Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

60,000 Antelope Died In 4 Days, and No One Knows Why

Posted by Soulskill on from the it-was-the-one-armed-man dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Saiga antelope has been hunted to near extinction. They've been put on the endangered species list, and they play a vital role in the ecosystems around Russia, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan, where their grazing helps get rid of fallen plant matter, which is prevented from decomposing by the cold temperatures. But earlier this year, a huge die-off hit the Saiga antelope herd in Kazakhstan, felling over 120,000 of them in a few short weeks. Scientists say an entire group of 60,000 died within a four-day span. The cause of this die-off is still a mystery. The researchers suspect some sort of bacteria, and early on pointed to Pasteurella strains. But those bacteria don't usually cause this much damage unless something else has weakened the antelope. "There is nothing so special about it. The question is why it developed so rapidly and spread to all the animals," one researcher said. They're looking into environmental factors, but nothing else seems too far out of the ordinary.

105 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. As they say by codeButcher · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... that buck stopped there.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Home, home on the range, where the deer and the an... erm.. deer and more deer graze?

    2. Re:As they say by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Forget about the deer, I hope they've got refrigerator trucks out there collecting all that free hamburger meat.

    3. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't eat the meat of something that fell over and died of non-violent causes.

      The reasons for this should be rather obvious.

    4. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We'll make jokes about stones when the only thing remaining is us and stones. :-(

    5. Re:As they say by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      If they find the cause and find it's not harmful to humans, especially in cooked meat, what's does it matter?

    6. Re:As they say by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its irrelevant. By the time you conclusively determine whatever killed the beasts isn't harmful to humans the meat will most likely have spoiled.

      Lots of bacteria that might be destroyed by cooking fills the host will harmful toxins that may not be destroyed by cooking before the host dies. By the time you work all this out it will be to late for other reasons.

      Basic survival rule: if you don't know what killed it, scratch eating it off the list of possibilities.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:As they say by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      You don't eat the meat of something that fell over and died of non-violent causes.

      The reasons for this should be rather obvious.

      Why would that stop a greedy corporation from trying to feed it to you anyway?

    8. Re:As they say by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Mostly that if it actually did kill a lot of people, the corporation would take a lot of heat for it. The corporations do frequently try to push the limits on that, and the punishment for that isn't nearly severe enough. But they do actually take considerable steps to avoid having it happen accidentally, and it's really not in their best interest to do it deliberately.

      The biggest problem is in ground beef. If you add one infected animal to the hopper, you can make millions of pounds of meat dangerous. That's expensive.

      Note that I'm not a fan of industrial meat production, and I avoid it. That has more to do with concern for animal welfare during their lives, and with flavor: if an animal is going to die for my dinner I want it to taste less bland than the meat you get at grocery stores and most restaurants. Plus, a few environmental issues. And yeah, safety is a bit of a concern... but they do want to avoid killing people. Bad for business.

    9. Re:As they say by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Violence makes the meat taste better.

    10. Re:As they say by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure Kazakhstan has some serious food quality controls /s Seriously though, it was a tinfoil hat joke not to be taken so seriously lol

    11. Re:As they say by OneSizeFitsNoone · · Score: 1

      Some say a trigger-happy policeman did this mess.

    12. Re:As they say by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I wince every time I see "bacteria" used instead of "bacterium". It's as bad as "reiterate".

  2. The remaining few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The remaining few will have an evolutionary advantage over whatever kill the rest of them. Until a dumb ass human shoots them, that is, to put "the rarest specimens" up on his wall and brag about it.

    1. Re:The remaining few by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      I always wanted to eat the first of a species.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  3. Now we need... by benjfowler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...a pandemic to cull the human herd too.

    I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.

    1. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...a pandemic to cull the human herd too.

      I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.

      Y'know... unless you're one of the 4 billion that was killed off...

    2. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      By the sounds of it the "genetic diversity" between your parents wasn't much to talk about either.

    3. Re:Now we need... by OakDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What an ugly sentiment.

      --
      Dark Reflection
    4. Re:Now we need... by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term.

      And you're dead wrong, even if all the cadavers mysteriously and magically turned into basic mineral components and were sprinkled all over the planet (instead of rotting wherever they dropped dead, contaminating air and water with diseases durably over the following weeks).

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      Long-term, a forcibly reduced population would mean a lot less human capital (which is our true ultimate cap for progress potential), and a lot less competition for the same environmental resources, incentivizing a higher waste of these resources. Also, we'd be losing a lot of diversity, setting us back evolutionarily, and we'd just end up with more numerous but less adaptively fit individuals. This effect is well known and observed in all kinds of living organism populations, from bacteria to complex, social animals.

      Oh and, if you'd honestly believe killing people is ultimately doing people a service, you'd have started killing already. Or are you just a cowardly homicidal hypocrite ?

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    5. Re:Now we need... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Chances are the 4 billion wouldn't mind.

    6. Re:Now we need... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Feel free to lead by example. Until you do, why should anyone listen to you?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    7. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While lauding human potential, you omit cost, which considering how many people with even modertely useful degrees are under or unemployed; you're not getting those sunk costs back. And that is going to get worse as the population climbs.

      Regarding diversity, the Idiocracy argument applies, as that diversity is heavily skewed in one direction, which ends up not being diverse at all. It takes more than sheer numbers.

      Not advocating for any instance of a Final Solution (god knows no one is wise enough to select for best charecteristics), but this feel good, best of all possible worlds handwaving disregards very real problems the human population will face in the coming generations, and simply putting a smiley face on it insures a bloodbath will follow,

    8. Re:Now we need... by stongef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't worry, we are doing everything possible to cultivate a bug like this. My money is on a modified version of the bird flu, as easy to catch as a cold, but with the lethality of H5N1 (59%). It's brother H1N1 was the cause of the 1918 pandemic, which only killed between 3 to 5% of it's victims. We are currently creating the ideal environment for this bug to emerge in the chicken CAFOs. I'd bet on China for the point of origin. A million chickens in a big barn, bathing in their own feces, away from the lethal (for the bug) sun rays. Now THAT is bioengineering at its best ...

    9. Re:Now we need... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Informative

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      Many extinct species would beg to differ.
      http://news.discovery.com/anim...

    10. Re:Now we need... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know why some people think that population reduction can only occur through mass-murder/pandemic. People can have less babies you know.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Now we need... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      [citation needed], and also false dichotomy. With current practices, the Earth is provably over its carrying capacity. We have the technology to fix the problems, but do we have the will? Film at eleven.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hardly a matter of one political bend or another - I just had Jehova's Witnesses on my porch trying to tell about the world that is to come, and how only the really good people will be in it (making for a much smaller population, they emphasized) and God's going to clean everything up...

      But you'll see it as a trope in fiction of all stripes. There's some terrible disaster, and mankind re-emerges into a form that somehow fits the political biases of the author. A lot of people imagine that being in horrible circumstances like that, fighting for survival with less technology and an awful lot fewer people would make for a simpler, more real world and yearn for it.

      Not that long ago, here on Slashdot, a bunch of people were explaining to me that in such a world, as a woman, I would go back into my biologically ordained role of reproductive servitude, which struck me as saying a lot more about their preoccupations, I thought, than anything else, but then people always seem to project their fantasies into these scenarios. (Especially since I'd already mentioned that I was in my forties, as well as being a martial artist and martial arts instructor and having an awful lot of skills useful in such a society.)

    13. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How do you go about convincing China, India and Africa to stop having so many kids? China did pretty good with their one child policy, but frankly the other two are out populating the rest of the planet.

      Most of the developed world is in a population decline. The US is net positive because of our massive illegal immigration problem, if that was stopped we would also be on the slow population decline.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People have been claiming we were hitting peak population since we hit 1 billion. Improved technology has prevented true overpopulation from happening. Those places with an actual growing population will either die out, or figure out a way to deal with it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about the drastic decrease in the bio-diversity of everything else on the planet?

    16. Re:Now we need... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many extinct species would beg to differ.

      How can they do that? They're extinct.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    17. Re:Now we need... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, use some kind of contraception, but that's for nerds and fags right?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:Now we need... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong.
      The logistics of dealing with that many dead bodies all at once would simply overwhelm the systems of even the most advanced and richest countries. Emergency management simply could not keep up. Bodies would lie in the street, rotting, attracting pests and disease... and the other 3 billion would die soon after as they are overwhelmed by those.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Now we need... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term.
      > 4 billion humans dropped dead
      > we'd all be better off
      > 4 billion ... dead ... all be better off

      So trivially we wouldn't "all" be better off, because this plan involves extinction of 2/3rds of humans, and they would assuredly be much worse off (being dead). It seems unlikely that the remaining third would be all that much happier about the situation.

      I don't think your sentiment is all that common. Interestingly, the folks who believe it don't seem to start with the obvious (offing themselves), but instead find some religious purpose in subtly trying to spread this genocidal misanthropic philosophy.

      Well, let me offer you an assertion: No, we wouldn't be better off. We'd be much worse off. The inability to act against a bunch of vague potential threats is more of a feature of our species, not a bug. It serves as a drive to develop systems where people, in contributing to the system, help both themselves and those around them. The only reason we can support this many humans enjoying life at the same time is because a lot of these systems already exist, in some imperfect form or another, and they have vastly decreased human suffering and increased human pleasure over a very brief window in history for humanity.

      The reason the philosophy is so dangerous is that it encourages potential mass murderers to conspire with some nebulous goal of "future improvements". You can literally justify *anything* with such a philosophy. Why not focus on things that definitely help now and almost assuredly help later, instead of assuredly cause untold anguish, and maybe "help" later? It seems that the focus is driven by an intense desire to see others come to harm. The "we'd all be better off" is just to try to sell the poison.

    20. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you could not go full retard and try to drag politics into this.

      The data is all available at census.gov, you can look at it yourself. The population of the US is growing by less than 1%, and all the growth is due to immigration (illegal and legal). This isn't a political statement, stop trying to drag politics into it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    21. Re:Now we need... by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting about your martial arts skills! I had a wonderful vision of you kicking the crap out of a misogynist basement dwelling neckbeard in a post-apocalyptic setting. :-)

    22. Re:Now we need... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you go about convincing China, India and Africa to stop having so many kids?

      China has a negative population growth rate now.

      India's population growth rate is slightly positive, but decreasing steadily. They should be negative growth in another decade or three.

      Africa is a whole 'nuther issue. Of course, what Europe, North America, China, and India have in common is increasing standard of living. - maybe that would work for Africa too....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    23. Re:Now we need... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So what have Japan, Italy, Estonia, and (until the recent immigrant influx) Germany done to collectively damage their DNA so badly?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      As charming as fantasy as that might be, one really would hope that common interest might have us focusing on such pressing needs as food and shelter. ...I guess it would depend on just how thin resources were on the ground.

    25. Re:Now we need... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.

      Emphasis added.

      The dead would not be better off in any term. Plus, you appear to assume that you'd remain among the living.

      Will you demonstrate the courage of your conviction by leading the way and making a personal sacrifice? Because simply waiting for something to happen and the outcome to be determined by nature's lot does not make you more noble than anyone else -- everyone is already doing that whether consciously or not. The difference appears to be that you're hoping for it to happen.

    26. Re:Now we need... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      No. Those places will still be breeding grounds to feed back into western nations in the form of immigration.

      Nature abhors a vacuum; even if it's based on population.

      Your solutions are as follows:
      A-, Conquer dictatorships around the world and attempt to foster democracy with a functioning rule of law.
      B-, Build a wall with sentry guns to keep them on the other side.
      C-, Genocide via nuclear or biological.

      'C' is pure evil. Effective yes, but evil!! 'B', can work, that only so long as there isn't a revolution or radical change in prior governance. Considered short-term in the span of a few generations at best. 'A' is the best long-term solutions, but also the most difficult as it takes influencing and changing the culture of a "western" mindset adoption.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    27. Re:Now we need... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      And what would a 4-billion cullig do to our genetic diversity?

    28. Re:Now we need... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Wishing 4 billion humans dropped dead indicates there's something seriously abnormal with your mental processes. Nearly every human on earth will think you're a dangerous whacko.

      On the other hand, wishing 4 billion humans would stop breeding is much more palatable, while accomplishing the exact same environmental goal. A significant percentage of the population in rich countries now are voluntarily going childless anyways, you just have to convince the people in poor countries (which are responsible for almost all of the population growth) to do the same.

    29. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't know. My answer to the future would be O'Neill Cylinders. That would solve the future population problems.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:Now we need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's too simplistic an analysis. Contraception exists in the natural world, including as a built-in mechanism in many animals. There can be very good survival benefits to not getting pregnant at the wrong time. IIRC, lionesses, for example, can reduce their fertility during famines.

    31. Re:Now we need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Education, particularly of women. There's a good talk (TED, I think) about how Bangladesh had tried all kinds of ways to reduce it's world-leading birth rate. None of them really worked. Then there was an unconnected program to send girls to school, and the birth rate fell through the floor.

      By the way, the population growth rate of India has been declining since the 80s (and is currently less than the US in the 90s), and China's is currently less than the US. The world population growth rate is also in decline, and is currently less than the US in the 90s.

    32. Re:Now we need... by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      Many extinct species would beg to differ. http://news.discovery.com/anim...

      Why do you hate evolution?

    33. Re:Now we need... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Added bonus: Educating women will end Islam. At least as it is practiced today.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    34. Re:Now we need... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      No that's what you believe that the left actually believes.

    35. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      Being in my forties, it's a toss up whether I'd manage to have children at all, and autism is hardly the only thing that increases with maternal age (I seem to recall that there are some risk factors associated with paternal age as well). This was, in fact, my point - even if it was a high priority for their postulated struggling post-apocalyptic community to make babies (and seriously, I think you want to make sure you have the basics covered before you get on with the breeding) I am just not your best candidate. I'd always figured that if I hadn't had kids by the time I was thirty-five - and I was aiming for late twenties - I wasn't having them. However, my ex rather abruptly decided that he wanted not to have kids, and for me to quit my job and take care of him... well, hence the ex part.

      (Between my martial arts students and my undergraduate research students, I pretty much get any need to nurture taken care of, and I might make a better teacher than I would a parent. I have a twisted enough sense of humor than I regret not inflicted my genes on the next generation - but when I looked into donating eggs, while apparently I looked like a great donor, they said I'd have to lay off of the training for a month, and, well, no.)

      "(Guess why autism rates are skyrocketing? That's right, women having kids well past their thirties because they were too busy having a job. Thanks feminism.)"

      There are so many things wrong with this line. First of all, you're pulling out one factor that is correlated (let us repeat together, correlation does not imply causality) and trying to put all the increase in autism rates (which are hard to track anyway because diagnostics have changed so much) at its feet. The research simply doesn't support this - this is clearly far more about your political agenda than about the science. Especially since the science shows linkages to paternal age as well.

      (Just a couple of abstract links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... )

      But it's equally asinine to lay women having children later because they have jobs at the feet of feminism. Hell, you could just as strongly make exactly the reverse argument, that feminism in its current form arose in part because of women entering the workforce and achieving such a degree of economic independence. This isn't something that just happened - you're looking at the results of huge changes with industrialization, better medicine, the rise of birth control*, increasing automation of housework, and so on. Do you want to have an economy that works? Well, from where we are right now, women have got to be in the workplace in large numbers - it's not some hobby, it's economic necessity, both on the individual household level and in terms of our country.

      * And seriously, for all the guys who seem to fantasize about a time when women would be forced to be homemakers because they got pregnant just like that, isn't it awfully nice to be able to have sex without worrying about having kids? I am highly pro-birth control myself. Yay, more sex, fewer worries.

    36. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      Despite my self imposed limits, my family generally has tended to be kind of ridiculously fertile - in my generation there are almost forty first cousins (though admittedly some of my uncles and aunts went through multiple marriages to manage this feat.) My grandmother had my youngest and favorite Aunt, a retired CSI who now does medical auditing, when she was 46. ...of course, increased rates doesn't mean the absolute rates are high, just that they're higher than they would have been.

      Eh. I've always been extremely careful about birth control (I just had this talk with my sixteen year old nephew, pointing out that the familial rates of fertility might suggest that he be a belt and suspenders man if he wants to avoid paternity), but were I to become pregnant at this point in my life, I would be hard core about pre-natal testing, but it's not unlikely that I'd carry to term. Not something I'm seeking out - and I had a few guys audition for "father of my children" once I left my ex - but an experience I have mixed feelings about missing out on.

    37. Re:Now we need... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Lots of people in "awe of life" use contraception. They just aren't in awe of every single sperm and egg in their bodies. They want some control over how often these get together. As science develops, they will also want to control specifically which sperm and eggs meet, to avoid genetic disease.

      Eppuor se muove, crucifix boy

    38. Re:Now we need... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      considering how many people with even modertely useful degrees are under or unemployed; you're not getting those sunk costs back. And that is going to get worse as the population climbs.

      Unemployment has nothing to do with population numbers. Many (most ?) countries in this world enjoy low unemployment figures with growing demographics.

      No, diversity is not skewed in any direction. A vast number of different factors help or hamper in the reproductive success of any given individual, and as the population increases, even that growth generates new factors, and those new factors also tend to create layers of new factors of their own, etc. For example species that evolve mating rituals also end up evolving strategies that circumvent those rituals, and counter-strategies for detecting these 'sneakers', etc. And changing conditions eventually disturb any dynamic equilibrium they might get at. It never ends at any given point.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    39. Re:Now we need... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      The same applies: I think it's a bad thing, just as it would be a bad thing to see happen in humans.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    40. Re:Now we need... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      True autism rates are not skyrocketing.

      What is skyrocketing is the number of middle class parents claiming that their precious snowflakes are "on the autistic spectrum" due to behaviour that thirty years ago would just be thought of as slightly annoying and self centred.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:Now we need... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That rather depends on how the 4 billion is distributed, doesn't it? If it included all the females I suspect it'd go down rather steeply within 80 or so years.

      Let's suppose it was uniform across race, sex, age, eye colour, blood group, yada yada - just as if they were drawn at random. Given that the population was at that level within my lifetime and we seemed to cope OK I'd say there'd be no effect at all.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:Now we need... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      My understanding was that the part of our genes that are race specific is actually smaller than those which simply vary from individual to individual. If that is true then I would think that any death is some reduction of diversity.

    43. Re:Now we need... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Aside from the typo above, this is a good point. What if the people were all in a single geographical area? Would the world be better off if everyone in N & S America died next week? All US politicians, maybe, but everyone in the Americas would really damage the word economy and the benefit to overcrowding in the remainder of the world may be nonexistent. Or what if the event killed everyone over/under a certain age?

      Perhaps the better option would be to just stop trying to cure diseases we have today, that would be a step in the direction the OP seems to want to go in. Or maybe, just maybe, the planet could easily a decent multiple of the number of people currently on it & we need to focus on social/political issues that get in the way.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    44. Re:Now we need... by JazzLad · · Score: 1
      gah, as much as I hate to reply to myself,

      the planet could easily a decent multiple

      should have read:

      the planet could easily support a decent multiple

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    45. Re: Now we need... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      "Collapse"? Slowing the rate of increase isn't collapse.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    46. Re:Now we need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Just like it did to Christianity a hundred years ago.

    47. Re:Now we need... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unemployment has nothing to do with population numbers. Many (most ?) countries in this world enjoy low unemployment figures with growing demographics.

      Well, that's stretching the point a bit, isn't it? First, there's no way it has nothing to do with population numbers. Second, there's not just both unemployment and underemployment; there's also reported unemployment and actual unemployment. Are you simply reading official figures? They are often lies.

      Is it really enjoying low unemployment figures if A, the figures are bullshit and/or B, you're working your ass off but not really meeting your needs?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    48. Re:Now we need... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People have been claiming we were hitting peak population since we hit 1 billion.

      So, sometime in the early 1800s. Now take a look at what's happened to ecological diversity since then. Check out the PPM of CO2. Examine the mass of the forests, forested area is relevant but what we really want is active and healthy biomass. That is, if what we want is a predictable climate that doesn't shit all over the spreadsheets...

      Those places with an actual growing population will either die out, or figure out a way to deal with it.

      Often by ignoring externalities, usually pushing them off directly onto someone else who suffers for it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:Now we need... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Don't know why you're wittering about race, it's Irrelevant. Are you one of those people who reads words but not sentences?

      Any person born after 1974 inherited the genes of 2 people born before 1974. You won't have had many mutations in a few decades. Therefore, effect on diversity = nil.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    50. Re:Now we need... by cavebison · · Score: 1

      > > Many extinct species would beg to differ.

      > How can they do that? They're extinct.

      "Would". As in if they weren't extinct, they would say that. Oh wait, no they wouldn't!

    51. Re:Now we need... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Well.. you were talking about assuming the population reduction was uniform. (I didn't feel like pointing out how unlikely that is). I ignored sex in your comment since it's kind of hard to reproduce without one of each. As for age.. I ignored that because anyone who is no longer of reproductive age is no longer going to contribute. So.. I was left with race.

      As for your 1974 thing.. it's pretty nonsensical. First of all, your pre-1974 parents may or may not still be alive. Even if they are they are unlikely to have any more children so even if they are alive they aren't making any permanent contribution to the population's genetic diversity.

      Then you go on to talk about mutations over a few decades. WTF? That sounds like a creationist explaining evolution! Yeah, you are right, there won't be many mutations in an individual over 41 years. Where do I begin with this one though?

      First off, most of the interesting genetic changes happen at conception, not the random mutations that result from replication errors within an organism's lifepan.

      Second... who says you have to be the origin of a 'new' gene for your death to influence genetic diversity? Any organism could carry a gene that is rare but was inheritted from some other many generations past. Does one even have to have the last copy of the gene in existance to reduce diversity by dying? One less of a rare gene may still be more than zero but it reduces the possiblity that the gene will be propogated in the future. There is a reason we don't wait until an animal population is down to one male and one female before putting them on the endangered species list.

  4. Graaaaains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is how The Pronking Dead starts, you know.

  5. Re:You didn't listen by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who will be the next victims of our inaction? Gnus?

    I don't see how global warming could lead to the extinction of Free Software Foundation.

  6. They were raptured by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

    These deer were actually God's chosen people, and have been raptured. We all have to live through the end of days.

    1. Re:They were raptured by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Mod +1 Funny.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re: They were raptured by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      Dear oh dear, lucky it wasn't 144,000 of them.

    3. Re: They were raptured by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It was at least 120,000 over a few weeks. No doubt someone just mis-estimated.

    4. Re:They were raptured by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Lol if you believe these fairytales.

      It was actually me. I was hungry and trying to bulk so I ate them all.

  7. Maybe by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Walter Palmer bought himself a Chu-ko-nu

  8. Re:You didn't listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, like you never wanted to hunt down RMS...

  9. Not saying it was aliens but... by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was aliens.

  10. Re:You didn't listen by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

    The next victims will likely include ourselves. As for the dolphins, as the most intelligent species of the world, they will find a way out.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  11. Re:Putin knows by jason.sherry · · Score: 1

    Putin knows... he was on a hunting trip those 4 days. He should stick to his self-imposed limit of 10,000 antelope per day.

  12. Well.. by red+crab · · Score: 2

    The troll comments posted here so far just show how ignorant Slashdotters are about wildlife and environment, in general.

    1. Re:Well.. by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Then please enlighten us with your profound knowledge and wisdom.

    2. Re:Well.. by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 2

      agreed... in the last bunch of years audience quality dropped significantly...I suspect a whole bunch of IFLS and fanboys are swarming everywhere..Truth is almost never a pure color...and science is a complex matter... I appreciate the work people like deGrasse are doing...but they should remember we don't need to create a generation of closed minded did-you-publish-1000-papers-already 'scientists' ... or it will be worse than religion... sometimes world changing discoveries still come out one 'crazy' genius or even by the amateur botanist.. science should be inflexible in repeatability and logic, but not carry other dogmas or elitist behaviours..

    3. Re:Well.. by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      I've wondered a lot about the average age of posters, and if that has changed. A lot would be explained (including some matters of timing) by a strong influx of the 15-22 year olds.

  13. Re:You didn't listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nah, we live all over the world. It will take a lot of climate change to destroy ALL of the suitable habitat for humans.

    A population crash is likely, though.

  14. Re:Environmental factors by disposable60 · · Score: 1

    Cyanide gas leaking from melting 'perma'frost?

    --
    You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
  15. Well on their way by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > 60,000 antope in 4 days

    Wait. WHERE'S CARTMAN?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  16. Re:You didn't listen by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

    It's going to take a while, seeing as they can't hold a screw driver.

    --
    Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  17. Re:You didn't listen by EvilSS · · Score: 2

    We warned you about global warming, and you didn't listen. Who will be the next victims of our inaction? Dolphins? Housecats? Gnus?

    How about we warn the dolphins, then wait until after the housecats then start doing something?

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  18. Whose fault is it? by umghhh · · Score: 1

    Putin's!!!!

  19. Re:This is Kazakhstan we're talking about by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    My guess is some of that super toxic hydrazine reached the ground from the Russian Soyuz launch failure in May.

    Chemistry 101: Abort, Retry, Fail

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  20. Climate Change? by Krakken · · Score: 1

    Interesting: "their grazing helps get rid of fallen plant matter, which is prevented from decomposing by the cold temperatures". I wonder if bacteria or other pathogen may be thriving because of temperature increases?

  21. Pasteurella multocida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    P. multocida WILL kill you in a week, no, ifs, ands or buts about it. I know this first hand.

    It's got to be transmitted to you first and usually, that's from a bite.

    If a mosquito or biting fly has become a transmission vector, this is a massive problem for all advanced land based animals on this planet.

  22. Russian saigas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Next time don't name your antelopes after an automatic shotgun

  23. Maybe by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Anyone have eyes on where Walter James Palmer is right now?

    --
    -Styopa
  24. Re:You didn't listen by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

    If you're not careful, a dolphin will screw you.

    --
    Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  25. Acacia Tree is Suspected by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    The current explanation, pins this on the Acacia Tree and this only happens when the antelope population is too large.

    I couldn't find full articles that weren't behind paywalls, so this will have to do as reference: http://arthurmag.com/2010/01/0...

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  26. Something water bourne perhaps? by Julz · · Score: 1

    How about the Naegleria fowleri amoeba mentioned in a later article. It appears to be getting more resilient and prevalent. Could it also be there? Or perhaps a similar amoeba?

    --
    When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
  27. Re:Would if they could by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Many extinct species would beg to differ.

    How can they do that? They're extinct.

    What part of "would" didn't you understand?

    The part where you would have missed the joke.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  28. Re:Fun Time with Grammar Nazi by mirix · · Score: 1

    Antelope is already plural, like sheep or deer.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
  29. If you don't bleed the corpse by fonske · · Score: 1

    ... the taste of the meat is disgusting.

  30. Nobody by Amanitin · · Score: 1

    expected the Spanish inquisition

  31. Re:You didn't listen by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    So I hurd.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. Climate Change by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    The summary pretty much answers it's own question:

    "...their grazing helps get rid of fallen plant matter, which is prevented from decomposing by the cold temperatures."

    It very will could be that "Climate Change" has caused slightly warmer temperatures, which has hastened the decomposition of the food they depend on. With less food, the animals become weaker and more susceptible to sickness. Similarly and possibly in conjunction with, the bacteria in question may become more prevalent in slightly warmer temperatures.

    All of this is speculation, but both could probably be determined with a bit of study.

  33. Re:You didn't listen by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Hope springs eternal.

  34. Obviously by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Putin went hunting.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.