14 ms·

Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

206 points by nwrk 8y ago

intended 8y ago
So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite price on a human life. Whether by market price discovery or by fiat, we are going to say, “there’s only this much we can spend”. I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future. Is there some other plausible outcome? ———- Edit: people are correctly targeting the rational part of markets, but here’s the counter. It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of poverty to want better food, clothing and power. That guy burning crops in India says “shit, sorry for the bad smoke Delhi. But it costs too much to do anything else. Sucks to be you.” That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of people out of poverty. Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to actually price in externalities ?
- kingkawn 8y ago
  Seems like a total failure of an empty concept of rationality if it can’t avoid extinguishing life itself...
  - intended 8y ago
    Globally, yeah sure. But all that will die is just most of humanity and the world - our current way of life. People survived worse, and people are busy building island getaways hoping to be those last few people standing. Humans don’t act like a hive. Instead, we have local alliances and local optimums. You know, I bet, right now, there’s a plan somewhere in America for what to do in a doomsday scenario to ensure survival of the American way of life. Our way of life will end, our beautiful planet will lose its fish and insects and great fauna. But we’re busy creating fantasy world and games and movies. Kids are excited about magical beasts, and where to find them. I’m being stark here, because I’m not finding an actual path to what I want ( a healthy planet and responsible species ). Instead the highest probable path I see is a husk of a planet and us figuring out a way to reintroduce life after terraforming is complete.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      It is not 'your way of life' that will end, it is 'our lives' that will end. All of them. Your fixes are fantasy, not reality.
      - intended 8y ago
        I dont have fixes, I don't know where that idea crossed your mind. I see this as the likely path forward. It is not a fix, it is essentially the car careening off the cliff and people the survivors picking up and moving on. Could you let me know what was confusing in my text? I'll fix it up.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        > Instead the highest probable path I see is a husk of a planet and us figuring out a way to reintroduce life after terraforming is complete. Terraforming is fantasy. Reintroducing life is a process that takes eons and is on the scale of the Gods, not of us mortals. We have a functioning planet with a well developed eco-system, we do not have a back-up and we do not have the abilities you ascribe to us. We would not be around to do any of the things you describe because this is all we have and when it goes we go with it.
        intended 8y ago
        Ok. Excellent - I too think that terraforming is dubious practical use. I put it forward for two reasons - To leaven the bleakness and because pursuit terraforming is inevitable. It’s just the perfect PR product. Spend money; create jobs, fix the environment.
        frabbit 8y ago
        We have a functioning planet with a well developed eco-system, we do not have a back-up What is so hard for people to grasp about this concept? We have an incredible thing here, it would be impossible to engineer something like it in its vast complexity. Why would you not try to maintain this complex machinery and avoid throwing it out of kilter? It's like watching parrots trying to run a fusion reactor.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Rational? It's about as far from rational as it's possible to get. Homo economicus is the perfect caricature, as humans usually make purchasing decisions for far from rational reasons. They buy for emotion, because of brand, etc. Read any current marketing book. The system within which we operate claims rationality solely on the basis of conveniently ignoring anything that might impinge: pollution, environmental damage, cost of cleanup or restoration of a site, societal and human damage. All of those get lumped in a category called "externalities" that might be more honestly labelled inconvenient truths. A rational system would be more holistic and somehow account for the value of lives, planet, society and so on. It would find a market way to penalise those actors continuing to saw the branch on which humanity or other species sit.
  - intended 8y ago
    That marketing book and the course that teaches marketers is run by Homo economicus. The economy is very much built by Homo economicus. The consumers are just assume customer to be Homo economicus. (except we know that it’s just poor old Homo sapiens, which is why the shiny stuff is at the checkout counter. Let’s ~~exploit~~ optimize for all those gaps in cognition.) So I’d have to highlight that Economic man is hard at work, hacking Homo sapiens. ———— And that’s the issue, the rational choice for the world is very clear. But local equilibrium points are very different. People are going to clear the Amazon because that means they can sell more meat. The cost of that externality will never get priced in fully, because it’s in the interest of people to pretend it’s someone else’s problem (especially when they’re people’s jobs and food on the line.) I’m sorry for the bleak image, but let’s remind everyone that Kyoto was a joke. It’s the best we could manage and even then it was weak. I understand everything you mean about externalities, but once you leave Econ talk, and move to policy - well Homo economicus is there, busy doing the rational thing and lobbying to keep his interests safe. I predicted AGES ago and publicly a year or so, that we would all soon be championing terraforming projects. What is the actual path forward, to an actual consensus. Whether we have to go through Homo economicus or corrupt him, or through reminding Homo sapiens that he is the only source of moral authority.
    - coldtea 8y ago
- roryisok 8y ago
  > I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future. > Is there some other plausible outcome? Completely implausible. Who's going to pay for these "domes"?
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    People who are going to directly benefit from them. That is the difference between this (which is plausible) and unilaterally restricting your economy, which is going to definitely hurt you now but possibly (only if rest of the world does their part) benefit others later. Part of the reason why we're doing so little to fight climate change is the misalignment of incentives because at least in the mid-term the groups who would have to pay for this fight don't overlap that much with the groups who'll suffer the first major consequences. For the long term (100+ years?), there's tragedy of commons scenario - we want everyone else to restrict their economy, because doing it unilaterally won't help, so unless we can agree on binding restrictions for most countries, it's not going to happen; but in the mid-term it's not even a common environment, as the majority of expected harm is expected at places who don't have a meaningful impact on the global economy.
- michaelscott 8y ago
  I get the impression you're not arguing that biodiversity preservation is bad or stupid, just economically not viable (i.e. there is not enough resource available to maintain this goal). One (arguably too) simple option is just to have governments tax offending businesses and pool these taxes into programs that support biodiversity. This is the more pro government-leaning viewpoint. The libertarian viewpoint is to have a bright, Elon Musk-like businessman or company that innovates into creating a cheaper and more sustainable solution to the business that's causing biodiversity loss, pressuring incumbent business to change. Realistically, shouting "biodiversity" doesn't say all too much. What biodiversity? Deforestation is a different problem to the disappearance of the bee population (in terms of economic pressures on these things), and each needs to be tackled in a thoroughly researched, carefully considered manner. There probably isn't a single correct solution to this problem, and solving it will require a collection of viable solutions that incentivise economically, socially and morally.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Markets just measure what we value. If we put a price tag on different things, markets will shift. We don't need to 'stop growth' we just need to grow differently. We may need to slow down population growth, though. "Is there some other plausible outcome? Uhm, yes, people value walking around in clean air and would be willing to pay a premium for it. It's one of the reasons people leave China and come to Canada, for example.
- chmod775 8y ago
  > Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system I had a good laugh at this. It's only "rational" (or efficient) at optimizing the parameters we give it. I'd argue that if "saving ourselves" is not a priority, then right now there are some important parameters missing. If we'd put a sizable tax/cost on causing environmental harm, you can bet that "economic system" is gonna optimize the heck out of its processes to not cause that harm.
  - intended 8y ago
    Sure, that’s baked into my argument - it’s saying that should you actually account for externalities, that’s going to affect global GDP growth. Sure in the long run we will have a better planet, but then famously in the long run we’re dead too. I do not think there is a rational incentive for many firms to actually allow externalities to be priced in. Making investment in lobbying more valuable (and America is case in point; it’s been decades of FUD and denial). This is just the rational business game plan. Delay the onset of regulation for as long as possible, maximize profits and then adapt to the new world of regulations (hopefully diversify by the time regulations hit) I’m hoping someone has a way to argue that this is incorrect.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Who is going to pay for the billions of corpses of men, women, and children? (And the "reduction in growth" that that entails) >It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of poverty to want better food, clothing and power. This confuses "profitable" with "rational". Motives (e.g. the profit motive, or altruism, or thinking about the commons) are not "rational" or "irrational", they are personal and sentimental. One can think rationally about what their actions will bring on. The decision depends on their intentions and feelings, which themselves have little to do with rationality. Picking the most profitable of two courses of action, externalities be damned, doesn't require reasoned thinking (only as much as to figure out which is the most profitable). But while calculation "this will bring me profit" involves rational thinking, so does the calculation "this will also eventually destroy this place, or hurt society". People are perfectly able to reason about the general (e.g. societal) and future impact of their actions, and avoid doing stuff that will have negative consequences. It doesn't take irrationality to do that -- just not being a selfish greedy prick, which is orthogonal to rational thinking.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Extinction is not about money. The choice is to 'pay' now or to 'pay' later in a much harsher way.
- humanetech 8y ago
  > That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of people out of poverty. That is a short-term view. Look how growth will stall and turn into decline if we continue on our present path. > Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to actually price in externalities ? Probably not by themselves, because most people put their own self-interest first, and our economic systems stimulate them that this is the best way. It needs the concerted effort of many to apply sufficient pressure to take the long-term view and affect real change. And I guess this is particularly hard, as our current (broken?) systems also promote wealth inequality, and the rich and powerful - those who can help the most - are less inclined to do so, because they'll be among the last to really suffer the consequences of inaction.
- jnurmine 8y ago
  A system of economy based on continuous growth and limited resources is simply not viable. That is nothing new, the Club of Rome presented their findings already in 1970s. Their conclusion was a rapid and uncontrollable decline in population and industrial capacity, and the signs of that would be apparent by 2072. Given that the "business as usual" scenario has persisted, we are on track to that sudden crash "overshoot" scenario. In addition, now there is the looming climate catastrophy as well. Countries and regions have to become more resilient to all kinds of impacts from climate change, as it does not look like we can avoid or prevent it. In addition, another economic system than one expecting continuous growth is required. Therefore the question of "who pays for the reduction in growth" is a rather non-starter, as the reduction in growth is inevitable. Edit: crash not at 2072, signs visible at 2072.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - boombust 8y ago
    I think his point was that individual actors do not want to hinder their prosperity at the cost of the planet. The looming threat of extinction is not something a business or a 3rd world farmer takes into account when making choices. Out of sight out of mind, unfortunately.
- boombust 8y ago
  As you hinted in your edit, you are describing the essence of a collection action problem. Ultimately, we measure the success of our capitalist economies in total receipts, and optimise accordingly. Our markets (and our cultures) prioritise consumption over repair or even abstention. That last point might seem contentious but truth be told, most of us would rather buy something new than repair something broken unless it is prohibitively expensive or repair is easy. In short, if we changed the yardstick to determine progress then the matter becomes much simpler to solve. However, this is not likely to change so we are forced to look for solutions within our economic framework. There are plenty of ways to correct these market failures but they must stem from government and have the support of the people. Private initiatives have nowhere near the influence or the scale to tackle such problems. Tax on goods and services could be proportional to how damaging it is to the environment. Regulations on animal welfare could be broadened and prioritised. Creative solutions exist for almost every issue, the problem is that they are not part of the public discourse. For instance, while I personally abhor hunting, I feel we should encourage regulated African trophy hunting, where older animals are auctioned off so that the money can be reinvested to protect current populations from poaching. In places like Africa where money is the only thing that matters, it is of the utmost importance that conservation look to market solutions to assist wildlife, as we might as well nuke the poor bastards if their survival depended on African governments. The biggest hurdle to overcome is the relentlessness of special interests to dictate policy around the globe. In fact, this is the root of the majority of global economic issues. I would imagine the only feasible way to do this is for the people to engage with these issues, which means we are most likely doomed.
  - intended 8y ago
    As you pointed out, one of the issues is special interests. But in a rational world, it is obvious that people will use whatever tools at their disposal to improve their chances. So by definition, any sentient and rational society will have lobbying - anywhere in the universe. So this is not a bug but a feature. In theory these lobby groups will be dragged to a stale mate by counter lobby groups, but practically the more unethical group will win just because of operational flexibility. I don’t see any way this worst case out come doesn’t come to pass because of these very issues. The collective action problem can’t be solved.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  > So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Speaking of rational choices: if faced with paying everything you have or your own extinction, the most rational choice would be to pay everything you have. Nobody would spontaneously make that choice, but it really is. Making this a very irrational question, in a way.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    The problem is that what’s rational for the group is not what’s rational for the individual.
    - vanderZwan 8y ago
      In general, sure. But here, the disaster extends to all levels, which removes that argument, no?
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Unfortunately not. There are four scenarios to consider: 1. You do what’s best for the world, and the world is saved. 2. You ignore the big picture and the world is lost. 3. You do what’s best for the world, but the world is still lost because too many others didn’t do the same. 4. You ignore the big picture and the world is still saved because enough other people did the right thing. Regardless of what happens, you’re personally better off ignoring the big picture and hoping that other people fix the problem. If disaster is coming, at least you’ll have a better life in the remaining time you have. If it’s not, why hurt yourself? The exception to this is if your own personal actions make the difference to avoid disaster, i.e. that you go from scenario 2 to 3 above by changing what you personally do. But the chances of that being the case are extremely tiny. You need collective action to solve these problems.
9712263 8y ago
Terraforming Mars, or maybe just create a habitable satellite is easier than saving the earth. Current economical model fosters growing business, and only government regulation to deal with externality. Growing is intuitive to human activity, but restricting human growth is counter-intuitive. I forget the link, but a lecture video using bacteria growth as a metaphor of human growth creeps me out. Supposed bacteria in a jar growth 2 times for 1 minutes, and the jar will be full in 1 hour. When will the jar be half full? Answer is at 59 minutes. At the time of 58 minutes, only 25% space is used. How many bacteria thinks the jar or the world will be full after 2 minutes? The situation is similar to human, and we still cannot find a way to protect the environment and have economic growth at the same time. Maybe the end of human history is next 2 years but we still think its pretty okay and didn't notice anything unusual. Then maybe finding a new jar is the second best way to deal with it.
- ioquatix 8y ago
  It's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk And it's a great lecture, everyone should watch it.
- belorn 8y ago
  bacteria in a jar grow and populate uniformly. Humans don't and tend to clump up in high population areas. Human population growth also tend to slow down with economical stability which is the opposite to bacterial growth. As for mars, what we really need is to build technology that can make inhospitable places livable without infusing additional resources. A key point is water extraction, which would make a lot of desert environments much more hospitable with the right technology.
- justaaron 8y ago
  Holy guacamole. "easier to terraform mars or create a habitable satellite than saving earth" this is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on the internet. Get back to me once you have 1/10000000th the bio-diversity of earth on your habitable satellite. 1) change our paradigms, economic system, and other social factors. I can assure you that this is far more maleable than Martian soil composition... our social structures evolved in the context of low population densities and plentiful resources. our economic system is what needs to give, it doesn't even function for humans, let alone the planet and the rest of life we share it with... need I remind you that 1) we are only ONE species, and haven't the RIGHT to destroy our shared home, nor the other species. Some of us humans are upset about this, and we WILL take you other humans on over this issue! 2) our planet is STILL the only known place with LIFE in the entire universe. This is likely to change, at some point, but not if you get us all killed first. 3) our social systems are flexible, arbitrary, dare I say "PRETEND"... change em.
ah765 8y ago
I agree with the big idea of conservation of biodiversity, but it really bothers me when these articles are using what seems like lies and fear tactics to convince me. 2 years? Why is it so urgent? The article doesn't explain. And "By 2050, Africa is expected to lose 50% of its birds and mammals," sounded really implausible to me. I had to do further research to determine that they are probably actually referring to "50% of species" rather than "50% of population", which is a very big difference that seems the opposite of what is implied. In this case, "face our own extinction" seems like a huge overexaggeration. This kind of deception and disregard for actual facts makes me much less sympathetic to the cause.
- omosubi 8y ago
  Losing 50% of species _is_ the loss of biodiversity by definition. Just about every species plays a vital role in maintaining a habitat and losing 1 or several has consequences that are hard to predict and could mean a drastic reduction in the ability to grow food and have clean water. What incentives do scientists have to lie about this? Why is everyone so skeptical about warnings that scientists around the world agree on and have been saying for 20 or 30 years? It's maddening
  - ah765 8y ago
    Losing 50% of species sounds bad, but much less bad than losing 50% of all mammal populations. Are we just talking about losing ten thousand obscure rodent species? I actually have no real idea what this value means, which makes me inclined to ignore it. A scientific source would be great, but the article doesn't provide any. If we're talking about "human extinction" level threats, it would probably be from massive famines, and "half of the animals are now dead" seems much more likely to cause that than "half of animal species are extinct". What is the actual percentage estimate that we would go extinct from this, and when? It matters when comparing it to nuclear war or AI. The incentive for scientists to lie seems obvious to me. They want people to support and fund their efforts (possibly for noble reasons, possibly because they just want more money). They think that simple facts aren't good enough, so they use fear tactics like "we could face our own extinction" hoping that will convince us instead. Also, the authors of these articles and the people interviewed are not necessarily the scientists either. Given that sources aren't provided, I have no idea what the scientists are actually saying.
anon1203 8y ago
We can't even stop killing each other because of greed and other stupid reasons, we can't even stop global warming, who's going to stop biodiversity loss and how? It's in the nature of mankind to create but also destroy. Every era of civilization was build on the ashes of the former, and the next will not be different, a lot of people will have to die of violent death for humanity to evolve and come to its senses. we are at the beginning of a climate refugee crisis of proportions never seen before,coming from Southern countries, do people really think it will go smoothly?
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  I disagree with such broad claims about a monolithic "human nature". > When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing. -- Hannah Arendt > a lot of people will have to die of violent death for humanity to evolve and come to its senses I hate to be that person, but I think that's still optimistic. People don't get smarter after having been sufficiently brutalized, both learning and evolution break down when there's just a whole lot of pressure and chaos, rather than speeding up. Just like children need both stimulation and "action", as well as "peace" and feeling of acceptance and security in which to assemble and integrate their personality from their experiences. If it's all just loud noises and bright colors, development gets stunted or halted, not accelerated. Furthermore I also think it's also optimistic to think it would just "burn down" with everyone starting from scratch: I think it would just consolidate the power of assorted sociopaths further, or even finally. I'm not worried about human extinction, if anything I'm worried of us constructing a gravity well totalitarianism we might never escape from. > Every era of civilization was build on the ashes of the former, By definition, because we use such catastrophes to divide things into "eras". However, it's not like civilization is stagnant between "eras", eras are just labels, lines we draw, that could also be drawn in different ways.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  We kill each other less than we did in the past. Humanity is not a completely static thing. There are many struggles ahead of us. But not all hope is lost. I wholeheartedly reject any fatalistic notion. There is always something that can be done to improve the situation.
Rubinsalamander 8y ago
While it would be sad to see so many species dying, i dont think it will affect the survival of humans. If really needed bacterias and plants would be enough for humans to survive. Wouldnt be pleasant though, so we should try our best that it doesnt happen. I just dont see the apocalyptic prophecies coming true.
sverige 8y ago
A great place to start would be to seriously limit or eliminate pesticides like Roundup. Don't believe the alarmists in Big Ag who will say the world will starve. We overproduce food now, and organic farming techniques, if widely adopted, wouldn't make it impossible to continue to produce enough. The loss of diversity in insects and "weeds" has had a huge impact up the chain.
- bamboozled 8y ago
  I once saw a great quote which was, "maybe food is too cheap". This is probably true, we could probably eat better quality, organic food grown in a more diverse way, it would just cost more. On the flip side, it would be more valued so we'd have less waste. I can't imagine the amount of "non-valued" food, fruit vegetables etc which end up in the bin.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    What about people who can't afford it now, though? There are literally billions of them.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      But for those people the food needs to be free, not cheaper - feeding them shit quality food just so they can afford it is the wrong solution as well. We need to be growing good quality food and those who can't afford it need to be given support to get it. Canned pasta and corn is not a solution just because it's cheap.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        What if we instead gave them means (technology) to grow it themselves and encouraged them to group in small communities that grow together? Aquaponics is getting more and more popular and can be very cheap. I imagine that a good "how to" guide and a small monetary donation could help a lot of people.
village-idiot 8y ago
Honestly, I think it’s too late. It’s not too late technically, we could make changes now that would save us. But it’s far too late politically because people are stubbornly doubling down on the behaviors that are killing us.
- titzer 8y ago
  There was never any time. We're programmed like bacteria to expand and fill the available resources until either our consumption or our waste products kill us off. The only question was the speed and ugliness of it all. After agriculture, without population control, this whole shit became inevitable. Science? Education? Democracy? Capitalism? All just ingredients into making this global society capable of mass digestion. Chewing up the Earth and shitting it out. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199539536.001.0001/acref-9780199539536-e-1221 http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199539...
Illniyar 8y ago
Why would reducing biodiversity cause humans to go extinct? It isn't made clear in the article. Wouldn't it just cause certain creatures to be more dominant?
- dyeje 8y ago
  The environment is a complex web of interdependent relationships between species and ecological processes. You remove enough relationships and it'll just collapse.
  - Illniyar 8y ago
    That's very vague. Collapse how? According to other comments we have already remove 60% of species, why wasn't that enough to cause a collapse. Other species take up the slack left by those removed.
    - peepopeep 8y ago
      I am not an expert on anything but I can give the answer a stab. Let us make many assumptions: Say plankton dies off, say animals eating plankton die, say humans eating those animals now have less food. Say all the fish die and we are reduced to land-based food. Now we have more space competing for farm land, we have to clear forest. Clearing adds to CO2 emissions, construction, more emissions, less CO2 being taken out. It's clear how this is all one giant feedback loop. Less biodiversity, more overabundance of something else, which leads to less consumption of something else which leads to collapse of ecosystems which leads to use trying to patch things up and doing even more harm. Just zoom out and think about things that consume things and how that loops back directly to humans, environment, overproduction, overuse and eventually unsustainable usage of resources until there are none left.
      - glenneroo 8y ago
        Also phytoplankton are responsible for 50-85% of the oxygen we breathe, so if they die off it won't just be a food-chain issue.
arminiusreturns 8y ago
Once again the principles of centralization vs decentralization play out in front of us. Decentralization is a strength, centralization is a weakness, in almost everything, from the internet to crops...
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
pesticides ain't gonna make themselves
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Getting rid of chemical warfare on soil and in farms will become much easier of farming is automated. Automation in farms works longer than any human labourer. And getting rid of weeds in farms and planting hedgerows and letting at least 30-50 percent of land go back to nature with reforestation and installing grasslands will help with habitat restoration. We have urban indoor farms that can deal with the shortage. A lot can be grown indoors..not all our food tho. Just take inside whatever is possible to be grown indoors! Shorten supply chains. Population needs to be reduced not by punitive methods but by incentivizing smaller families. In the 70s, our population was around 3.5 billion ..now it’s close to 7.5 billion. This is a problem. We accommodated this explosion by getting rid of animals, birds, insects and turning forests into farmlands. Some of this conversion needs to be reversed.
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
There is a lot of skepticism and charges of exaggeration about this threat to the planet. Is it ok to make a book recommendation here? https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994 https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp... : Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. And it’s not a new book either. Many people have been warning about this and 2020 is a pivotal year for answers about our survival. Media..as usual..is getting hysterical about it too late and all in unison. But that doesn’t negate the overwhelming evidence that the threats are real.
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07183-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07183-6 : this explains about the loss of terrestrial biomass. [..]Numerous studies are revealing that Earth’s remaining wilderness areas are increasingly important buffers against the effects of climate change and other human impacts. But, so far, the contribution of intact ecosystems has not been an explicit target in any international policy framework, such as the United Nations’ Strategic Plan for Biodiversity or the Paris climate agreement. This must change if we are to prevent Earth’s intact ecosystems from disappearing completely.[..]
musha68k 8y ago
This has happened many times before in more localized settings. The big difference to our situation is that the pertaining cultures were most likely plain ignorant about the dynamics that lead to their demise. We are lucky that we do have all the knowledge but instead of taking action we constantly bathe ourselves in dystopian fantasies and social media whining (Q.E.D.) without any vision other than what seems like a global death-wish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee#Environmental_impact_and_extinction_(part_five) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee#Environme...
esarbe 8y ago
It's incredible how many participants in this topic don't seem to grasp the delicacy of earth's ecosystem and see it as something that is easily replaced or that humans can exist without. Let's not kid around; if the ecosystem of goes the way of the way of the dodo, humans will go along for the ride. You might (or not) have noticed that humans don't exist outside of the ecological system that our plant harbors. We're part of this ecological network, we're fully, totally, non-negotiable dependent on it. Techno-utopian dreams (nightmares, more like it) of being independent of the 'natural' world are not going to save mankind; we're part of 'nature', we exist within nature, there's no existence for humans outside nature. We need an ecosystem that provides us with calories and oxygen. The only ecosystem in existence that is capable of providing that is the very ecosystem we're working tirelessly to dismantle and destroy. So yes; we might die out because of lack of resources. We very probably will. There's only so much damage that an ecosystem can take. And there are tons of signs that signal that our earthly ecosystem is reaching it's breaking point; - we've lost about a third of the arable land in the last forty years. - we've lost about 30% of bio diversity in the last twenty years. - we've lost almost 75% of insect biomass in the last thirty years. The loss of insects is especially alarming; insects play a major role in all food webs on earth. The disappearance of 75% of insects (biomass, not species) has a catastrophic impact of everything further up the food chain. Yes, including humans. We're currently working non-stop to destroy our ecosystem's capacity to carry animals in the upper food chain. Guess who's on top of that food chain. Yes, us humans. Don't kid yourself; we're currently rushing full-speed ahead towards a full-scale ecosystem collapse. And don't fool yourself on our ability to create and maintain a man-made closed ecosystem as a replacement; we're not able to do that and we probably won't for many, many, many decades to come. The only ecosystem we have to save our collective asses is the one we're currently punishing every day with our overproduction, overconsumption, with our fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides and waste. It's so past high times that we - humans, as a collective - have a hard talk how much longer we want to exist as a 'civilized' species, with global trade, no struggle for survival, boundless capitalism. Because if we keep going, we've got a dozen or so decades left. It's back to hunter gathering for the rest of mankind's existence after that. If we leave enough prey species alive, that is. Otherwise that will be the end of mankind's short stint.
carapace 8y ago
Permaculture (Applied Ecology) - we can provide food and CARBON-NEUTRAL fuel for ourselves without wrecking Nature. A "Permie" farm is more productive than any other mode of food production. By setting up ecosystems that consist of a preponderance of human-usable crop species you can grow multiple times the amount of food-per-acre of conventional agriculture (even with GMOs and pesticides, et. al.) After the initial set-up very little labor is required. Permie farms foster biodiversity. "Permaculture Behind `Greening the Desert` with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U Salt desert to figs in two years. 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 "Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" http://permaculture.com/ http://permaculture.com/ 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 scavenge feedstock. Farmer Dave used to have an arrangement with a donut shop to ferment their old leftover/scrap dough.
newnewpdro 8y ago
Collapse != extinction
- esarbe 8y ago
  It is, for humans. We've got a hard dependency on civilization because we've forgotten how to live without it and don't have any natural habitats we could live in (as hunter/gatherers) even if we remembered how.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    B.S.
    - esarbe 8y ago
      Even tough you've very eloquently made you point, would you care to elaborate? What of my argument is -- to quote you -- 'B.S.'?
- jogjayr 8y ago
  Given the sheer number of people who might die or have reduced lifespans due to a collapse, it's a meaningless distinction.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    It's not a meaningless distinction at all. The collapse is the imbalanced system naturally correcting itself, and the humans who survive will go on to create more and the cycle repeats. Extinction means no more cycles for humans. Your view strikes me as a very my-generation me-centric attitude, focused on the sheer numbers of people living now vs. future generations.
    - jogjayr 8y ago
      I don't understand the point you're trying to make. To me it sounds like you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) "Worrying about the massive human misery caused by ecosystem collapse is a selfish concern. Humans as a species will continue to exist." The second statement is technically true. But I don't understand how we can diminish the massive human misery caused to everyone you and I know.
quotemstr 8y ago
Humanity will never go extinct as long as the Earth supports photosynthesis generally. If the ecosystem collapses, we might suffer for a little while, but our technology can overcome any environmental problem. Environmental damage, no matter how severe, is not an existential threat, and hyping it up as so does nobody any favors. That said, environmental damage is expensive, and we should mitigate it. But we should do so with an accurate, not inflated, knowledge of the consequences.
- esarbe 8y ago
  Holy cow, Batman, that's some fatal case of hubris if I've ever seen one. Environmental damage /is/ an /existential/ threat. We're part of an ecosystem, we're not independent of it. We have no way to produce food or oxygen without an ecosystem. In what artificial Biosphere do you live in? The sheer audacity leaves me (almost) speechless.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Agriculture is producing food without the ecosystem.
    - esarbe 8y ago
      Nope, it isn't. You're still dependent on the fertile soil, on nematodes and fungi, on insects and arthropods. You fool yourself when you think that all these square kilometers of dry and dead dust will yield anything at all when there's no ecosystem around to renew the dehydrated husk of soil we leave when we're done. Google for 'arable soil loss' and read a bit about it, please.
starfish99 8y ago
I like to think each living organism as a gigantic living git repository of successful experiments by evolution. No wonder a huge number of human inventions come out of either isolating naturally occurring compounds or mimicking some natural occurring behavior of some organism: plant/animal. Each time we lose an organism, we lose an entire repo of commits made over billions of years.
raprp 8y ago
I some countries is still a challenge to forbid use of plastic bags on supermarkets and plastic straws. We just keep throwing this disposable stuff out like crazy.
botverse 8y ago
What about overpopulation as a factor? The elephant in the room. Every time someone suggest that we are too many, people tend to agree, but when what is suggested is that we should think about how to be less people, everybody halts in horror

206 points by nwrk 8y ago

So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite price on a human life. Whether by market price discovery or by fiat, we are going to say, “there’s only this much we can spend”. I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future. Is there some other plausible outcome? ———- Edit: people are correctly targeting the rational part of markets, but here’s the counter. It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of poverty to want better food, clothing and power. That guy burning crops in India says “shit, sorry for the bad smoke Delhi. But it costs too much to do anything else. Sucks to be you.” That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of people out of poverty. Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to actually price in externalities ?

kingkawn 8y ago
Seems like a total failure of an empty concept of rationality if it can’t avoid extinguishing life itself...
- intended 8y ago
  Globally, yeah sure. But all that will die is just most of humanity and the world - our current way of life. People survived worse, and people are busy building island getaways hoping to be those last few people standing. Humans don’t act like a hive. Instead, we have local alliances and local optimums. You know, I bet, right now, there’s a plan somewhere in America for what to do in a doomsday scenario to ensure survival of the American way of life. Our way of life will end, our beautiful planet will lose its fish and insects and great fauna. But we’re busy creating fantasy world and games and movies. Kids are excited about magical beasts, and where to find them. I’m being stark here, because I’m not finding an actual path to what I want ( a healthy planet and responsible species ). Instead the highest probable path I see is a husk of a planet and us figuring out a way to reintroduce life after terraforming is complete.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    It is not 'your way of life' that will end, it is 'our lives' that will end. All of them. Your fixes are fantasy, not reality.
    - intended 8y ago
      I dont have fixes, I don't know where that idea crossed your mind. I see this as the likely path forward. It is not a fix, it is essentially the car careening off the cliff and people the survivors picking up and moving on. Could you let me know what was confusing in my text? I'll fix it up.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        > Instead the highest probable path I see is a husk of a planet and us figuring out a way to reintroduce life after terraforming is complete. Terraforming is fantasy. Reintroducing life is a process that takes eons and is on the scale of the Gods, not of us mortals. We have a functioning planet with a well developed eco-system, we do not have a back-up and we do not have the abilities you ascribe to us. We would not be around to do any of the things you describe because this is all we have and when it goes we go with it.
        intended 8y ago
        Ok. Excellent - I too think that terraforming is dubious practical use. I put it forward for two reasons - To leaven the bleakness and because pursuit terraforming is inevitable. It’s just the perfect PR product. Spend money; create jobs, fix the environment.
        frabbit 8y ago
        We have a functioning planet with a well developed eco-system, we do not have a back-up What is so hard for people to grasp about this concept? We have an incredible thing here, it would be impossible to engineer something like it in its vast complexity. Why would you not try to maintain this complex machinery and avoid throwing it out of kilter? It's like watching parrots trying to run a fusion reactor.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Rational? It's about as far from rational as it's possible to get. Homo economicus is the perfect caricature, as humans usually make purchasing decisions for far from rational reasons. They buy for emotion, because of brand, etc. Read any current marketing book. The system within which we operate claims rationality solely on the basis of conveniently ignoring anything that might impinge: pollution, environmental damage, cost of cleanup or restoration of a site, societal and human damage. All of those get lumped in a category called "externalities" that might be more honestly labelled inconvenient truths. A rational system would be more holistic and somehow account for the value of lives, planet, society and so on. It would find a market way to penalise those actors continuing to saw the branch on which humanity or other species sit.
- intended 8y ago
  That marketing book and the course that teaches marketers is run by Homo economicus. The economy is very much built by Homo economicus. The consumers are just assume customer to be Homo economicus. (except we know that it’s just poor old Homo sapiens, which is why the shiny stuff is at the checkout counter. Let’s ~~exploit~~ optimize for all those gaps in cognition.) So I’d have to highlight that Economic man is hard at work, hacking Homo sapiens. ———— And that’s the issue, the rational choice for the world is very clear. But local equilibrium points are very different. People are going to clear the Amazon because that means they can sell more meat. The cost of that externality will never get priced in fully, because it’s in the interest of people to pretend it’s someone else’s problem (especially when they’re people’s jobs and food on the line.) I’m sorry for the bleak image, but let’s remind everyone that Kyoto was a joke. It’s the best we could manage and even then it was weak. I understand everything you mean about externalities, but once you leave Econ talk, and move to policy - well Homo economicus is there, busy doing the rational thing and lobbying to keep his interests safe. I predicted AGES ago and publicly a year or so, that we would all soon be championing terraforming projects. What is the actual path forward, to an actual consensus. Whether we have to go through Homo economicus or corrupt him, or through reminding Homo sapiens that he is the only source of moral authority.
  - coldtea 8y ago
roryisok 8y ago
> I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future. > Is there some other plausible outcome? Completely implausible. Who's going to pay for these "domes"?
- PeterisP 8y ago
  People who are going to directly benefit from them. That is the difference between this (which is plausible) and unilaterally restricting your economy, which is going to definitely hurt you now but possibly (only if rest of the world does their part) benefit others later. Part of the reason why we're doing so little to fight climate change is the misalignment of incentives because at least in the mid-term the groups who would have to pay for this fight don't overlap that much with the groups who'll suffer the first major consequences. For the long term (100+ years?), there's tragedy of commons scenario - we want everyone else to restrict their economy, because doing it unilaterally won't help, so unless we can agree on binding restrictions for most countries, it's not going to happen; but in the mid-term it's not even a common environment, as the majority of expected harm is expected at places who don't have a meaningful impact on the global economy.
michaelscott 8y ago
I get the impression you're not arguing that biodiversity preservation is bad or stupid, just economically not viable (i.e. there is not enough resource available to maintain this goal). One (arguably too) simple option is just to have governments tax offending businesses and pool these taxes into programs that support biodiversity. This is the more pro government-leaning viewpoint. The libertarian viewpoint is to have a bright, Elon Musk-like businessman or company that innovates into creating a cheaper and more sustainable solution to the business that's causing biodiversity loss, pressuring incumbent business to change. Realistically, shouting "biodiversity" doesn't say all too much. What biodiversity? Deforestation is a different problem to the disappearance of the bee population (in terms of economic pressures on these things), and each needs to be tackled in a thoroughly researched, carefully considered manner. There probably isn't a single correct solution to this problem, and solving it will require a collection of viable solutions that incentivise economically, socially and morally.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Markets just measure what we value. If we put a price tag on different things, markets will shift. We don't need to 'stop growth' we just need to grow differently. We may need to slow down population growth, though. "Is there some other plausible outcome? Uhm, yes, people value walking around in clean air and would be willing to pay a premium for it. It's one of the reasons people leave China and come to Canada, for example.
chmod775 8y ago
> Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system I had a good laugh at this. It's only "rational" (or efficient) at optimizing the parameters we give it. I'd argue that if "saving ourselves" is not a priority, then right now there are some important parameters missing. If we'd put a sizable tax/cost on causing environmental harm, you can bet that "economic system" is gonna optimize the heck out of its processes to not cause that harm.
- intended 8y ago
  Sure, that’s baked into my argument - it’s saying that should you actually account for externalities, that’s going to affect global GDP growth. Sure in the long run we will have a better planet, but then famously in the long run we’re dead too. I do not think there is a rational incentive for many firms to actually allow externalities to be priced in. Making investment in lobbying more valuable (and America is case in point; it’s been decades of FUD and denial). This is just the rational business game plan. Delay the onset of regulation for as long as possible, maximize profits and then adapt to the new world of regulations (hopefully diversify by the time regulations hit) I’m hoping someone has a way to argue that this is incorrect.
coldtea 8y ago
>So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Who is going to pay for the billions of corpses of men, women, and children? (And the "reduction in growth" that that entails) >It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of poverty to want better food, clothing and power. This confuses "profitable" with "rational". Motives (e.g. the profit motive, or altruism, or thinking about the commons) are not "rational" or "irrational", they are personal and sentimental. One can think rationally about what their actions will bring on. The decision depends on their intentions and feelings, which themselves have little to do with rationality. Picking the most profitable of two courses of action, externalities be damned, doesn't require reasoned thinking (only as much as to figure out which is the most profitable). But while calculation "this will bring me profit" involves rational thinking, so does the calculation "this will also eventually destroy this place, or hurt society". People are perfectly able to reason about the general (e.g. societal) and future impact of their actions, and avoid doing stuff that will have negative consequences. It doesn't take irrationality to do that -- just not being a selfish greedy prick, which is orthogonal to rational thinking.
jacquesm 8y ago
> So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Extinction is not about money. The choice is to 'pay' now or to 'pay' later in a much harsher way.
humanetech 8y ago
> That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of people out of poverty. That is a short-term view. Look how growth will stall and turn into decline if we continue on our present path. > Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to actually price in externalities ? Probably not by themselves, because most people put their own self-interest first, and our economic systems stimulate them that this is the best way. It needs the concerted effort of many to apply sufficient pressure to take the long-term view and affect real change. And I guess this is particularly hard, as our current (broken?) systems also promote wealth inequality, and the rich and powerful - those who can help the most - are less inclined to do so, because they'll be among the last to really suffer the consequences of inaction.
jnurmine 8y ago
A system of economy based on continuous growth and limited resources is simply not viable. That is nothing new, the Club of Rome presented their findings already in 1970s. Their conclusion was a rapid and uncontrollable decline in population and industrial capacity, and the signs of that would be apparent by 2072. Given that the "business as usual" scenario has persisted, we are on track to that sudden crash "overshoot" scenario. In addition, now there is the looming climate catastrophy as well. Countries and regions have to become more resilient to all kinds of impacts from climate change, as it does not look like we can avoid or prevent it. In addition, another economic system than one expecting continuous growth is required. Therefore the question of "who pays for the reduction in growth" is a rather non-starter, as the reduction in growth is inevitable. Edit: crash not at 2072, signs visible at 2072.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- boombust 8y ago
  I think his point was that individual actors do not want to hinder their prosperity at the cost of the planet. The looming threat of extinction is not something a business or a 3rd world farmer takes into account when making choices. Out of sight out of mind, unfortunately.
boombust 8y ago
As you hinted in your edit, you are describing the essence of a collection action problem. Ultimately, we measure the success of our capitalist economies in total receipts, and optimise accordingly. Our markets (and our cultures) prioritise consumption over repair or even abstention. That last point might seem contentious but truth be told, most of us would rather buy something new than repair something broken unless it is prohibitively expensive or repair is easy. In short, if we changed the yardstick to determine progress then the matter becomes much simpler to solve. However, this is not likely to change so we are forced to look for solutions within our economic framework. There are plenty of ways to correct these market failures but they must stem from government and have the support of the people. Private initiatives have nowhere near the influence or the scale to tackle such problems. Tax on goods and services could be proportional to how damaging it is to the environment. Regulations on animal welfare could be broadened and prioritised. Creative solutions exist for almost every issue, the problem is that they are not part of the public discourse. For instance, while I personally abhor hunting, I feel we should encourage regulated African trophy hunting, where older animals are auctioned off so that the money can be reinvested to protect current populations from poaching. In places like Africa where money is the only thing that matters, it is of the utmost importance that conservation look to market solutions to assist wildlife, as we might as well nuke the poor bastards if their survival depended on African governments. The biggest hurdle to overcome is the relentlessness of special interests to dictate policy around the globe. In fact, this is the root of the majority of global economic issues. I would imagine the only feasible way to do this is for the people to engage with these issues, which means we are most likely doomed.
- intended 8y ago
  As you pointed out, one of the issues is special interests. But in a rational world, it is obvious that people will use whatever tools at their disposal to improve their chances. So by definition, any sentient and rational society will have lobbying - anywhere in the universe. So this is not a bug but a feature. In theory these lobby groups will be dragged to a stale mate by counter lobby groups, but practically the more unethical group will win just because of operational flexibility. I don’t see any way this worst case out come doesn’t come to pass because of these very issues. The collective action problem can’t be solved.
vanderZwan 8y ago
> So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Speaking of rational choices: if faced with paying everything you have or your own extinction, the most rational choice would be to pay everything you have. Nobody would spontaneously make that choice, but it really is. Making this a very irrational question, in a way.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The problem is that what’s rational for the group is not what’s rational for the individual.
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    In general, sure. But here, the disaster extends to all levels, which removes that argument, no?
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Unfortunately not. There are four scenarios to consider: 1. You do what’s best for the world, and the world is saved. 2. You ignore the big picture and the world is lost. 3. You do what’s best for the world, but the world is still lost because too many others didn’t do the same. 4. You ignore the big picture and the world is still saved because enough other people did the right thing. Regardless of what happens, you’re personally better off ignoring the big picture and hoping that other people fix the problem. If disaster is coming, at least you’ll have a better life in the remaining time you have. If it’s not, why hurt yourself? The exception to this is if your own personal actions make the difference to avoid disaster, i.e. that you go from scenario 2 to 3 above by changing what you personally do. But the chances of that being the case are extremely tiny. You need collective action to solve these problems.

9712263 8y ago

Terraforming Mars, or maybe just create a habitable satellite is easier than saving the earth. Current economical model fosters growing business, and only government regulation to deal with externality. Growing is intuitive to human activity, but restricting human growth is counter-intuitive. I forget the link, but a lecture video using bacteria growth as a metaphor of human growth creeps me out. Supposed bacteria in a jar growth 2 times for 1 minutes, and the jar will be full in 1 hour. When will the jar be half full? Answer is at 59 minutes. At the time of 58 minutes, only 25% space is used. How many bacteria thinks the jar or the world will be full after 2 minutes? The situation is similar to human, and we still cannot find a way to protect the environment and have economic growth at the same time. Maybe the end of human history is next 2 years but we still think its pretty okay and didn't notice anything unusual. Then maybe finding a new jar is the second best way to deal with it.

ioquatix 8y ago
It's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk And it's a great lecture, everyone should watch it.
belorn 8y ago
bacteria in a jar grow and populate uniformly. Humans don't and tend to clump up in high population areas. Human population growth also tend to slow down with economical stability which is the opposite to bacterial growth. As for mars, what we really need is to build technology that can make inhospitable places livable without infusing additional resources. A key point is water extraction, which would make a lot of desert environments much more hospitable with the right technology.
justaaron 8y ago
Holy guacamole. "easier to terraform mars or create a habitable satellite than saving earth" this is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on the internet. Get back to me once you have 1/10000000th the bio-diversity of earth on your habitable satellite. 1) change our paradigms, economic system, and other social factors. I can assure you that this is far more maleable than Martian soil composition... our social structures evolved in the context of low population densities and plentiful resources. our economic system is what needs to give, it doesn't even function for humans, let alone the planet and the rest of life we share it with... need I remind you that 1) we are only ONE species, and haven't the RIGHT to destroy our shared home, nor the other species. Some of us humans are upset about this, and we WILL take you other humans on over this issue! 2) our planet is STILL the only known place with LIFE in the entire universe. This is likely to change, at some point, but not if you get us all killed first. 3) our social systems are flexible, arbitrary, dare I say "PRETEND"... change em.

ah765 8y ago

I agree with the big idea of conservation of biodiversity, but it really bothers me when these articles are using what seems like lies and fear tactics to convince me. 2 years? Why is it so urgent? The article doesn't explain. And "By 2050, Africa is expected to lose 50% of its birds and mammals," sounded really implausible to me. I had to do further research to determine that they are probably actually referring to "50% of species" rather than "50% of population", which is a very big difference that seems the opposite of what is implied. In this case, "face our own extinction" seems like a huge overexaggeration. This kind of deception and disregard for actual facts makes me much less sympathetic to the cause.

omosubi 8y ago
Losing 50% of species _is_ the loss of biodiversity by definition. Just about every species plays a vital role in maintaining a habitat and losing 1 or several has consequences that are hard to predict and could mean a drastic reduction in the ability to grow food and have clean water. What incentives do scientists have to lie about this? Why is everyone so skeptical about warnings that scientists around the world agree on and have been saying for 20 or 30 years? It's maddening
- ah765 8y ago
  Losing 50% of species sounds bad, but much less bad than losing 50% of all mammal populations. Are we just talking about losing ten thousand obscure rodent species? I actually have no real idea what this value means, which makes me inclined to ignore it. A scientific source would be great, but the article doesn't provide any. If we're talking about "human extinction" level threats, it would probably be from massive famines, and "half of the animals are now dead" seems much more likely to cause that than "half of animal species are extinct". What is the actual percentage estimate that we would go extinct from this, and when? It matters when comparing it to nuclear war or AI. The incentive for scientists to lie seems obvious to me. They want people to support and fund their efforts (possibly for noble reasons, possibly because they just want more money). They think that simple facts aren't good enough, so they use fear tactics like "we could face our own extinction" hoping that will convince us instead. Also, the authors of these articles and the people interviewed are not necessarily the scientists either. Given that sources aren't provided, I have no idea what the scientists are actually saying.

anon1203 8y ago

We can't even stop killing each other because of greed and other stupid reasons, we can't even stop global warming, who's going to stop biodiversity loss and how? It's in the nature of mankind to create but also destroy. Every era of civilization was build on the ashes of the former, and the next will not be different, a lot of people will have to die of violent death for humanity to evolve and come to its senses. we are at the beginning of a climate refugee crisis of proportions never seen before,coming from Southern countries, do people really think it will go smoothly?

PavlovsCat 8y ago
I disagree with such broad claims about a monolithic "human nature". > When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing. -- Hannah Arendt > a lot of people will have to die of violent death for humanity to evolve and come to its senses I hate to be that person, but I think that's still optimistic. People don't get smarter after having been sufficiently brutalized, both learning and evolution break down when there's just a whole lot of pressure and chaos, rather than speeding up. Just like children need both stimulation and "action", as well as "peace" and feeling of acceptance and security in which to assemble and integrate their personality from their experiences. If it's all just loud noises and bright colors, development gets stunted or halted, not accelerated. Furthermore I also think it's also optimistic to think it would just "burn down" with everyone starting from scratch: I think it would just consolidate the power of assorted sociopaths further, or even finally. I'm not worried about human extinction, if anything I'm worried of us constructing a gravity well totalitarianism we might never escape from. > Every era of civilization was build on the ashes of the former, By definition, because we use such catastrophes to divide things into "eras". However, it's not like civilization is stagnant between "eras", eras are just labels, lines we draw, that could also be drawn in different ways.
dwaltrip 8y ago
We kill each other less than we did in the past. Humanity is not a completely static thing. There are many struggles ahead of us. But not all hope is lost. I wholeheartedly reject any fatalistic notion. There is always something that can be done to improve the situation.

Rubinsalamander 8y ago

While it would be sad to see so many species dying, i dont think it will affect the survival of humans. If really needed bacterias and plants would be enough for humans to survive. Wouldnt be pleasant though, so we should try our best that it doesnt happen. I just dont see the apocalyptic prophecies coming true.

sverige 8y ago

A great place to start would be to seriously limit or eliminate pesticides like Roundup. Don't believe the alarmists in Big Ag who will say the world will starve. We overproduce food now, and organic farming techniques, if widely adopted, wouldn't make it impossible to continue to produce enough. The loss of diversity in insects and "weeds" has had a huge impact up the chain.

bamboozled 8y ago
I once saw a great quote which was, "maybe food is too cheap". This is probably true, we could probably eat better quality, organic food grown in a more diverse way, it would just cost more. On the flip side, it would be more valued so we'd have less waste. I can't imagine the amount of "non-valued" food, fruit vegetables etc which end up in the bin.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  What about people who can't afford it now, though? There are literally billions of them.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    But for those people the food needs to be free, not cheaper - feeding them shit quality food just so they can afford it is the wrong solution as well. We need to be growing good quality food and those who can't afford it need to be given support to get it. Canned pasta and corn is not a solution just because it's cheap.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      What if we instead gave them means (technology) to grow it themselves and encouraged them to group in small communities that grow together? Aquaponics is getting more and more popular and can be very cheap. I imagine that a good "how to" guide and a small monetary donation could help a lot of people.

village-idiot 8y ago

Honestly, I think it’s too late. It’s not too late technically, we could make changes now that would save us. But it’s far too late politically because people are stubbornly doubling down on the behaviors that are killing us.

titzer 8y ago
There was never any time. We're programmed like bacteria to expand and fill the available resources until either our consumption or our waste products kill us off. The only question was the speed and ugliness of it all. After agriculture, without population control, this whole shit became inevitable. Science? Education? Democracy? Capitalism? All just ingredients into making this global society capable of mass digestion. Chewing up the Earth and shitting it out. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199539536.001.0001/acref-9780199539536-e-1221 http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199539...

Illniyar 8y ago

Why would reducing biodiversity cause humans to go extinct? It isn't made clear in the article. Wouldn't it just cause certain creatures to be more dominant?

dyeje 8y ago
The environment is a complex web of interdependent relationships between species and ecological processes. You remove enough relationships and it'll just collapse.
- Illniyar 8y ago
  That's very vague. Collapse how? According to other comments we have already remove 60% of species, why wasn't that enough to cause a collapse. Other species take up the slack left by those removed.
  - peepopeep 8y ago
    I am not an expert on anything but I can give the answer a stab. Let us make many assumptions: Say plankton dies off, say animals eating plankton die, say humans eating those animals now have less food. Say all the fish die and we are reduced to land-based food. Now we have more space competing for farm land, we have to clear forest. Clearing adds to CO2 emissions, construction, more emissions, less CO2 being taken out. It's clear how this is all one giant feedback loop. Less biodiversity, more overabundance of something else, which leads to less consumption of something else which leads to collapse of ecosystems which leads to use trying to patch things up and doing even more harm. Just zoom out and think about things that consume things and how that loops back directly to humans, environment, overproduction, overuse and eventually unsustainable usage of resources until there are none left.
    - glenneroo 8y ago
      Also phytoplankton are responsible for 50-85% of the oxygen we breathe, so if they die off it won't just be a food-chain issue.

arminiusreturns 8y ago

Once again the principles of centralization vs decentralization play out in front of us. Decentralization is a strength, centralization is a weakness, in almost everything, from the internet to crops...

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

pesticides ain't gonna make themselves

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

Getting rid of chemical warfare on soil and in farms will become much easier of farming is automated. Automation in farms works longer than any human labourer. And getting rid of weeds in farms and planting hedgerows and letting at least 30-50 percent of land go back to nature with reforestation and installing grasslands will help with habitat restoration. We have urban indoor farms that can deal with the shortage. A lot can be grown indoors..not all our food tho. Just take inside whatever is possible to be grown indoors! Shorten supply chains. Population needs to be reduced not by punitive methods but by incentivizing smaller families. In the 70s, our population was around 3.5 billion ..now it’s close to 7.5 billion. This is a problem. We accommodated this explosion by getting rid of animals, birds, insects and turning forests into farmlands. Some of this conversion needs to be reversed.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

There is a lot of skepticism and charges of exaggeration about this threat to the planet. Is it ok to make a book recommendation here? https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994 https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp... : Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. And it’s not a new book either. Many people have been warning about this and 2020 is a pivotal year for answers about our survival. Media..as usual..is getting hysterical about it too late and all in unison. But that doesn’t negate the overwhelming evidence that the threats are real.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07183-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07183-6 : this explains about the loss of terrestrial biomass. [..]Numerous studies are revealing that Earth’s remaining wilderness areas are increasingly important buffers against the effects of climate change and other human impacts. But, so far, the contribution of intact ecosystems has not been an explicit target in any international policy framework, such as the United Nations’ Strategic Plan for Biodiversity or the Paris climate agreement. This must change if we are to prevent Earth’s intact ecosystems from disappearing completely.[..]

musha68k 8y ago

This has happened many times before in more localized settings. The big difference to our situation is that the pertaining cultures were most likely plain ignorant about the dynamics that lead to their demise. We are lucky that we do have all the knowledge but instead of taking action we constantly bathe ourselves in dystopian fantasies and social media whining (Q.E.D.) without any vision other than what seems like a global death-wish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee#Environmental_impact_and_extinction_(part_five) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee#Environme...

esarbe 8y ago

It's incredible how many participants in this topic don't seem to grasp the delicacy of earth's ecosystem and see it as something that is easily replaced or that humans can exist without. Let's not kid around; if the ecosystem of goes the way of the way of the dodo, humans will go along for the ride. You might (or not) have noticed that humans don't exist outside of the ecological system that our plant harbors. We're part of this ecological network, we're fully, totally, non-negotiable dependent on it. Techno-utopian dreams (nightmares, more like it) of being independent of the 'natural' world are not going to save mankind; we're part of 'nature', we exist within nature, there's no existence for humans outside nature. We need an ecosystem that provides us with calories and oxygen. The only ecosystem in existence that is capable of providing that is the very ecosystem we're working tirelessly to dismantle and destroy. So yes; we might die out because of lack of resources. We very probably will. There's only so much damage that an ecosystem can take. And there are tons of signs that signal that our earthly ecosystem is reaching it's breaking point; - we've lost about a third of the arable land in the last forty years. - we've lost about 30% of bio diversity in the last twenty years. - we've lost almost 75% of insect biomass in the last thirty years. The loss of insects is especially alarming; insects play a major role in all food webs on earth. The disappearance of 75% of insects (biomass, not species) has a catastrophic impact of everything further up the food chain. Yes, including humans. We're currently working non-stop to destroy our ecosystem's capacity to carry animals in the upper food chain. Guess who's on top of that food chain. Yes, us humans. Don't kid yourself; we're currently rushing full-speed ahead towards a full-scale ecosystem collapse. And don't fool yourself on our ability to create and maintain a man-made closed ecosystem as a replacement; we're not able to do that and we probably won't for many, many, many decades to come. The only ecosystem we have to save our collective asses is the one we're currently punishing every day with our overproduction, overconsumption, with our fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides and waste. It's so past high times that we - humans, as a collective - have a hard talk how much longer we want to exist as a 'civilized' species, with global trade, no struggle for survival, boundless capitalism. Because if we keep going, we've got a dozen or so decades left. It's back to hunter gathering for the rest of mankind's existence after that. If we leave enough prey species alive, that is. Otherwise that will be the end of mankind's short stint.

carapace 8y ago

Permaculture (Applied Ecology) - we can provide food and CARBON-NEUTRAL fuel for ourselves without wrecking Nature. A "Permie" farm is more productive than any other mode of food production. By setting up ecosystems that consist of a preponderance of human-usable crop species you can grow multiple times the amount of food-per-acre of conventional agriculture (even with GMOs and pesticides, et. al.) After the initial set-up very little labor is required. Permie farms foster biodiversity. "Permaculture Behind `Greening the Desert` with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U Salt desert to figs in two years. 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 "Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" http://permaculture.com/ http://permaculture.com/ 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 scavenge feedstock. Farmer Dave used to have an arrangement with a donut shop to ferment their old leftover/scrap dough.

newnewpdro 8y ago

Collapse != extinction

esarbe 8y ago
It is, for humans. We've got a hard dependency on civilization because we've forgotten how to live without it and don't have any natural habitats we could live in (as hunter/gatherers) even if we remembered how.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  B.S.
  - esarbe 8y ago
    Even tough you've very eloquently made you point, would you care to elaborate? What of my argument is -- to quote you -- 'B.S.'?
jogjayr 8y ago
Given the sheer number of people who might die or have reduced lifespans due to a collapse, it's a meaningless distinction.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  It's not a meaningless distinction at all. The collapse is the imbalanced system naturally correcting itself, and the humans who survive will go on to create more and the cycle repeats. Extinction means no more cycles for humans. Your view strikes me as a very my-generation me-centric attitude, focused on the sheer numbers of people living now vs. future generations.
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make. To me it sounds like you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) "Worrying about the massive human misery caused by ecosystem collapse is a selfish concern. Humans as a species will continue to exist." The second statement is technically true. But I don't understand how we can diminish the massive human misery caused to everyone you and I know.

quotemstr 8y ago

Humanity will never go extinct as long as the Earth supports photosynthesis generally. If the ecosystem collapses, we might suffer for a little while, but our technology can overcome any environmental problem. Environmental damage, no matter how severe, is not an existential threat, and hyping it up as so does nobody any favors. That said, environmental damage is expensive, and we should mitigate it. But we should do so with an accurate, not inflated, knowledge of the consequences.

esarbe 8y ago
Holy cow, Batman, that's some fatal case of hubris if I've ever seen one. Environmental damage /is/ an /existential/ threat. We're part of an ecosystem, we're not independent of it. We have no way to produce food or oxygen without an ecosystem. In what artificial Biosphere do you live in? The sheer audacity leaves me (almost) speechless.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Agriculture is producing food without the ecosystem.
  - esarbe 8y ago
    Nope, it isn't. You're still dependent on the fertile soil, on nematodes and fungi, on insects and arthropods. You fool yourself when you think that all these square kilometers of dry and dead dust will yield anything at all when there's no ecosystem around to renew the dehydrated husk of soil we leave when we're done. Google for 'arable soil loss' and read a bit about it, please.

starfish99 8y ago

I like to think each living organism as a gigantic living git repository of successful experiments by evolution. No wonder a huge number of human inventions come out of either isolating naturally occurring compounds or mimicking some natural occurring behavior of some organism: plant/animal. Each time we lose an organism, we lose an entire repo of commits made over billions of years.

raprp 8y ago

I some countries is still a challenge to forbid use of plastic bags on supermarkets and plastic straws. We just keep throwing this disposable stuff out like crazy.

botverse 8y ago

What about overpopulation as a factor? The elephant in the room. Every time someone suggest that we are too many, people tend to agree, but when what is suggested is that we should think about how to be less people, everybody halts in horror