Slashdot Mirror
World Wildlife Falls By 58% in 40 years (bbc.com)
Global wildlife populations have fallen by 58% since 1970, BBC reports citing The Living Planet assessment by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and WWF. The report adds that if the trend continues, the decline would reach two-thirds among vertebrates by 2020. The figures suggest that animals living in lakes, rivers and wetlands are suffering the biggest losses. Human activity, including habitat loss, wildlife trade, pollution and climate change contributed to the declines. From the report: Dr Mike Barrett. head of science and policy at WWF, said: "It's pretty clear under 'business as usual' we will see continued declines in these wildlife populations. But I think now we've reached a point where there isn't really any excuse to let this carry on. This analysis looked at 3,700 different species of birds, fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles - about 6% of the total number of vertebrate species in the world. The team collected data from peer-reviewed studies, government statistics and surveys collated by conservation groups and NGOs. Any species with population data going back to 1970, with two or more time points (to show trends) was included in the study.
More economically advanced countries tend to have lower birth rates.
When they no longer need 8 or 10 kids to help out on the farm, that's when folks tend to start thinking about ways not to have so many of them.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Um.
"lesser countries"?
I'm more worried about the current ongoing mass extinction than I am about climate change per se. (Yes, I realize that climate change is a major contributor to the mass extinction). Sea level rise is going to be catastrophic, but not an existential problem for human civilization. But our agriculture depends on a lot of non-human species (bees, for example). An agricultural collapse brought on by a combination of climate change and mass extinction would be an existential threat to humanity.
Yeah, that's more than a bit of exaggeration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
WWF has been accused by the campaigner Corporate Watch of being too close to businesses to campaign objectively.[31][32] WWF claims partnering with corporations such as Coca-Cola, Lafarge, Carlos Slim's and IKEA will reduce their effect on the environment.[33] WWF received €56 million (US$80 million) from corporations in 2010 (an 8% increase in support from corporations compared to 2009), accounting for 11% of total revenue for the year.[3]
11% is not insignificant, but it's not at the level of 'greenwashing their projects' of influence.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Actually, I think it's probably about the time they realize that they could afford another kid or they could afford a big-screen TV. IMHO a big-screen TV is the ultimate birth-control device.
Leaving aside the usual mindless cant about "government-subsidized litters" and other duckspeak assertions that are either no longer true or never were, there was actually a reverse baby-boom during the Reagan years to the extent that there are something like 3 million fewer people in the 19-40 age bracket right now than there was a decade ago or something along those lines.
In fact, if Trump builds his wall, the current US population growth rate would suffer the same fate as countries such as Japan, Italy and Russia, where the population is shrinking at a rate that they find alarming. Only the immigrants have kept the overall US population growing.
What about the fact that species die out all the time?
Wow, the level of ignorance here is ... astounding.
It's not species dying that's the issue. It's the *rate* that they're dying that's the issue.
I know that may be too difficult for you to understand, but go look here and learn:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Maybe if you read the article, seeing as how it does not claim "all of them"
"Human activity, including habitat loss, wildlife trade, pollution and climate change contributed to the declines."
And since when was the BBC World News a clickbait site? Seriously you make fucking ridiculous claims for someone who obviously never even bothered to learn anything more then they think they know.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Um.
"lesser countries"?
Does the concept of ranking things bother you? Do you feel every country should be ranked the same, just to be more fair? Why, if I may ask? What is a country to you, other than just an administrative division of land with some local rules? Are you some kind of nationalist?
Countries like the US or most places in Europe are objectively better places to live than most countries in Africa. It's why so many people want to migrate there.
Actually, yes. Humanity was at least partially responsible for a lot of the megafauna of the wildlife going extinct.
We wiped out lots of large animals already and now we're working on the smaller ones.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch