9 ms·

Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

35 points by DamienSF 11y ago

alphapapa 11y ago
> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. > To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The long list of impacts includes: Land clearing for farming, logging and settlement All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace. Notice: > a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity Could the anti-human, pro-population control, pro-communism spin be any more transparent? I guess they're safe, since they're the intellectuals pulling the strings. After all, if the "population" of "researchers" were controlled, who would be around to tell everyone else how to survive? It's everyone else, consuming and inequitizing, that is causing the problems and needs to be reduced and reequitized and controlled. Edit: Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes. Not big surprise. It's not necessary to promote the right side of the spectrum to get in trouble, just criticize the left side.
- ealexhudson 11y ago
  > But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the earth. Absent a large rock or other large-scale disaster, the rate of species disappearing really does need explanation.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    What about the other four times? Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt... So I guess the "greenest" solution is to load all of our consciousnesses into computers run on electricity generated by solar panels and wind power. Or maybe just solar power, in space. Surely then humans could be absolved of their guilt for ruining everything.
    - ealexhudson 11y ago
      In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.
      - alphapapa 11y ago
        Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
        blumkvist 11y ago
        I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Do you want to know why you're getting downvotes?
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    According to HN theory, your post should be downvoted. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. The downvotes are no surprise. That's what one gets for expressing an unpopular opinion. It's disappointing, though, for people to downvote instead of responding with counter-arguments. But, again, no surprise.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      I'm asking a genuine question! Do you want to know why people are downvoting you, or are you just ranting about pro-communists trying to squash your opinion? I mean, don't you think the downvotes are because you say ridiculous nonsense like HN is heavily left leaning and has enough pro-communists to down vote your posts? (Because that requires not just enough Reds to down vote but a lack of non-Reds to supply corrective upvotes).
      - alphapapa 11y ago
        If you want to tell me why you think my comment was downvoted, go ahead. If you don't, don't. I'm not going to play some kind of "If you ask me, I will tell you. Please ask me so I can tell you!" game. My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. Not necessarily pro-communist, but the left does also lean toward communist and socialist ideas. If you disagree with one of those assertions, feel free to say why. I might be wrong about HN's readership, but that is my impression.
        DanBC 11y ago
        > My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. That is because you are so far-right. Everything looks left wing from over there, even the soft right wing that makes up most of HN.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    > I assume you’ve never studied biology? I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I can make unfounded assumptions too. > Or maybe you wouldn’t care if humans go extinct? You are full of assumptions, aren't you? It's just amazing how people think we are so powerful and can affect nature to such an extent. But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. But if the elephant seems to be tripping and there's an ant near his foot, it must be the ant's fault...
    - anon1385 11y ago
      Why do you think small things can't have large effects? I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.
      - alphapapa 11y ago
        What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"? It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
        anon1385 11y ago
        >Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere. >What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention. Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).
- Udo 11y ago
  > mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." > All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace. It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. > Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    > I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not necessarily a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong). Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to prove it either way. How are my statements about extinction objectively wrong? > Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point. It would be closer to, "We have no idea whether that asteroid is going to come anywhere near us, and even if it were, it's highly unlikely we could do anything to stop it. However, devoting enough resources to mount a significant attempt to stop it would definitely harm people. So we shouldn't start doing that until it's much clearer that 1) it's going to hit us, and 2) we could stop it." > It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. At smaller scales, people are unwilling to admit certain possibilities, because doing so would harm their careers--they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil. On a larger scale, certain people want to control other people for their own gain, both in power and fortune. That is also evil. And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power. CC was promoted as such a policy vehicle back in the 70s, and it's still being used for it today. Very little of the "science" is about actual facts--most of it is about politics. This undermines the search for the truth. But people who don't recognize this accept the "data" at face value. Then they advocate trying to stop climate change. But doing that would line the pockets of certain powerful, wealthy people and corporations. And it would keep certain parties and nations in positions of weakness. This is why it is ultimately about evil. If all that was being done was "gathering data," that would be fine.
- whibble 11y ago
  Well, if it helps, I agree with everything you said. I can't stand reddit. It's totally co-opted.
codecamper 11y ago
People, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats. Corn, wheat, rice. What else do you need? I've been out driving across Europe for the past year. What strikes you about Europe is that almost every square meter of it is man controlled. The most wildlife they have are a few deer and wild boar. Even squirrels are rare.
- tincholio 11y ago
  You should maybe drive to the Nordic countries...
  - codecamper 11y ago
    Yes I want too, but I might be forced to eat Lutefisk!
    - tincholio 11y ago
      Nah, it's unlikely you'll be forced to, and you might enjoy the sights in any case.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Besides bio-diversity being 'nice' it is also a source of stability. The fewer species there are and the more of those few species we have the more susceptible those few species are to pathogens that wipe out those species. Monocultures are a risk. Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their reservoir hosts. Eco-systems are fragile, any attempt so far to create a stand-alone biosphere that I know about has failed. I also miss the oceans in your little table and I think those + all the oxygen generating plants and trees are really rather important for life on Earth. And those plants rely on insects for their pollination. And those insects in turn are kept in check by all the predators on insects which are missing from your list as well. And so on...
  - alphapapa 11y ago
mattnewport 11y ago
This is the same Paul Ehrlich known for his dire, alarmist predictions about overpopulation in the late 60s that mostly did not come to pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Reception . His history doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong in this case but it's worth being aware of when evaluating his claims.
vixen99 11y ago
The hard data will be more objectively assessed if coming from someone other than Paul Ehrlich: In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” and “[our children] will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960’s are dead.”
- DanBC 11y ago
  He was wrong, but about 21,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger related causes. That's 7.6m per year, about 115m in the 21st century. Nearly one in five children under the age of five dies from diarrhea related illnesses. And that's easilly and cheaply treated (50 US cents of oral rehydration salts).
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    What does any of that have to do with the fact that he was wrong? That's the point: he was completely and absurdly wrong. "Chicken Little" doesn't begin to describe it. Yes, people suffer from hunger. That's been a problem for all of human history. Hopefully someday it will be "solved," but that's not likely to happen as long as some people are evil and want to control other people. If we can't stop shooting each other and beheading each other and blowing up each other, what makes us think we can stop each other from starving?
  - pfortuny 11y ago
    Now try and compute the same ratio for the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc. centuries. Really.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    Not because we can't grow enough food. Famine and hunger is a political problem, not a crop yield problem.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  It's way worse--or funnier--than that. From Wikipedia: """On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."[5] In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler" Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding his plane, " I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."[5] When this scenario did not come to pass, he responded that "When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else.""" That last bit is all he should have said: that people and places will be having problems, just like everyone else, just like has always been the case, just like always will be. Why are people still paying attention to anything he says? "...understand something...salary...depends on it...", you know how it goes.
fsloth 11y ago
It's unnerving to see statistics clearly pointing out to a mass extinction event. Because fossil evidence points out that animals larger than a cat have gone first I get this immediate "oh shit" creepy feeling. However, humans are quite omnivorous and have a really widely spread population... http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/mass-extinctions/surviving-mass-extinction/index.html http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-exti...

35 points by DamienSF 11y ago

> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. > To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The long list of impacts includes: Land clearing for farming, logging and settlement All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace. Notice: > a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity Could the anti-human, pro-population control, pro-communism spin be any more transparent? I guess they're safe, since they're the intellectuals pulling the strings. After all, if the "population" of "researchers" were controlled, who would be around to tell everyone else how to survive? It's everyone else, consuming and inequitizing, that is causing the problems and needs to be reduced and reequitized and controlled. Edit: Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes. Not big surprise. It's not necessary to promote the right side of the spectrum to get in trouble, just criticize the left side.

ealexhudson 11y ago
> But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the earth. Absent a large rock or other large-scale disaster, the rate of species disappearing really does need explanation.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What about the other four times? Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt... So I guess the "greenest" solution is to load all of our consciousnesses into computers run on electricity generated by solar panels and wind power. Or maybe just solar power, in space. Surely then humans could be absolved of their guilt for ruining everything.
  - ealexhudson 11y ago
    In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
      - blumkvist 11y ago
        I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
DanBC 11y ago
Do you want to know why you're getting downvotes?
- alphapapa 11y ago
  According to HN theory, your post should be downvoted. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. The downvotes are no surprise. That's what one gets for expressing an unpopular opinion. It's disappointing, though, for people to downvote instead of responding with counter-arguments. But, again, no surprise.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I'm asking a genuine question! Do you want to know why people are downvoting you, or are you just ranting about pro-communists trying to squash your opinion? I mean, don't you think the downvotes are because you say ridiculous nonsense like HN is heavily left leaning and has enough pro-communists to down vote your posts? (Because that requires not just enough Reds to down vote but a lack of non-Reds to supply corrective upvotes).
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      If you want to tell me why you think my comment was downvoted, go ahead. If you don't, don't. I'm not going to play some kind of "If you ask me, I will tell you. Please ask me so I can tell you!" game. My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. Not necessarily pro-communist, but the left does also lean toward communist and socialist ideas. If you disagree with one of those assertions, feel free to say why. I might be wrong about HN's readership, but that is my impression.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        > My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. That is because you are so far-right. Everything looks left wing from over there, even the soft right wing that makes up most of HN.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- alphapapa 11y ago
  > I assume you’ve never studied biology? I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I can make unfounded assumptions too. > Or maybe you wouldn’t care if humans go extinct? You are full of assumptions, aren't you? It's just amazing how people think we are so powerful and can affect nature to such an extent. But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. But if the elephant seems to be tripping and there's an ant near his foot, it must be the ant's fault...
  - anon1385 11y ago
    Why do you think small things can't have large effects? I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"? It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        >Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere. >What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention. Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).
Udo 11y ago
> mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." > All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace. It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. > Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).
- alphapapa 11y ago
  > I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not necessarily a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong). Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to prove it either way. How are my statements about extinction objectively wrong? > Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point. It would be closer to, "We have no idea whether that asteroid is going to come anywhere near us, and even if it were, it's highly unlikely we could do anything to stop it. However, devoting enough resources to mount a significant attempt to stop it would definitely harm people. So we shouldn't start doing that until it's much clearer that 1) it's going to hit us, and 2) we could stop it." > It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. At smaller scales, people are unwilling to admit certain possibilities, because doing so would harm their careers--they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil. On a larger scale, certain people want to control other people for their own gain, both in power and fortune. That is also evil. And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power. CC was promoted as such a policy vehicle back in the 70s, and it's still being used for it today. Very little of the "science" is about actual facts--most of it is about politics. This undermines the search for the truth. But people who don't recognize this accept the "data" at face value. Then they advocate trying to stop climate change. But doing that would line the pockets of certain powerful, wealthy people and corporations. And it would keep certain parties and nations in positions of weakness. This is why it is ultimately about evil. If all that was being done was "gathering data," that would be fine.
whibble 11y ago
Well, if it helps, I agree with everything you said. I can't stand reddit. It's totally co-opted.

codecamper 11y ago

People, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats. Corn, wheat, rice. What else do you need? I've been out driving across Europe for the past year. What strikes you about Europe is that almost every square meter of it is man controlled. The most wildlife they have are a few deer and wild boar. Even squirrels are rare.

tincholio 11y ago
You should maybe drive to the Nordic countries...
- codecamper 11y ago
  Yes I want too, but I might be forced to eat Lutefisk!
  - tincholio 11y ago
    Nah, it's unlikely you'll be forced to, and you might enjoy the sights in any case.
jacquesm 11y ago
Besides bio-diversity being 'nice' it is also a source of stability. The fewer species there are and the more of those few species we have the more susceptible those few species are to pathogens that wipe out those species. Monocultures are a risk. Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their reservoir hosts. Eco-systems are fragile, any attempt so far to create a stand-alone biosphere that I know about has failed. I also miss the oceans in your little table and I think those + all the oxygen generating plants and trees are really rather important for life on Earth. And those plants rely on insects for their pollination. And those insects in turn are kept in check by all the predators on insects which are missing from your list as well. And so on...
- alphapapa 11y ago

mattnewport 11y ago

This is the same Paul Ehrlich known for his dire, alarmist predictions about overpopulation in the late 60s that mostly did not come to pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Reception . His history doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong in this case but it's worth being aware of when evaluating his claims.

vixen99 11y ago

The hard data will be more objectively assessed if coming from someone other than Paul Ehrlich: In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” and “[our children] will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960’s are dead.”

DanBC 11y ago
He was wrong, but about 21,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger related causes. That's 7.6m per year, about 115m in the 21st century. Nearly one in five children under the age of five dies from diarrhea related illnesses. And that's easilly and cheaply treated (50 US cents of oral rehydration salts).
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What does any of that have to do with the fact that he was wrong? That's the point: he was completely and absurdly wrong. "Chicken Little" doesn't begin to describe it. Yes, people suffer from hunger. That's been a problem for all of human history. Hopefully someday it will be "solved," but that's not likely to happen as long as some people are evil and want to control other people. If we can't stop shooting each other and beheading each other and blowing up each other, what makes us think we can stop each other from starving?
- pfortuny 11y ago
  Now try and compute the same ratio for the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc. centuries. Really.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  Not because we can't grow enough food. Famine and hunger is a political problem, not a crop yield problem.
alphapapa 11y ago
It's way worse--or funnier--than that. From Wikipedia: """On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."[5] In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler" Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding his plane, " I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."[5] When this scenario did not come to pass, he responded that "When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else.""" That last bit is all he should have said: that people and places will be having problems, just like everyone else, just like has always been the case, just like always will be. Why are people still paying attention to anything he says? "...understand something...salary...depends on it...", you know how it goes.

fsloth 11y ago

It's unnerving to see statistics clearly pointing out to a mass extinction event. Because fossil evidence points out that animals larger than a cat have gone first I get this immediate "oh shit" creepy feeling. However, humans are quite omnivorous and have a really widely spread population... http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/mass-extinctions/surviving-mass-extinction/index.html http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-exti...