4 ms·
I would love to see a citation for 11 billion people not causing an environmental collapse. At our current population 40% of insects could be extinct in the co
by makerofspoons 7y ago
I would love to see a citation for 11 billion people not causing an environmental collapse.
At our current population 40% of insects could be extinct in the coming decades, and over the last 50 years 60% of animal populations have been wiped out: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/health/food-biodiversity-report-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/health/food-biodiversity-repo...
- igravious 7y agoCitation that it will rather than the typical conjecture?
- makerofspoons 7y agoThe accelerating rate of extinction outlined in the latest UN biodiversity report, out last month: https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment
- igravious 7y agoAgain. I'm not talking about species extinction or even the rate of species extinction. I'm asking for a citation for environmental collapse.
- makerofspoons 7y agoFinding such a citation depends on what you call an ecological collapse. In 2019 we have an environment where global indicators of ecosystem extent have declined by 47% from baseline. If the stock market lost 47% of its value in 150 years, it would be in a state of ongoing collapse. 85% of wetlands were lost between 1700 and 2000- I would certainly say that is an ecological collapse.
- igravious 7y agoSpecies extinction and animal population decline is not the same thing as environmental collapse. edit: To clarify, people say that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth or that we'll exceed it as the population mushrooms. This data proves the population won't mushroom, and I assert that 11 billion is well within the carrying capacity of the Earth. Do I have any proof? No. But neither do the doomsayers who claim otherwise. That's the specific narrative I'm trying to push back against.
- notfromhere 7y agowhat do you think is the environment? we can't survive without biodiversity
- igravious 7y agoWe both know what the environment is. What you meant to say is that we can't survive below some threshold of biodiversity. Nobody's talking about zero biodiversity. What do you think that threshold is? I think we can survive (and the environment will be okay with) less biodiversity. How much less that turns out to be I guess we're going to find out.