4 ms·
That might be over pessimistic as "95% Of The World's Population Lives On 10% Of The Land" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217192745.htm https
by air7 6y ago
That might be over pessimistic as "95% Of The World's Population Lives On 10% Of The Land"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217192745.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217192745.h...
- hh3k0 6y agoThe important part of that statement is "lives". According to the IPCC, humans have transformed _more than 70%_ of all ice-free land if you take stuff like agriculture into account. Edit: It'd seem that I've had remembered outdated figures.
- elihu 6y agoStill, even sparsely populated rural humans have a pretty big effect on the natural habitat. We've pretty significantly displaced wild animals with humans/livestock/pets everywhere: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
- nostromo 6y agoAnd what about land we use for food. And for watersheds. And for lumber and metal. And for electricity. The amount of land we live on is tiny compared to the amount of land we use.
- bosswipe 6y agoWe don't live on land that looks like this but it's destroying biodiversity anyway https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/general-view-taken-from-an-airplane-on-september-11-2014-news-photo/455242596 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/general-view-t...
- 0-_-0 6y agoTo be fair, that's a desert so technically speaking agriculture increases biodiversity there
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bosswipe 6y agoOk maybe something like this makes my point better since it shows a town where we live and outside of town where we don't live https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/ucr_imperial_valley_aerial_hero.jpg https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/u...
- titzer 6y agoBiomass maybe, but biodiversity no. There is a myriad array of weird desert things adapted to such a climate, just not huge numbers of them.