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.
The point is they are dying out due to human activity. Activity which only grows as the population grows. Following this trend, we'll destroy the ecosystem before long and probably ourselves along with it. We can't prosper without a healthy ecosystem. There's no sense in unregulated growth.
I'm not saying there's any intentional bias here, I'm just curious and posing the question. If the data was collected from a any study with multiple data points on population... is there a control factor for whether studies including population data in general are more likely to occur on species that are dwindling? If a species has no population issues to begin with, is it likely to have a study?
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
Actually, a lot of religions DON'T promote fucking like rabbits. The Medieval Church, for one. You were simply supposed to go without UNLESS you were specifically attempting to conceive children. In fact, in some cases, even things like the rhythm method were condemned.
Fortunately back then, peasants needed lots of strong sons to work the farm and nobles have always been better at promoting "morality" than actually practicing it.