvaldes 8y ago
False statement. In any case would be 60% of vertebrates, not animals. Big animals are being systematically wipped, but smaller animals had probably increased in total number. With the same amount of grass you can have 1 cow, or lets say '50' rabbits, or '1000' voles, or "1billion" of nematodes. I we could really measure it, I bet that we would find a big increase in number, and a big decrease in diversity.
- infinite8s 8y ago
  I think the collapse of insect populations argues against that.
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    More nematodes and earthworms then. Both compete seriously for the crown of higher biomass on terrestrial invertebrates. Is said in many textbooks of ecology that there are much more Kg of tiny nematodes in an area of forest than Kg of deer. And much more rodents also, of course. We could assume that more or less a half of the biomass of each tree in a temperate forest is under the surface. Number of animals is not a good measure to explain the current situation.
- groby_b 8y ago
  I think you might be mistaken. Not just vertebrates: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... It's biomass that's decreasing, not just numbers: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-lose-65-percent-of-land-biomass-by-2060-15980 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-lose-65-percen... Yes, maritime animals too: https://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf https://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf And yes, plant biomass too: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 (This one's on a much longer timeline, so hard to compare)
  - kleopullin 8y ago
    This article is about vertebrates, though. The headline is distinctly incorrect, whatever else is happening to flying insect biomass, or even plants, the article is a survey of vertebrate decline. Vertebrates are one subphyllum of the chordates, not even the most diverse phyllum of animals. Even children know snails are animals but not vertebrates, so how does a journalist miss this.
MadSudaca 8y ago
Only 60%? I would have thought we had made more progress at this point.
bengrunfeld 8y ago
The only way to stop this is to drastically reduce the human population immediately. No shitty carbon tax will even remotely address this problem. Anyone want to give that a shot?
pcarolan 8y ago
I think the world seriously needs to consider what we're going to do about Brazil under the leadership of a right wing populist who gained presidency via the support of commercial agriculture. This could be the end of the Amazon as we know it if we sit by.
marcus_holmes 8y ago
I got as far as "WWF" and stopped reading. The WWF has been doomsaying for decades, because that's its business model. It is an organisation specifically designed to raise funds from the general public in order to promote green causes. It does this by creating scares like this. The WWF is as much "big business" as any energy company. I don't trust "science" funded by it, because there's not a chance in hell that it would publish any studies that disagreed with its agenda.
- yters 8y ago
  It wasn't exactly clear what was being reduced. Is the 60% across all mammals, etc., or is it a weighted reduction, such that eliminating all freshwater crocodiles is equivalent to eliminating all cows, even though there are many more cows than freshwater crocodiles? It seems likely the amount of livestock has dramatically increased since the 1970s. How is that reflected in their graphs? I also do not know how they could accurately measure such things. That being said, it is pretty plausible that humans are dramatically messing up the ecosystem, at least in the areas where people live. It's also pretty plausible the destruction is irreversible. I have no idea how we could ever recover extinct species, or repopulate species that have had their natural ecosystems dramatically changed. Our future is going to be a globe mostly populated by humans, cows, chickens and tuna, with a smaller population of dogs and cats, all subsisting on an agriculture of corn. The next stage of evolution will consist of genetically engineered variants of these 7 species.
- kiliantics 8y ago
  yeah, better to trust "science" funded by governments and corporations that profit directly from exploitation of natural resources
mattferderer 8y ago
Some bright spots: Solar & wind are getting cheaper & more common AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel Lots of research going on in creating beef in labs instead of fields to reduce the over abundance of cattle Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. One nice side effect I'm hoping for is that it's price & method of growing will help improve technology & lower costs for growing plants indoors. Several prototypes are being tested to do more precise fertilization of land & use either small robots, lasers or other methods to control weeds & specific pests on crops. Reducing fertilizer waste into waters & getting rid of pesticides is a huge win.
- biglenny 8y ago
  Most of what you said is relevant and correct, but: >Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. Feel like this was just thrown in there. I don't see how wasting millions of gallons of water on a useless plant is representative of the human population taking sacrifices to luxuries in order to prolong the life of the planet. In fact - it sounds like quite the opposite. >AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel "Hey boss can I take a week off next month for travel?" "Sure bud where ya going?" "google.com/images" - said nobody... ever.
  - aurnik 8y ago
    The point made about marijuana was more focused on the process of indoor agriculture than the plant itself. However, I also think calling it a "useless plant" is an overstatement considering the proven medical benefits of CBD. Also I don't know if the AR/VR comment was about traveling for luxury. I read it as travel in general, like a lot more people would be able to work remotely if they could just appear at work through VR. Or instead of needing to take a flight for a business meeting in Hong Kong you could potentially strap on a headset and virtually tour a factory overseas.
  - mbrameld 8y ago
    > I don't see how wasting millions of gallons of water on a useless plant You're starting from a flawed premise. Marijuana obviously has uses, claiming it doesn't takes a Trump-level ability of ignoring reality.
shodan666 8y ago
We should eradicate China and USA. Typical US citizen is using 6x more resources (from meat to oil) than any other citizen of the world. Chinese citizens on another hand - are greedy and "dumb", as they managed to get from having no water and toiled 2 generations ago, to the extremely rich middle class - consing and wanting EVERYTHING, in order to show off and emulate the rich Europeans/Americans... Nuke China, Nuke US - and suddenly we all gonna have 10x more resources and 10x less pollution. US people are not aware of how greedy and evil they are.
LiterallyDoge 8y ago
Yum.
carapace 8y ago
This is it. This is the alarm. The siren is sounding. We are destroying ourselves. It's not too late: We can wake up together as a species and pull through. There are two main technological things to be aware of, first Buckminster Fuller "Design Science Revolution" - We have the technology we need already, we just have to deploy it efficiently. Second, Permaculture (Applied Ecology) - we can provide food for ourselves without wrecking Nature. "Permaculture Behind `Greening the Desert` with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U Toby Hemenway - "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Earth, but Not Civilization" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo The most important things you can do right now are to immediate reduce your "ecological footprint" to a minimum, start or partner with a Permaculture farm to provide your food and fuel[1], and encourage others to join you. Get political: vote and write to your representatives. Vote with your wallet. Change your diet. It's not too late, and there is a lot to be done. We have to live in harmony with Nature. The good news is that this is fun! Living in harmony with Nature is really fun and enjoyable. We are actually punishing ourselves with the current design of our cities and civilization[2]. The thing we need, the thing we yearn for, is not more gadgets, it's more life. More connection with living things. It starts with your choice: wake up to a wider world that wants and needs your love and attention. [1] http://permaculture.com/ http://permaculture.com/ "Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" Small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated with a Permaculture farm. You can grow your own energy. The economics are totally different from large-scale industrial ethanol production. You can start this in your backyard and be driving your converted car from your own home-grown carbon-neutral solar energy within a few months. Faster if you scavange feedstock. Farmer Dave used to have an arrangement with a donut shop to ferment their old leftover/scrap dough. [2] This is uncontroversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...
ainiriand 8y ago
How can we pretend to fix something wrong in our behavior if most people won't even consider something as easy as going vegetarian most of the days. Even something like that would have a huge impact.
- LitFan 8y ago
  Going vegetarian is not "easy". It requires ingredients that are not as highly available, and vegetarian meals that satisfy a person's nutrition requirements typically take longer to make. It also cuts down on the variety in the food you can eat, and in most cases, takes a lot of willpower. Of course it would have a huge impact - you're radically changing the diets of a majority of the population of the planet.
- jriot 8y ago
  How about most people stop using their mobile phones, or all the other electronics they carry that require charging? I am not going vegetarian on any day. Why? Vegetables don't satisfy my tastes nor do I get enough calories from them for my activity output. You aren't going to change people's wants and needs because they are different from yours.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    Vegetables don't satisfy my tastes nor do I get enough calories from them for my activity output. One can't argue taste, but I can argue caloric intake for high intensity activities. If a guy can win Western States 100 seven times on a vegan diet (Scott Jurek), I'm not going to worry about getting enough calories. But as a vegetarian endurance athlete I'll be the first to admit that taste (for some folks) and convenience (for about everyone) kinda go out the window.
    - jriot 8y ago
      When I did ultra-marathons, never hit the 100 miler maker, my body could tolerate less meat, filling it up with carbs. Switching to powerlifting 4 - 5 years ago, my body demands more meat. Demanding in the sense that I can feel a difference when I go without meat i.e., it is stronger when I consume meat. Granted I also went from 160lbs ultra-running to 230lbs powerlifting, so I am sure there is difference in caloric intake due to weight and muscle mass. Do I need to do either? No, but I feel better eating meat and lifting compared to when I don't. -- When I did run ultras, I picked up Scott's book with recipes and tried following it, I felt quite hungry.
malandrew 8y ago
For perspective, the world population has grown 150% in that time. It was just over 3 billion in 1970 and is 7.6 billion today.
nojvek 8y ago
I dived in the barrier reef a decade ago. Soooooo much life everywhere I looked. In a single dive you’d see so many animals you couldn’t keep track of. It was just the most amazing experience I’ve had. Like I was in another plant. I dived recently, it wasn’t the same. It’s like I went from a 8K Oled plasma to a CRT monitor. I’m just really sad my kids will never get the same experience. May be we are cancer to the planet after all.

> “We are rapidly running out of time,” said Prof Johan Rockström, a global sustainability expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “Only by addressing both ecosystems and climate do we stand a chance of safeguarding a stable planet for humanity’s future on Earth.” This is what happened the last time European bison crossed Polish-German border. Bison is under strict protection in both countries and there are ongoing efforts to reintroduce the specie. No negative consequences whatsoever for anyone. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.polskieradio.pl%2F5%2F3%2FArtykul%2F1857538%2CNiemcy-przy-granicy-z-Polska-zastrzelono-zubra-z-lubuskiego-stada https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=h...

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
You say that but local development has to keep it in mind. There's a similar tale about wolves in my side of Europe (more to the west), they've been spotted on occasion. They feed on local livestock though, which is causing direct economic damage (not to mention cleanup). Of course, sheep will also fall into the water and drown on occasion, or end up on their backs and die.

betageek 8y ago

Is this true? It is hard to believe that killing off 60% of animals on the planet would leave us with a functioning ecosystem. It's also very hard to work out what the facts are here without finding yourself in climate change denial land, a place I do not want to visit.

pjc50 8y ago
Ecosystems are mostly local - what this represents is the erasure of the rainforests and their conversion to largely animal-free cropland. The impact of that is yet another large CO2 emission.
- titzer 8y ago
  > Ecosystems are mostly local I think this is a misconception. Everything is interconnected. Did you know that some species of bird migrate up to 8700mi every year? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration) So do many insect species (butterflies!), fish, whales, sharks. And, as apex predators with wide ranges, sharks have a huge impact on ecosystems across the globe (and losing them is very, very bad: https://www.livescience.com/9716-loss-top-predators-causing-ecosystems-collapse.html https://www.livescience.com/9716-loss-top-predators-causing-...). We're royally fucking up the entire planet.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > the erasure of the rainforests and their conversion to largely animal-free cropland. Additionally, even when natural lands are converted to grazing land for farm animals, rather than cropland, the number of animals is still likely to decrease. Wild animals are strongly tilted toward small species and the same piece of land will support many fewer large animals even if the total animal biomass is similar.
seren 8y ago
How do we know with still have a functioning ecosystem ? For example, there is a massive extinction of bees going on, the only reason we don't see a massive impact is that we have industrialized bee productions. https://theconversation.com/a-bee-economist-explains-honey-bees-vital-role-in-growing-tasty-almonds-101421 https://theconversation.com/a-bee-economist-explains-honey-b... > In 2017, beekeepers in North Dakota, Idaho, Florida and other states shipped 1.7 million colonies to California to pollinate almond trees, or about 64 percent of the total population as of Jan. 1. The bees travel in semi-truck loads of 400 to 500 colonies each.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  US honeybees are livestock, they aren't a native species. They travel in semi-truck loads of 400 to 500 colonies each! The apparent decline in native insects is very concerning.
  - Chris_Jay 8y ago
    Wild honeybee colonies used to exist, though granted they were a new import.
cbkeller 8y ago
Geologist here! The report in question [1] and supplement [2] seem pretty think-tank-y, but I would say they pass the sniff test to first order (if we have a biologist or ecologist around, they could probably say better). The focus on animals makes it relatively plausible -- these are charismatic and easy to observe, but a lot of the ecological heavy lifting / biogeochemical nutrient cycling is really carried out by microbes, which are are probably doing better. Microbes also represent most of Earth's genetic diversity, and will pretty certainly survive any mass extinction we throw at them. In any case, the Guardian article is correct in claiming that >Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction This is pretty well accepted among geologists and paleontologists, as far as I've seen. Here's one relatively recent perspective on the issue, which covers some of the back-and-forth: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_full_report_spreads.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_full_re... [2] http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_supplement_for_lpi.pdf http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_suppl...
- betageek 8y ago
  Thanks for at least trying to answer the question, just to be clear, I'm 100% convinced in climate change and some kind of extinction happening, just querying the '60% of all animals' headline.
  - cbkeller 8y ago
    It also looks like the claim here is something like "the total animal population has decreased by 60% on average over all studied localities since 1970" rather than the more dire "60% of all animal species have gone extinct since 1970" so we're not anywhere near the 90% species extinction of the Permo-Triassic yet!
- ifdefdebug 8y ago
  >> Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction. >This is pretty well accepted among geologists and paleontologists Do they believe humanity will be one of the survivors?

pmontra 8y ago

Human population skyrocketing, animal population crashing, not a surprise. Even not taking into account pollution and exploitation of natural resources, it's a competition for space.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
There's a lot of space to go around though, most of it undeveloped for e.g. agriculture, and a lot of developed space is under-utilized due to focusing on livestock.
- qubax 8y ago
  > There's a lot of space to go around though Not really. There is a finite amount of arable rich land which can support life. A lot of "space" is frozen or desertified wasteland. > most of it undeveloped for e.g. agriculture Agriculture is the most destructive human enterprise. Most of the animals ( insects and rodents ) that are killed are due to agriculture. You have to kill all the animals in the land to create a farm. Then you have to constantly spray insecticide and herbicides to keep animals and weeds off the farm. > and a lot of developed space is under-utilized due to focusing on livestock. Raising livestock is far less destructive than agriculture. Primarily predators like coyotes, wolves and bears are victims of raising livestock.

FriedPickles 8y ago

If this headline feels overwhelming to you, I highly recommend this article by Stewart Brand: https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinction https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinc... Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species.

jfk13 8y ago
> Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species. Really? "Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate ... as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century"[1]. I'm sure estimates vary widely, but that sounds rapid to me. [1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...
- bhelkey 8y ago
  I believe the point was that number in the title (60%) referred to animal populations not species.
snailletters 8y ago
Stewart Brand recently hosted Chris D. Thomas to talk at the Long Now Seminar about anthropocene speciation [0]. The premise is that current wild species are under severe duress due to changing environments, however nature is thriving in the age of extinction. 0. http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-great-anthropocene-speciation-event/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-g...
- cbkeller 8y ago
  There's some recent discussion here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 I don't know if the citations therein are cherry-picked, but oddly enough it seemed like mostly what you might call "public intellectuals" on the "it's not so bad" side and lower-profile ordinary lab/field scientists on the "doom and gloom" side - a bit of a reversal from the usual trope

dao- 8y ago

Don't worry, look at the bright side. E.g. I heard the US economy enjoys a 4% growth rate and that can only be a good thing! Right?

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
HN doesn't really do sarcasm. There is an interesting point here though, we will never get a grip on this problem whilst the primary focus of politicians is growth. The idea that you can fix this without some lifestyle sacrifice is probably false. If we want a sustainable future it won't include foreign holidays, personal cars, juicy steaks and shiny toys.
- trentnix 8y ago
  And by what conditions would the problem be judged as fixed? I’ll believe it’s a real crisis when the people insisting it is actually live like it is. But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle sacrifice”, I remain skeptical. If such a sacrifice is indeed necessary, you should get started immediately and not wait for the government to force that sacrifice on you.
  - dao- 8y ago
    I stopped eating meat five years ago and made the decision not to get a car. It's a start but it's not enough. I'd welcome the government forcing more change on me, but more importantly I want the government to encourage if not enforce change on a larger scale (like the EU banning old-school light bulbs some years ago), because that's what governments are there for. I can't do that on my own and the looming ecological disaster is too severe to sit back and hope that enough people will wake up before it's too late.
    - trentnix 8y ago
      Centuries of fear-mongering by those warning of ecological disaster and yet we've experienced no global ecological disasters. But you want government forcing change despite many, many examples (within a century!) of that resulting in political, and subsequently human, catastrophe. You might want to think this through...

pingec 8y ago

When I was a child about 20 years ago, I remember going snorkelling near my home in the North Adriatic Sea quite often. I could see crabs, starfish, sea urchins, sea horses, octopuses under rocks and loads of fish. I went back there recently and was shocked to find the water looked clear but there were no animals left inside except for a few fish and a crab here and there. This makes me really sad and pessimistic about the future of the planet and its living conditions for all living beings on it.

nervousvarun 8y ago
My equivalent of this is frogs. Frogs and the rhythmic noises they made at night were the "white noise" of my childhood.
- Rotareti 8y ago
  My equivalent of this is insects. My family and I made a lot of trips with our car in the 90th. The front of the car was full of squashed insects when we arrived. There was a constant knocking on the windshield. The amount of insects that I find on my car today is far less. I think it's about 10-20% of what it was in the 90th. I'm worried.
  - neetdavid 8y ago
    This has to be one of the funniest takes I've seen
    - r7000 8y ago
      http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/26/windscreen-phenomenon-car-no-longer-covered-dead-insects/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/26/windscreen-ph...
      - neetdavid 8y ago

montenegrohugo 8y ago

Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be felt by your grandchildren. They will be felt by me and you. They are starting to appear already. What can we do to change this? This cannot be fixed by individual action. Buying an electric car and using recyclable shopping bags is not enough. I implore you to be politically active, to consider support for candidates that at least acknowledge that there is a problem. Consider a carbon tax. Consider big, international efforts to clean up our oceans. Consider sexual education efforts in developing nations. Consider carbon re-capture efforts. There's a ton of things we can do, but we have to start doing

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock. Climate change will cause famine, natural disasters and mass migrations. Poverty, overpriced health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase.
- feistypharit 8y ago
  Sadly, I think this is right. The "fix" involves one group of people telling another group of people what to do. That never goes over without a fight. Especially when it will involve land, life and death, and reproductive rights. I think what we're seeing with government's moving more right wing is the first step of this. These people are already operating on this assumption and plan on being the ones doing the telling.
  - trentnix 8y ago
    It's a shame you've been downvoted on this point, and it's more evidence Hacker News is becoming more like Ars: upvotes are votes of agreement as opposed to votes that you providing insight. And your comment is not only extremely insightful, it is exactly right - the current global political climate is a populist reaction by people tiring of being told by elites what they should and should not have and what they should and should not believe. All of the fixes being proposed are, if we are honest, some form of rationing or another. That will necessarily reduce the quality of life of a large group of people, and they won't accept that no matter how strongly bureaucrats insist they should. So such insistence will need to be backed by force, because it will be resisted by force.

ivanhoe 8y ago

60% of animals or 60% of animal species?

kalleboo 8y ago
From the article: > Between 1970 and 2014, the latest data available, populations fell by an average of 60%.
mfukar 8y ago
Out of the 16700 populations tracked - spanning ~4k species - their average decline since 1970 is ~60%.
isp 8y ago
Neither. The best explanation I've seen is: https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1057210578429755393 https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1057210578429755393 "the average population has declined by 60%. If you have two populations, white rhinos (8 animals) & pigeons (a billion animals), and four of each of them die, then "the average population" has declined by more than 50% but the total number of animals has declined by 0.0000007%"

anoplus 8y ago

Some companies are willing to harm humans and the environment for profit. I am active against a gas processing project in Israel, planned to be built near residents. Thousands of people joined the battle to protect their water and air against the blind tycoon greed. Government hands are tied by threats and bribe. Press are under incredible pressure to keep silent about the protests. We demand building the rigs 120km off shore at original drilling spot, without at least harming people directly. Unfortunately, demands for renewable clean energies have no chance the near future. It would be best to avoid polluting the sea all together

temp364364 8y ago
This is just pure NIMBY-ism. You should be ashamed. Even the Green groups in Israel support the current solution. Building the gas infrafracture on-shore would have expanded jobs and the industrial base. Instead this was moved off-shore 20-km. Now you are fighting even this. This is just richer/educated/organized people acting in the most selfish way possible. Its disgusting. Its no wonder Israel is the country with the highest OECD inequality. To be clear. I am financially secure. I have multiple degrees. I work in tech and dont "need" an industrial job. I think we need more solar, more EV, less population, etc. But i am also realistic and compassionate to the rest of the population.
- anoplus 8y ago
  I would like to correct myself a bit. I am not sure there is bribe involved and in what decisions but I highly suspect it. I don't think companies are willing to harm people, but I strongly suspect they care too little about citizens' health and environment. Some greens groups support the project, and some groups are against it. I know that "Minstry of the environment" support the project as awell as the currently running petrochimical plant in a local city. The said petrochimical plant is shown to increase cancer rates in the area dramatically for up to 10km away. I know the Minstry suppose to review the plant critically suffers from conflicts of interest. Officials that worked in the minstry got jobs in the plant they were suppose to validate The new plant is planned to be placed 10km from shore and not 20km. There are 2 plants built far away on Israel coast without risking citizens which proves its possible to build the new one similarly. Nobel Energy originally wanted to build it 120km away themselves, but were denied. Minstry of Energy stated the only reason it wants the plant 10km away is so it will be easier to "guard" it. But they all very reluctant to discuss the environmental risks publically. Protesters against the 10km plan are not selfish at all. They want to keep the plant far away from people in general. I don't trust they say it will be very clean since a similar plant, "Tamar" in the southern coast measured to have a pollution 30 times greater than promised. And most importantly. If the 10km partners think they are right about it why they are so scared of bringing it to national media for public discussion?

thelastidiot 8y ago

More rats and cockroaches in New York, more mosquitoes in Hawaii, more seagulls in Boston, more pigeons in San Francisco, more crows in the bay area, what is this article talking about?!

nwatson 8y ago
Humans are the new ecosystem. Animals, plants, beings that live out a symbiotic or parasitic relationship with us and our imprint will thrive ... those that don't likely suffer.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  But this new ecosystem would not survive on its own – e.g try feeding billions of humans without animal pollination…
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
There is far more wildlife in my small garden than the farmers field across the road from me.
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
I don't know if the population of these species is increasing globally but it seems the ones you listed are very unique in the way they relate to humans – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that human overpopulation and profligate consumption make a few species' population to thrive (e.g if they feed on human waste, share habitats, etc) while still causing a mass-extinction event and an ecological collapse (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction). Multiple independent species have shown that in Europe, the insect biomass has dropped by more than 75% in the last 3 decades. In France, bird populations have fallen by 33+% over the last 15 years, but migratory birds are disappearing even faster (e.g the meadow pipit population has declined by nearly 70%). edit: s/strive/thrive
- chrisweekly 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

de_watcher 8y ago

Why are there no comments about the expansion? I'm really disappointed in you people.

mlcrypto 8y ago

Those animals weren't suited to reproduce in the modern era and were thus eliminated. End of story

RankingMember 8y ago
Let's see how glib you are when humanity succeeds in wrecking the environment enough to begin exterminating itself.
fredoliveira 8y ago
Wow, won't the modern era be a ton of fun without a functioning ecosystem, huh. Why care about all the "unsuitable" animals we're wiping. Our bitcoin and iphones sure are worth not having a world for our kids. Sigh.
gldalmaso 8y ago
So we are heading to a world populated only by rats, pigeons and cockroaches and you are fine with it?
abootstrapper 8y ago
Human's are changing the environment faster than animals can adapt via natural selection. Your philosophy boils down to lining up all the animals, shooting them in the head, and expecting some of them to evolve bullet proof heads. That's not how evolution works. Human's are part of the ecosystem and we're slitting our own throats by ignoring the damage we're doing to it.
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
Reproduction isn't the problem, we're killing them and wrecking their habitat. If I burn your lands and level your cities, killing the majority of your fellow beings in the process, would you just conclude you didn't reproduce enough in modern era?

throwaway487548 8y ago

This problem has no solution. Now we are in the stage "growth vs. animals and nature". Growth will win. The second stage would be some human populations vs. other human populations. Also learn about these very efficient viruses which are wiping themselves out by killing all its hosts too quickly. From the point of view of the Rest Of Nature humanity is a virus.

pvaldes 8y ago

False statement. In any case would be 60% of vertebrates, not animals. Big animals are being systematically wipped, but smaller animals had probably increased in total number. With the same amount of grass you can have 1 cow, or lets say '50' rabbits, or '1000' voles, or "1billion" of nematodes. I we could really measure it, I bet that we would find a big increase in number, and a big decrease in diversity.

infinite8s 8y ago
I think the collapse of insect populations argues against that.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  More nematodes and earthworms then. Both compete seriously for the crown of higher biomass on terrestrial invertebrates. Is said in many textbooks of ecology that there are much more Kg of tiny nematodes in an area of forest than Kg of deer. And much more rodents also, of course. We could assume that more or less a half of the biomass of each tree in a temperate forest is under the surface. Number of animals is not a good measure to explain the current situation.
groby_b 8y ago
I think you might be mistaken. Not just vertebrates: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... It's biomass that's decreasing, not just numbers: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-lose-65-percent-of-land-biomass-by-2060-15980 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-lose-65-percen... Yes, maritime animals too: https://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf https://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf And yes, plant biomass too: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 (This one's on a much longer timeline, so hard to compare)
- kleopullin 8y ago
  This article is about vertebrates, though. The headline is distinctly incorrect, whatever else is happening to flying insect biomass, or even plants, the article is a survey of vertebrate decline. Vertebrates are one subphyllum of the chordates, not even the most diverse phyllum of animals. Even children know snails are animals but not vertebrates, so how does a journalist miss this.

MadSudaca 8y ago

Only 60%? I would have thought we had made more progress at this point.

bengrunfeld 8y ago

The only way to stop this is to drastically reduce the human population immediately. No shitty carbon tax will even remotely address this problem. Anyone want to give that a shot?

pcarolan 8y ago

I think the world seriously needs to consider what we're going to do about Brazil under the leadership of a right wing populist who gained presidency via the support of commercial agriculture. This could be the end of the Amazon as we know it if we sit by.

marcus_holmes 8y ago

I got as far as "WWF" and stopped reading. The WWF has been doomsaying for decades, because that's its business model. It is an organisation specifically designed to raise funds from the general public in order to promote green causes. It does this by creating scares like this. The WWF is as much "big business" as any energy company. I don't trust "science" funded by it, because there's not a chance in hell that it would publish any studies that disagreed with its agenda.

yters 8y ago
It wasn't exactly clear what was being reduced. Is the 60% across all mammals, etc., or is it a weighted reduction, such that eliminating all freshwater crocodiles is equivalent to eliminating all cows, even though there are many more cows than freshwater crocodiles? It seems likely the amount of livestock has dramatically increased since the 1970s. How is that reflected in their graphs? I also do not know how they could accurately measure such things. That being said, it is pretty plausible that humans are dramatically messing up the ecosystem, at least in the areas where people live. It's also pretty plausible the destruction is irreversible. I have no idea how we could ever recover extinct species, or repopulate species that have had their natural ecosystems dramatically changed. Our future is going to be a globe mostly populated by humans, cows, chickens and tuna, with a smaller population of dogs and cats, all subsisting on an agriculture of corn. The next stage of evolution will consist of genetically engineered variants of these 7 species.
kiliantics 8y ago
yeah, better to trust "science" funded by governments and corporations that profit directly from exploitation of natural resources

mattferderer 8y ago

Some bright spots: Solar & wind are getting cheaper & more common AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel Lots of research going on in creating beef in labs instead of fields to reduce the over abundance of cattle Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. One nice side effect I'm hoping for is that it's price & method of growing will help improve technology & lower costs for growing plants indoors. Several prototypes are being tested to do more precise fertilization of land & use either small robots, lasers or other methods to control weeds & specific pests on crops. Reducing fertilizer waste into waters & getting rid of pesticides is a huge win.

biglenny 8y ago
Most of what you said is relevant and correct, but: >Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. Feel like this was just thrown in there. I don't see how wasting millions of gallons of water on a useless plant is representative of the human population taking sacrifices to luxuries in order to prolong the life of the planet. In fact - it sounds like quite the opposite. >AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel "Hey boss can I take a week off next month for travel?" "Sure bud where ya going?" "google.com/images" - said nobody... ever.
- aurnik 8y ago
  The point made about marijuana was more focused on the process of indoor agriculture than the plant itself. However, I also think calling it a "useless plant" is an overstatement considering the proven medical benefits of CBD. Also I don't know if the AR/VR comment was about traveling for luxury. I read it as travel in general, like a lot more people would be able to work remotely if they could just appear at work through VR. Or instead of needing to take a flight for a business meeting in Hong Kong you could potentially strap on a headset and virtually tour a factory overseas.
- mbrameld 8y ago
  > I don't see how wasting millions of gallons of water on a useless plant You're starting from a flawed premise. Marijuana obviously has uses, claiming it doesn't takes a Trump-level ability of ignoring reality.

shodan666 8y ago

We should eradicate China and USA. Typical US citizen is using 6x more resources (from meat to oil) than any other citizen of the world. Chinese citizens on another hand - are greedy and "dumb", as they managed to get from having no water and toiled 2 generations ago, to the extremely rich middle class - consing and wanting EVERYTHING, in order to show off and emulate the rich Europeans/Americans... Nuke China, Nuke US - and suddenly we all gonna have 10x more resources and 10x less pollution. US people are not aware of how greedy and evil they are.

LiterallyDoge 8y ago

Yum.

carapace 8y ago

This is it. This is the alarm. The siren is sounding. We are destroying ourselves. It's not too late: We can wake up together as a species and pull through. There are two main technological things to be aware of, first Buckminster Fuller "Design Science Revolution" - We have the technology we need already, we just have to deploy it efficiently. Second, Permaculture (Applied Ecology) - we can provide food for ourselves without wrecking Nature. "Permaculture Behind `Greening the Desert` with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U Toby Hemenway - "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Earth, but Not Civilization" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo The most important things you can do right now are to immediate reduce your "ecological footprint" to a minimum, start or partner with a Permaculture farm to provide your food and fuel[1], and encourage others to join you. Get political: vote and write to your representatives. Vote with your wallet. Change your diet. It's not too late, and there is a lot to be done. We have to live in harmony with Nature. The good news is that this is fun! Living in harmony with Nature is really fun and enjoyable. We are actually punishing ourselves with the current design of our cities and civilization[2]. The thing we need, the thing we yearn for, is not more gadgets, it's more life. More connection with living things. It starts with your choice: wake up to a wider world that wants and needs your love and attention. [1] http://permaculture.com/ http://permaculture.com/ "Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" Small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated with a Permaculture farm. You can grow your own energy. The economics are totally different from large-scale industrial ethanol production. You can start this in your backyard and be driving your converted car from your own home-grown carbon-neutral solar energy within a few months. Faster if you scavange feedstock. Farmer Dave used to have an arrangement with a donut shop to ferment their old leftover/scrap dough. [2] This is uncontroversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...

ainiriand 8y ago

How can we pretend to fix something wrong in our behavior if most people won't even consider something as easy as going vegetarian most of the days. Even something like that would have a huge impact.

LitFan 8y ago
Going vegetarian is not "easy". It requires ingredients that are not as highly available, and vegetarian meals that satisfy a person's nutrition requirements typically take longer to make. It also cuts down on the variety in the food you can eat, and in most cases, takes a lot of willpower. Of course it would have a huge impact - you're radically changing the diets of a majority of the population of the planet.
jriot 8y ago
How about most people stop using their mobile phones, or all the other electronics they carry that require charging? I am not going vegetarian on any day. Why? Vegetables don't satisfy my tastes nor do I get enough calories from them for my activity output. You aren't going to change people's wants and needs because they are different from yours.
- mikestew 8y ago
  Vegetables don't satisfy my tastes nor do I get enough calories from them for my activity output. One can't argue taste, but I can argue caloric intake for high intensity activities. If a guy can win Western States 100 seven times on a vegan diet (Scott Jurek), I'm not going to worry about getting enough calories. But as a vegetarian endurance athlete I'll be the first to admit that taste (for some folks) and convenience (for about everyone) kinda go out the window.
  - jriot 8y ago
    When I did ultra-marathons, never hit the 100 miler maker, my body could tolerate less meat, filling it up with carbs. Switching to powerlifting 4 - 5 years ago, my body demands more meat. Demanding in the sense that I can feel a difference when I go without meat i.e., it is stronger when I consume meat. Granted I also went from 160lbs ultra-running to 230lbs powerlifting, so I am sure there is difference in caloric intake due to weight and muscle mass. Do I need to do either? No, but I feel better eating meat and lifting compared to when I don't. -- When I did run ultras, I picked up Scott's book with recipes and tried following it, I felt quite hungry.

malandrew 8y ago

For perspective, the world population has grown 150% in that time. It was just over 3 billion in 1970 and is 7.6 billion today.

nojvek 8y ago

I dived in the barrier reef a decade ago. Soooooo much life everywhere I looked. In a single dive you’d see so many animals you couldn’t keep track of. It was just the most amazing experience I’ve had. Like I was in another plant. I dived recently, it wasn’t the same. It’s like I went from a 8K Oled plasma to a CRT monitor. I’m just really sad my kids will never get the same experience. May be we are cancer to the planet after all.