4 ms·
Playing devils advocate partly just to make myself feel less depressed about that, but would it not be fair to say that humans have exploded in number, along wi
by ehnto 6y ago
Playing devils advocate partly just to make myself feel less depressed about that, but would it not be fair to say that humans have exploded in number, along with livestock, which makes that a somewhat misleading statistic?
Even if there was no wild animal extinctions, you would expect humans and livestock to have dominated the percentages simply from growth alone.
- KronisLV 6y agoThe article itself and the referenced sources go into more detail about the species that have gone extinct and the probable causes for that, human behaviour being suspect (habitat destruction, overexploitation, agriculture, climate change; though things such as disease are also mentioned). As for the estimated numbers, at least one such study[0][1] is mentioned: > A 2018 study published in PNAS found that since the dawn of human civilization, 83% of wild mammals, 80% of marine mammals, 50% of plants and 15% of fish have vanished. As for the biomass distribution percentages, you might as well be right! Fig. 1. in the linked study really puts things into perspective, though, animal life being pretty miniscule in the grand scale of things, when compared to plants, bacteria and other types of biomass, which is quite interesting! Growing up, i never saw estimates such as these, which really make me conscious of just how big of an impact humans (and their lifestyle choices, such as the demand for meat) could have on other species and the ecosystems as a whole, hence me mentioning it as something interesting. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-ra...
- acqq 6y ago> would it not be fair to say that humans have exploded in number, along with livestock, Only that part is fair to say. But that it: > makes that a somewhat misleading statistic Isn't "fair" at all. There the "misleading" claim, I guess, presumes that the cost of human and livestock population exploding is nothing to the rest of nature, whereas it's completely the opposite: that's one visible point, and the cause of all imbalances that follow. The problem is, of course, that the change of the environment by humans has the consequences will impact the humans more than they are able to cope.
- dredmorbius 6y agoFine, except that wild terrestrial vertebrate populations have fallen by ~99%. This isn't "humans and livestock rising, wildlife constant". It's "humans and livestock exploding, wildlife vanishing".
- dredmorbius 6y agoSee Paul Chefurka: https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2018/7/18/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2018/7/18/how-much-of-eart... https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58ed5944e6f2e1f4c44d9d2f/1542077130274-6VAJRQRB9H9MLPIZ2300/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kN9WS6lkPTLWXFYvtrguK3tZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZamWLI2zvYWH8K3-s_4yszcp2ryTI0HqTOaaUohrI8PI7rubP63sZTEEql4LpB6iVkxQFBHeRds9Ybpt_P1NbQQ/Screen-Shot-2018-07-17-at-5.35.05-PM-768x731.png https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58ed5944e6f2e1...