Slashdot Mirror
Era of 'Biological Annihilation' Is Underway, Scientists Warn (theguardian.com)
Tatiana Schlossberg reports via The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled, alternate source): From the common barn swallow to the exotic giraffe, thousands of animal species are in precipitous decline, a sign that an irreversible era of mass extinction is underway, new research finds. The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calls the current decline in animal populations a "global epidemic" and part of the "ongoing sixth mass extinction" caused in large measure by human destruction of animal habitats. The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena. Dr. Ceballos emphasized that he and his co-authors, Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo, both professors at Stanford University, are not alarmists, but are using scientific data to back up their assertions that significant population decline and possible mass extinction of species all over the world may be imminent, and that both have been underestimated by many other scientists. The study's authors looked at reductions in a species' range -- a result of factors like habitat degradation, pollution and climate change, among others -- and extrapolated from that how many populations have been lost or are in decline, a method that they said is used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. They found that about 30 percent of all land vertebrates -- mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians -- are experiencing declines and local population losses. In most parts of the world, mammal populations are losing 70 percent of their members because of habitat loss.
Earth will survive. If we are dumb enough to destroy everything, then maybe a more intelligent lifeform will thrive. Or if we do not get entirely extinct, Darwinism will be the rule once again. Only the best will survive. Only those who can adapt.
I almost wallopped him one when he ate my pet dodo bird, because those really are hard to come by. But I was too busy scaling the coelacanth I had caught for lunch to notice when he made DeeDee his lunch.
What a horrible era we live in, when some species go extinct. It's such a rare thing we should take pictures so we can remember it longer. I was pretty sure that Darwin talked about this already, but he's dead and I can't ask him.
Paul Ehrlich ... not alarmist
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Looks like this piece of shit troll is still infatuated with creimer. I'm convinced that you're incredibly jealous of him and that's why you continue your obsession. Unfortunately for you, he's successful while you're a failed attempt at being a human being. I just wonder if you tell your family and friends about your harassment of creimer and if they know what a loser you are. Your parents must be awful people to raise a child like you.
Somehow I always knew it would end like this.
Humans are a natural phenomenon.
While the main efforts need to be made to conserve habitats, lower pollution, and stop over harvesting of animals, one thing is different this time around that provides some hope. De-extinction. More of an effort needs to be made to preserve as much tissue and DNA from existing threatened species and save them in a bank similar to how we already do with seeds. We are close to bringing back animals like the passenger pigeon but with proper samples and possibly living cell cultures this job is made much much easier. With advancements over the coming decades de-extinction will become a reality and a last hope for many species. Not just giving elephants a few mammoth genes, but nearly complete genomes will become possible. The specific information stored in DNA and the creatures it brings forth are a unique treasure of this planet within the visible universe, we have learned so much we never would have otherwise by reverse engineering them it boggles the mind, and in my opinion our most valuable resource.
until we extinct ourselves.
I bet 99.99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct.
It is perfectly normal for species to go extinct, that is how we get to the fittest species.
They haven't decided whether to call it the "Holocene extinction" or "Anthropocene extinction".
How about the Covfefecene extinction?
Table-ized A.I.
Humans = the ultimate form of pollution.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague.
Then go out and make some babies and quit bitching. Its not genocide when it's self inflicted by low birth rates. Not that i even care.
Some things really should die. Like your internet connection. Please drop this. Things get old.
Assuming we don't destroy the planet and ourselves first.
...omphaloskepsis often...
The Age of Animals is ending. The machines will replace them. We all know this, and are in fact working as fast as we can to make it happen. Why pretend otherwise?
In most parts of the world, mammal populations are losing 70 percent of their members because of habitat loss.
By losing 70% of their members, do they mean mammals are losing three legs out of four?
Anyway, going extinct due to habitat loss totally stupid. If those animals are going to die anyway due to "habitat loss", why don't we get in there, kill them first, and have a big BBQ?
Yes. The human presence has been destructive ... like a virus ...
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt. A big problem in the medical field.
And people adapt. You may have heard that we are becoming aware of our environmental impact. You may have heard that it is a matter of great concern in some circles. You may know that many people in many diverse fields of science and government and the private sector are taking vigorous action to correct our ignorant mistakes of the past.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Well I annihilate your mothers gash every night
He's successful? Please elaborate AC, that is definitely not cremier.
What I wish to know is what they propose to do to stop this from proceeding. I hear a lot about, Oh My God, but not what to do? My 2 cents ;)
A virus is really not an organism and it doesn't have higher consciousness to understand the consequences of its activities, we do, we choose to do what we do, we are quite different creatures than viruses in that regard.
I watched the Matrix seven times in a theater in the 3 weeks following the premier. That idea though, I thought about it enough to realize it is a nonsensical non starter. Humans do spread to an environment on the one hand, however on the other they do not leave, they modify the environment and make it liveable for very long periods of time. Any environment is constrained by the availability of resources but being in balance with all other systems and resources means not to progress forward at all, it means stagnation and stagnation kills just as well as consuming all of the resources does in the first place. Dinosaurs were supposedly 'in balance' and yet where are they? (don't say chickens, please.)
What is the virtue of being 'one' with the environment, what is the virtue of being 'in balance' with the 'natural order' of things? The natural order of things is being born and then dying, well I think that the natural order is crap, it is bullshit and the sooner we end this natural order crap the better.
Being in balance with the surrounding environment? I think not. I don't like balance and entropy, I say we must spice things up.
You can't handle the truth.
Yaknow, when you're quoting a genocidal slavemaster to support your argument, you're not really making a good point for your side. Just sayin'.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
thanks, trump!
Ah, thank you. Amongst Ehrlich's funny predictions
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." ..."
" I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate
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."
In 1968 he wrote "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." Well, you can argue about that one, since the population hadn't grown by 200 million in that timeframe, but now the populationis 800 million greater and don't look worse off than back then..
So great, in the opinion of his co-author Ehrlich isn't an alarmist. I'd call; him a hysterical headline grabber with a predictiveusefulness of zero.
So, what, humanity isn't a natural phenomena?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If there are no predator, herbivore multiply and will eat every greenerie available for example. Nature do not care for equilibrium, it cares only fir fitness to reproduction, and overwhelming an environment with offspring work well. It is only because prey are paired with predator that an equilibrium SEEM to be reached on small time scale. But look again on bigger time scale and you see the same, that species can go out of equilibrium, change environment sonetime for the worst, and there are period of extinction. That is why this is the sixth and not the first.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Yaknow, when you're quoting a genocidal slavemaster to support your argument, you're not really making a good point for your side. Just sayin'.
I had an argument? Pray tell me what would it be.
The AC post above me reminded me of that quote, so I posted it.
Oh, and that would be a *fictional* genocidal slavemaster, from a movie meant to entertain.
Not the same AC but I'd say "success" in this instance means he has not stopped posting here and has shown composure in the face of attack. Pride is a worthy thing to hold on to. Are you proud of your actions against him?
It's a fun quote delivered by a good actor, but I hope you don't take it as something intelligent. With the exception of some species of island birds (Watch "Parrots, The Universe, and Everything"), humans are actually one of the only species that avoids explosive population growth. Incidentally, that video is good viewing for anyone who thinks high mortality rates are the only way to control reproduction in safe environments. It's the nonhuman mammals that become invasive. Try googling "mouse plague" for starters. Now THAT'S a mammalian virus! You can argue that humans cause species invasions, but that's still just transportation; everything thereafter is natural behavior in a temporarily favorable environment.
It's a fun quote delivered by a good actor
Which was the sole reason for its inclusion.
The whole point of this story is that humans are evil exterminating monsters. Quoting a genocidal slavemaster really doesn't help.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I wonder if those have considered have noted how the highest fall first and hardest.
even within a species.
not quite the same, but 1789. come to mind.
I got Amazon Dot. Where are my cock eggs?
Is this the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted humans would be reduced to cannibalism by the 1990's ?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06...
https://www.masterresource.org...
These guys are pseudo-religious nutters with their repeated doomsday predictions. Life has never been as good as it is today, but their myopic perspective and toxic personalities prevents them from seeing how good life is today compared to any other time in the past.
Smart Slashdotters can also see how good things are compared to the past, and how bright the future can be if we work towards making greater scientific and technological progress. Leave the quasi-religious eschatons to their 'sky is falling' narratives.
As foretold by Methus- I mean, George Carlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Some species will take advantage of this new world, some won't. Opportunistic species will take over, whether it be slime in the ocean, or mosquitoes on land. Viruses are primed to hit hard with all of the meat on the planet. We are just in a period of massive flux. What shakes out may very well be less people, with a lot of technology.
Thank you thank you you seem like a nice guy would you mind meeting with me at the YMCA?
-cremier
Fresh of the press buy my new ebook! https://www.bol.com/nl/p/the-g...
That's cool, that's cool. I just worry about the influence of such things sometimes. I think there must have been cases of kids growing up with The Prime Directive and going on to make policy decisions that allowed entire peoples to be erased. Like maybe they took the very well meaning anti-colonial message and turned it into something that isolates indigenous peoples from potential help while doing nothing to protect them from those who are more rapacious. Or even worse if they accepted the later interpretations, which discard the fear of colonialism and literally argue it's better for a people to "die pure". As if a culture's 'purity' were somehow more precious than the combined lives of every single person within it. I dunno, maybe I overthink or underthink this stuff.
Can we stop posting the exaggerated climate change and mass extinction crap that causes scientists to lose credibility with the public because of a few irresponsible people?
TFS lost all credibility with me when it described Paul Ehrlich as "not an alarmist". This is the guy who famously predicted that human civilization would collapse in the 1980s, and that was the "best case" scenario.
This. So much this.
But if we could stop using pesticides that would be great too.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague.
(Agent Smith then proceeds to make billions of copies of himself)
It is not pride but delusional narcissism which compels creimer to believe he is a winner at life, while he spends all of his days desperately seeking the attention of online bullies who taunt and harass him.
The population bomb author https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Even though his predictions overshot, he was predicting 20 years into the future- as we all know a risky thing to do. In some ways, HE WAS NOT WRONG. Global warming is exacerbated by overpopulation, animal habitat loss, pollution, traffic congestion, all exacerbated by overpopulation.
So why should you thank him? Because of his alarms, some people took action to control population, most significantly China. Without that action back then things would be even worse than they are now.
He told me so. MAGA!
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt.
If being pedantic, the plural of virus is virus. It's a group noun like "slime" (it actually means slime in Latin), "money" and "people", which all lack a singular. You should only say "viruses" for the same reasons you'd say "slimes", "monies" and "peoples", i.e. only to refer to multiples of separate groups. Which is rarely needed.
In common parlor, "viruses" is what's used as the plural.
But if you otherwise use plurals like "fora", "octopodes" and "aquaria", by all means use "virus" as a plural too.
I'll applaud your effort, futile as it may be.
Actually the correct term is "Invasive Species"
And the heroes of the political correctness revolution like Naomi Klein can't spit the word "overpopulation" out of their mouth. It dilutes the dogma of totalitarian communism, their only solution.
If the human race does not move in to space WE will go extinct.
Wow! Someone finally finished the jurassic park the lost world. Good. For. Them.
RIP Michael Crichton
"Human beings are so destructive," Malcolm said. "I sometimes think we're a kind of plague, that will scrub the earth clean. We destroy things so well that I sometimes think, maybe that's our function. Maybe every few eons, some animal comes along that kills off the rest of the world, clears the decks, and lets evolution proceed to its next phase."
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
-- Agent Smith
Remember WHERE and WHO is reproducing at an alarming pace. Just a hint: Not first world countries.
Depends if you add a "WHEN" question, then you hint gets completely wrong.
When meds and industrial agriculture where developed in what you now consider "First world countries", those pesky westerner also had a huge demographic explosion (because they kept their old habits of reproducing like rabbits on the ground that most of their children won't even reach adulthood).
But eventually we got wiser and adapted.
And the same adaptation is currently happening in nearly most of these other countries you allude to. We'll never reach the initially predicted 25 billions.
It's called DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION, and it's actually a thing, whether or not it surprise your bigoted xenophobic view of the world and all the people who happen to be different than you.
Another hint: If first world countries stopped sending food and meds there, the population growth would return to cabal limits.
Another hint: if we stopped selling food and meds to you, you'll probably turn into a raving survivalist cannibal savage in no time.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
There is no shortage of food.
Depends on how you consider the details :
- Indeed, there's no shortage of food, if your target is just to feed the population and keep it alive.
The planet can more or less roughly procude enough food to keep everyone alive.
We *currently* are not at risk of becoming Soylent Green movie.
- BUT if every single human being decided to eat as much (both in terms of volume, caloric intake, composition (meat vs. veggies), etc.) as the typical westerner, and use as much resource for everything else, you'd need about 3 planets earth worth of production to sustain the current population at that train of life.
GMOs only solve the cash problems of some corporations.
Which is exactly the topmost reason why I'm against GMO.
I'm not fundamentally against genetic tweaking (common, I'm working in lifescience research. I should pretty well know that we've been doing tweaking since the beginning of agriculture - just with way more lower tech tools. But one can see the difference between modern crops and their closest wild relatives).
I'm fundamentally against what is essentially a lock-in business by companies that managed to bring out the worst of IP rights.
(Patents on life ? Common. That's a much against the fundamental idea of patents as you can be).
(Not to mention that over relying on the few commercially available GMO crops would increase the risks of monoculture).
In short : I'm not against GMO per se, I am against all the shit that current GMO companies are doing.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Don't fool yourself, we are still accelerating. "Many people" think we should change, but they don't have the power to make us change. The world is driven by short term and short range economic factors, not by wisdom and awareness of the global consequences.
Anyway, the most urgent problem is population growth, and it's hard to change that. It is estimated that it will stop by itself soon, we're still in a transition phase. I hope it's true, but I'm not convinced. I'm afraid many species will still die before we stabilize.
If being pedantic,
Oh, yes...
You should only say "viruses" for the same reasons you'd say "slimes", "monies" and "peoples", i.e. only to refer to multiples of separate groups. Which is rarely needed.
What? Rarely needed?
In common parlor, "viruses" is what's used as the plural.
"I study viruses."
"I caught some virus."
Does some slang (which, where?) truly use:
"I caught some viruses?"
Off-hand, I can't recall ever hearing that.
In what language is "person" not a singular form of "people?" Not only that, there also exists proper usages for "peoples" and "persons."
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt.
If being pedantic, the plural of virus is virus. It's a group noun like "slime" (it actually means slime in Latin), "money" and "people", which all lack a singular. You should only say "viruses" for the same reasons you'd say "slimes", "monies" and "peoples", i.e. only to refer to multiples of separate groups. Which is rarely needed.
In common parlor, "viruses" is what's used as the plural.
But if you otherwise use plurals like "fora", "octopodes" and "aquaria", by all means use "virus" as a plural too.
I'll applaud your effort, futile as it may be.
Good post, succinct and informative, but I can't help but wonder if you're completely correct in all your assertions and word usage:
(1) If people lacks a singular then what is the plural of person? Sure, you can use persons but I'm going to suggest there's an alternative...
(2) Are you sure you intended to use parlor, and not parlance? /pedantry
You need a PhD to understand how dozens of strip malls and endless home plans and urban sprawl slaughter everything ?
Um, kinda obvious humans are exterminating all life on Earth to everyone with eyes and a brain...
I just moved from Houston, and the squirrels there seem to be thriving just fine.
> Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Y
"Instinctively develops" such a relationship? I'd say "no". Many mammals, introduced to new environment, have no means to make such accommodation and devastate ecosystems. A very classic example is the introduction of rabbits to Australia's ecosystem: others include the introduction of goats almost anywhere, since goats are notorious for cropping plants much closer to the root and destroying the plant parts of ecosystems.
The idea that all mammals "develop a natural equilibrium" ignores the cycles of population growth and decline of simple predator/prey relationships, like the well analyzed one between wolves and rabbits described at https://stanford.edu/~ajspakow... . These equilibria don't require instinct, nor does there seem to be "insinct" involved. They only require negative feedback from the environment.
"From the common barn swallow to.."
Stop right there, here's a shovel, start cleaning the poop up in my barn from the 4-5 families of swallows living on the light fixtures.
Oh yes, the unoriginal comparison of humans to a virus.
If by natural equilibrium you mean having predators keep population under control, then I guess you have a point. However, if you introduce an animal, mammal or not, into an area that contains no natural predators, then they will multiply and multiply until their food source is exhausted and they either all die off or enough die off that the rest can manage to survive. As humans, we don't really have many natural predators left but we have intelligence, some more than others, and we are adapting. Adaptation takes time.
Yes. The human presence has been destructive ... like a virus ...
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt. A big problem in the medical field.
And people adapt. You may have heard that we are becoming aware of our environmental impact. You may have heard that it is a matter of great concern in some circles. You may know that many people in many diverse fields of science and government and the private sector are taking vigorous action to correct our ignorant mistakes of the past.
Knowing about something, and fucking doing something about it, are worlds apart. Greed doesn't give a fuck about anything but Greed. Those "circles" will not be heard no matter what. The continued poisoning of our planet, and governments who would rather support Greed above everything else, prove this.
The human species will ultimately learn. Unfortunately, it will be the hard way.
I’ve found this reasoning specious ever since it was part of a George Carlin skit. The Earth is essentially a large rock that happens to have a thin coat of delicate living goo on it. The rock of course will go on. Now if that thin goo is reduced to just some kind of primitive microbial mat, well then yes the Earth and life has gone on, and evolution will kick in to start the climb again. But the whole “Earth will go on” statement seems to imply Earth and its ecosystem are just too big to fail or that it doesn’t matter that it is no longer habitable by humans, all that matters is somehow, some form of life be here and start evolving again. How about we care about the all the life that is here now, both animal and human?
Letter To Iran
Cancer rates are also SKYROCKETING!!! Not because more people are getting cancer, but because of better diagnostic coverage, better discipline in people getting checkups due to the ACA, and overall people paying closer attention to their health.
Species are going extinct, for sure. We are just more aware of it because we are paying closer attention than we ever have before. I imagine extinction rates are not actually going up that much, if at all, but because we have done so much more exploration for new species, implemented many many more monitoring programs, and in general have cared more about it, we are more aware of extinction when it does happen instead of simply not noticing it.
Humans = the ultimate form of pollution
In the sense of ultimate meaning final or last or most recent, sure. But not in the sense of best or greatest - in my opinion that honor should go to the photosynthesizing plants, starting with cyanobacteria, that pumped tremendous amounts of oxygen into the air, fundamentally changing the preferred biological processes for living on Earth. (Of course this also depends on what one defines as 'pollution.') Humans are altering climate and geologic features, and thereby changing coastlines and what plants and animals live where, but at the moment at least it doesn't appear that we're changing the molecular composition of the air, water and land enough force life to adopt fundamentally new chemical processes to survive. (Although it'd be ironic if our actions were to, say, alter the acidity of the oceans enough to kill off a significant portion of the oxygen-producing life in it that the atmosphere over time becomes difficult to breathe by humans...)
Yes, because the fact that 4 or 5 families of swallows have had to make your barn their home because you destroyed their normal habitat to build it, certainly means that swallows aren't under any stress at all.
Better than another US politics or letter agency article where 150 Putinbots come out of the woodworks to spout their talking points, er, opinions.
I have read numerous anthropological and sociopolitical papers that suggest quite convincingly that the Earth with its natural level of resources can comfortably support, at most, 1 billion people or so.
Beyond that, competition for resources leads to what we are seeing today: the mass slaughter of all life on Earth by Human Greed.
Fixing this problem requires hard choices. But, the choice that we have to make is the voluntary cessation of reproductive maintenance of the population. It will be an economic disaster, as 6/7ths of all of the production capital currently deployed will become useless. However, it must be done.
There have been many suggestions, but the one that makes the most sense and is the most fair is simple: mandatory sterilization of any human being that has produced one offspring. No allowances for race, class, creed, wealth, intelligence, or anything like that - just a blanket, uniform, universally enforced program.
The population needs to be halved three times, so the goal of 1 billion could be accomplished in three generations. and the Earth will be far better off.
The problem here is that the ruling elite will never go along with it, as they would endeavor to exempt themselves and their wealthy brethren from the rules, as they always, invariably do.
One day, however, massive reductions in Human population are GOING to happen. We can choose to control it, or we can allow it to happen in an uncontrolled way. Either way, though, the Earth is already at the brink of resource starvation, and when we hit the wall, there is going to be immediate global conflict that results in massive, uncontrolled casualty.
"As it turned out," some guy wrote in 2128, "none of any of this mattered as computerized DNA analysis was soon to let children construct their own life forms while growing up in preparation for their unlimited lifespans, watching as robots cleaned up the environment and harvested untold archaeological data from the time from landfills."
"What if those scientists and their politicians had succeeded?" asked a child, nearly in tears.
"They'd have slowed technological advancement needlessly by applying well-meaning but burdensome regulations that had the net effect of being similar to the burden corrupt governments and mafia organizations have on business, where few people invest because of the up front bribery burden and, if they manage to succeed, end up having to continue massive kickbacks on the success."
"How could they get away with this?"
"They had a number of true believers, who tried their best to suppress oppositional speech, for example, by downmodding posts on various BBS systems in an attempt to hide opinions."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I wonder if they will use that line in the remake...?
*Using Giorgio Tsoukalos hair style*
"I'm not an alarmist
but this is alarming"
First make the all the mosquito species extinct please...I have no words to describe their disaster value apart from their whining nuisance value.
He's successful? Please elaborate AC, that is definitely not cremier.
"The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena." Why are humans not considered a natural phenomena?
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
It is not pride but delusional narcissism which compels creimer to believe he is a winner at life [...]
I am a winner in life. Your unwillingness to accept that is inconsequential.
[...] he spends all of his days desperately seeking the attention of online bullies who taunt and harass him.
I find the 14-year-old wankers on Slashdot to be amusing.
Ehrlich bungled some predictions but with the general message he was not wrong and - this is key - he called for action on population when it could have the most effect back in the 70s. At this point the damage is already done.
From TFS : "The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena."
Why are we acting like human's aren't natural? Yes it might be our fault that this is happening, but we as a species are a "natural phenomena". We're not some extra-dimensional beings or anything special. We're as much a part of nature as nature is a part of us. We just choose to abuse and ruin it for our own means. Not to say any other species that reached our level of intellect wouldn't naturally end up doing the same.
I tend to rant.
That's way worse than all the reversible ones.
Just stop it.
When people act like humans are so much different than other animals, it blows my mind.
Yes we're poisoned from birth with all this "want want want" bullshit. But naturally we are no different than other animals, and instinctively try to do the same. Those who don't, we know would die off within a week of "shit hitting the fan", but to flat out dump on the entire species as you are is just fucking stupid.
I tend to rant.
The money isn't there currently but the fact that they did not let them stop working in that direction is worthy of praise. Be strong and hang in there, NASA. Stay the course and I will certainly write my congressmen about funding.
On the other hand, why not try open sourcing design work.. I am absolutely sure you will find an extraordinary wealth of interested people offering ideas and assistance exploring them. Most will be unqualified but it will be an excellent learning experience inspiring a new generation of aerospace engineers. Some will be qualified and will do exceptional work at peer review, engineering calculations, secondary materials research, etc. And the enthusiasm at this site will illustrate the support the American people have for this project. Embrace it.
Matthew
Spanish:
persona (singular "la persona es")
personas (multiple singular "las personas son")
gente (group singular "la gente es", NOT "la gente son")
gentes (group plural "las gentes son")
"person" and "people" mean very different ideas in Spanish, (though at times they overlap due to incomplete education of the speaker). Imagine it like "multiple individuals in the street" vs. "the people of Australia". They are two different ideas.
Question: Is it the same in French/Italian/Romanian/Portuguese/Castellano?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Who told you this? Tony Robbins? Are you listening to 'Eye of the Tiger' between pudding cups
Another way to conceptualize the difference:
"various persons" is correct in Spanish whereas "various people" is kind of weird sounding. It may be correct in some circumstances but it's an odd thing to say.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Who told you this? Tony Robbins? Are you listening to 'Eye of the Tiger' between pudding cups
Not from the 14-year-old wankers on Slashdot.
Yeah, that is not the definition of success at all. Doesn't even sound a tiny bit desirable.
It does seem like a "convenient reinterpretation of a failed existence" though.
It does seem like a "convenient reinterpretation of a failed existence" though.
Only on Slashdot would having a job that pays the bills and a side business that brings in cash flow be considered a failure.
You really should sleep more, and not worry about the slashdot trolls as much as you do, granted I sometimes talk shit to you. but I at least let you know its me talking shit. However talking shit is one of my hobby's and I thoroughly enjoy doing it.. I guess you can say that was one of the poor kid activities that kept our brains busy. Either way 6 hours of sleep is not enough sleep if you have to be cognitive during the work day and produce. even if you can squeeze 45-60 extra minutes into that you should try it. And if you feel you cant sleep, try taking hit or two of weed, or an edible an hour before you want to go to sleep. will help a lot. And its legal where you're at fortunately for you.
yes, its a tv show.
much the same way orwell predicted? or asimov?
do you really enjoy the phrase '14yo wankers' or do you suffer from some kind of obesity-induced autism that compels you to say it as many times as possible
So, ALL of the mass extinction events are caused by natural phenomena.
Even if you are a creationist, you believe that we were created by the same force that created everything else in nature.
do you really enjoy the phrase '14yo wankers' or do you suffer from some kind of obesity-induced autism that compels you to say it as many times as possible
I was previously using "asshat" as a general description of my critics. But Eli the Computer Guy summed up in a recent video who my real critics are on Slashdot: the 14-year-old wankers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUcFStmtr7k
"mammal populations are losing 70 percent of their members because of habitat loss"
except I'll bet that there are more mammals today than last year. humans count too.
so it's really just that there is less mammal diversity. that's something else altogether.
and what of all of the animal species that prefer the new world climate? lowering the temperature, the pollution, and the acidity would set back the jellyfish population by decades.
So really, this is just an argument of preferring giraffes over jellyfish. So which ones do we eat, which ones clean our dirty oceans, and which ones look prettier?
Personally, I prefer it a little warmer. My country benefits immensely from global warming -- agriculture, tourism, and land. You in Florida have had your time in the sun. Now it's your turn to have the hostile seasons.
And what of solar power? Isn't hotter better? Sorry, that's the hole-in-the-ozone thing. I meant greenhouse effect. Isn't that good for plants? And therefore for agriculture? I like food. And hurricanes? Wind power, soon lightning power.
This planet has many deserts. Between arid-north, snowy south, and sandy middles, plenty of earth is hostile to humans. So isn't this just a shift? If you live at the equator, plan to move north in a generation or two. Florida will become as hot as jamaica. But virginia will become the new florida. And the arctic circle will become the new new york.
For a group of scientists looking to colonize the moon, and mars, global warming ought not seem so hostile by comparison.
Take away the slashdot and maybe you're not a failure. But there is definitely something wrong that you keep frequenting this place. Given how long you've been working, you're darn right you are a failure.
Slashdot exists to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for scripts to finish. Thank you for your participation!
Excuse me? 15 year-old. Got that? 15 year-old.
While it is human to worry about things that affect us in the present like net neutrality (I am very very concerned about it myself) and the like, it is too easy to miss the big picture. If the planet loses half its species in the next few decades, we are what you call "completely fucked". I send my donations to anything that will help preserve nature because, well, it eventually affects every other thing with a very long term effect.
not worry about the slashdot trolls as much as you do
I find the 14-year-old wankers to be amusing. That some of them call themselves men and have children is more worrisome.
Either way 6 hours of sleep is not enough sleep if you have to be cognitive during the work day and produce.
I've always gotten six hours of sleep. My late father who got up at 5:30AM to go to work for 50 years always slept six hours.
Good, good, all is going according to His Plan; the Apocalypse is not far off, now. 'He' will return to us soon, and shortly thereafter the Faithful will be taken Home, and we can leave this terrible Earth behind.
Assholes.
Gonna be honest, creimer - this sounds like a barely-getting-by existence.
Let's look at the same set of facts through a different filter:
- You have to get up ridiculously early to get to your shitty job;
- You get up 2.5 hours before you're expected to arrive at work, because you have to take shitty public transit in the Bay Area, which is expensive and crowded;
- You spend your "work" days dicking around on Slashdot;
- You spend your "free" time dicking around on Slashdot, and burn hours and days and weeks of your free time for a few dollars;
- You have to be in bed by 10:30 pm because you have to wake up again to do it all over again the next day.
That existence sounds enervating, and dispiriting.
Here's how I'd frame success:
Wake up at 7 am next to beautiful wife, in peaceful, quiet suburban home surrounded by greenery. Spend the next hour and a half having breakfast with the wife, playing with the baby. Arrive at work in home office by 8:45, spend day solving complex engineering problems for great salary. Work until about 5:30 pm, with a few short breaks for lunch, coffee, playtime with baby. Spend a few hours with wife & baby, then put baby to bed. Spend another hour checking emails & doing a bit of work, then workout, then make dinner with the wife and spend time watching a movie, talking, reading, or engaging in other activities that enrich the body, mind, and spirit. Go to bed around 11:30, make love, fall asleep next to the woman I love, contented, happy, and loved.
Now, those specific elements may not be for everyone - some people like living in the city, some people aren't interested in children, and some people won't want to get married - but slaving away during all your waking hours for crummy pay while staving off trolling imbeciles on Slashdot seems like a curious definition of success.
Those fiction books aren't necessarily predictions of what will happen (though they can be if that was the author's intent).
The reporter, Tatiana Schossberg, is Caroline Kennedy's daughter, possibly having some relationship to why she has a job at the NY Times. Her NY Times reports have generally been extremely biased and cherry-picked in reporting on environmental issues. Although she reports on "science," her degrees are in history. She is 27 years old.
You have to get up ridiculously early to get to your shitty job;
My father got up at 5:30AM to go to work for 50 years. He stopped working six weeks before he died at 75 from terminal throat cancer.
You get up 2.5 hours before you're expected to arrive at work, because you have to take shitty public transit in the Bay Area, which is expensive and crowded;
The alternative is to spend 3+ hours driving in traffic. I spend an hour each way taking the express bus, reading The Wall Street Journal in the morning and an ebook on the way home. If you don't arrive at my job by 7:30AM, you won't get a parking spot and street parking sucks.
You spend your "work" days dicking around on Slashdot;
While attending three meetings and two training sessions that didn't apply to me at my regular job yesterday, and responding to email notifications from Slashdot while redoing YouTube thumbnails for a client last night.
and burn hours and days and weeks of your free time for a few dollars;
I love how everyone lowball the numbers that they know nothing about. We went from half-cents to pennies to dollars over the last three months
You have to be in bed by 10:30 pm because you have to wake up again to do it all over again the next day.
I look forward to every new day because that's life.
Were are doomed.
Era of 'Biological Annihilation' Is Underway
possible mass extinction of species all over the world may be imminent
So let me get this straight. It is possible that mass extinction may be imminent (meaning: it is not happening now, and we're not sure it will). Thus we have biological annihilation already underway. Somehow those two don't quite align... Methinks the headline isn't just clickbait, but outright #FakeNews?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The planet is in flux, whenever things change there are winners and there are losers, that is part of the concept called natural selection.
"The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena."
So that implies that the human species isn't natural to this planet?
Everything humans do is 'natural' since we are children of this planet like all the other living things on this planet.
Species that modify the environment around them are not new and humans are not unique in doing that. The scale might be bigger than other species, but there is no proof that we are the only species in the history of the planet that has been able to change it on the scale you see today.
To say that other species don't destroy the environment isn't true. An example is Locus plagues, they kill everything in their path, literally. And the forests, the savanna's the oceans are modified drastically by the species that live there. Hell, even the plant's change the environment around them.
I refuse to take any responsibility for species that don't survive, can't cope and die off due to their lack of ability to adapt. It is THEIR responsibility to change with the times, to progress and evolve, not my responsibility to make them change.
This extinction is a natural phenomenon too. How are we special? Because we're God's chosen ones? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, give me a break, this guy has been wrong for the last 50 years. He's always predicting the next catastrophe that does not come because he has no respect for technology and the ability of humanity to solve problems. Instead, he started back in 1968 with idiotic statements like this:
"We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control."
There's caring about the ecology of the planet and then there's eco-fascists. He's the latter.
Virii was the proper plural of viruses for generations. It died out with the rise of the term "computer-virsuses" and massive misuse in the early 90's. That's language, always changing and nothing exact. With most changes, the previous version is often considered acceptable for a hundred years or more (he, one, they, someone, them, they again for pronouns), so goes virii.
Im not saying I don't do the same, but its still not healthy. You and your father may be 100% different though because your mother also had a part in it.
If it is caused by man, then explain why BEFORE man, many species have come and gone. And even if man were NOT here, many species will go. More crap to stir up the government educated lDIOTS that can't think for themselves, but continue to spout 30 second sound bites...because that is all they know.
And you got up an hour earlier, to go to a shittier job, and you'll work right up until you die from that massive coronary you're brewing up. Congratulations, that's real success right there!
Or, you could leave the ridiculously overpriced area you currently live in, and go somewhere where your pay rate would allow you to have a decent lifestyle that doesn't require you to spend hours every day commuting to a shitty job. Also - if you take the bus, why is parking at your workplace relevant? You could just as easily take the bus and show up at 9 am, since presumably you're not parking the bus, and while large, I find it difficult to believe that you require an entire parking space to park your ass.
So you let people waste your time with pointless meetings and training sessions at your work, instead of doing productive things. And then you think that responding to trolls on Slashdot is somehow a mark of success and productivity. Gotcha.
These are your own claims:
- Averaging ~ $27 a month in advertising revenues.
- Selling ~ $60 worth of ebooks per year.
- Working on your "side business" every day, from when you get home, until you go to bed at 10:30 pm.
That means you're pouring vast amounts of time and energy into this work, and you're getting a few dollars in return. Again - these are YOUR numbers that you've claimed, not my estimates.
Being stuck on a shitty, dead-end treadmill is what you think of as life? That's a pretty weak definition of success, creimer.
You and your father may be 100% different though because your mother also had a part in it.
The older I get the more I become my father. Fortunately, I watched my father get old so I know what to prepare for. As for my late mother, she was an alcoholic, slept all the time and a mean drunk when awake.
- Averaging ~ $27 a month in advertising revenues.
Made $150 in advertising revenues from Slashdot last month. The average for the past quarter was $66.66.
Selling ~ $60 worth of ebooks per year.
That's interesting number I don't recognize. Citation, please?
Working on your "side business" every day, from when you get home, until you go to bed at 10:30 pm.
Correct.
Being stuck on a shitty, dead-end treadmill is what you think of as life?
I'm not the type that comes home, watches TV and drink beers after work. I haven't watched TV in 25 years and it takes me six months to drank a six-pack. I prefer the entrepreneur lifestyle instead.
Paul Ehrlich is also the person who, when it looked like Pons and Fleishmann were really on to something, and clean, nearly free fusion power was going to be running everything on the planet, wrote an article for the newspapers about how this was a complete disaster. In his words "Like giving a machine gun to a retarded child."
I have no use for completely anti-human "philosophers" like Ehrlich. He may know a lot about butterflies, but outside his narrow area of expertise, he's a moron.
So in 3 months, you made $66. An average of $22 per month. Assuming you spend ONLY 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, on your "side business," you're making about 50 cents an hour from your side business. If you spend more than 2 hours a night, your rate goes down from there. Even if you're making equivalent rates from all of your claimed 30 revenue streams (and we all know you're not), that's an average of $15 an hour... at that rate, you might as well go work at McDonald's - it's easier, and the pay is comparable.
Nor am I. That doesn't mean I feel the need to fritter away 10% of my life for a few dollars a day. I leave work, spend time with my wife & kid, do creative projects (woodworking, music, and open source programming), do useful household upkeep, and a hundred other gratifying, rewarding things.
No, it's quite clear that you prefer being able to claim you're an entrepreneur without having to actually deliver on the actual successful business ventures of BEING an entrepreneur. Apparently, claims of being successful are as rewarding to you as actually being successful. What a curious little man.
So in 3 months, you made $66. An average of $22 per month.
Wrong, dumbass. The average was $66.66 per month. Multiply by three months in a quarter that's $200. An extra $200 that requires little effort on my part than posting a few dozen comments on Slashdot every day.
Even if you're making equivalent rates from all of your claimed 30 revenue streams (and we all know you're not) [...]
Where I don't provide information, you make up shit to fill in gaps and then lowball the results.
I leave work, spend time with my wife & kid, do creative projects (woodworking, music, and open source programming), do useful household upkeep, and a hundred other gratifying, rewarding things.
A lifestyle that I will probably never have. I don't dwell on what I don't have. I deal with what I do have. When God hands out lemons, I make lemonade and people get upset because I don't suck my lemons with salt and tequila like everyone else.
No, it's quite clear that you prefer being able to claim you're an entrepreneur without having to actually deliver on the actual successful business ventures of BEING an entrepreneur.
I've been in business for ten years now. People who don't believe they're successful TODAY won't be successful TOMORROW. I don't let doubters and naysayers dictate how I run my business.
Funny how you posted a "quote", but didn't put it in quotes or attribute a source or anything. To avoid confusion in the future, you should try using quotation marks around your quotes, or at least attribute the speaker/source.
It's just that someone as successful as you... shouldn't be spending most of his day replying to 14 year olds. Do you see any other successful people generating the amount of replies you are?
"I don't let doubters and naysayers dictate how I run my business."
Instead, you let all those ghosts and injuries from your past blind you to your reality.
Do you see any other successful people generating the amount of replies you are?
Slashdot exists to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for scripts to finish. That I get paid to make two dozen comments per day is a bonus.
Instead, you let all those ghosts and injuries from your past blind you to your reality.
Nothing stands in my way. The future is very bright.
whoosh.
you're arguing with a joke.
Virii has never been correct.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
"I study viruses."
"I caught some virus."
Does some slang (which, where?) truly use:
"I caught some viruses?"
Off-hand, I can't recall ever hearing that.
Possibly because there's little chance of anyone saying "I caught some virus" unless they mean "some virus" as singular?
But if someone looks at a microscope image, will they say "look at all the virus" or "look at all the viruses"? I fear that most would say the latter these days.
"Nothing stands in my way."
Indeed. Sadly, that's because there is nothing in front of you.
"The future is very bright."
The medication is kicking in.
If what you say were true, places that have been inhabited by humans would be depopulated wastelands. They aren't. Humans move into an area and stay in some form of dynamic equilibrium.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So much for the "secret and confidential" sales figures... You useless derelict.
So much for the "secret and confidential" sales figures...
I brandied about the Slashdot advertising revenue for months, as I previously told you when you ;ast complained about my "secret and confidential" sales figures.
brandied about ??? You fucking witless clown. You stupid, ignorant, blundering chunk of rancid lard.
"when you ;ast"
Uh oh, your fat stumpy fingers are getting in each other's way again! Temper temper, fat boy! There might not be TWO defibrillators within reach of your cage, err "cubicle"!
So, did they have to sling an industrial canvas hammock between structural beams for you to sit at your computer?
(1) If people lacks a singular then what is the plural of person? Sure, you can use persons but I'm going to suggest there's an alternative...
They are two different words, where one fulfils the lack of a singular for the other. Much like there is no singular for money, and we substitute words that may make sense in the context, like "coin" or "note". That doesn't make one a plural of the other.
Persons has a different meaning from people, much like coins has a different meaning from money.
John and Paul may be persons of interest.
Marxists and cobblers may be people of interest.
Inuits and Sami may be peoples of interest.
As for #2, you're right; I erroneously used a boutique word. :)
When I was young, not 40 years ago, an evening drive would involve endless bugs smashing into the windscreen, and a walk in the country would involve endless insect-eating birds singing from the hedgetops.
Nowadays, our farmers use insecticides. It is quiet out there. The Food Chain is as strong as its weakest link.
Virii was the proper plural of viruses for generations.
No, it wasn't. Viri (singlie i) exists, but means "men", "Virii" (double i) doesn't exist as a word, and never has. The first incorrect "virii" can be traced back to the 1970s.
The plural of virus is virus, or viruses/vira is you refer to multiple groups (like "peoples").
You forgot to write who or what you are amusing,,,
example:
Slashdot exists to keep me amuse the crowd while I'm waiting for scripts to finish running.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
A flattening out of the population isn't enough.
Well depending on what they eat, it could be enough (= if they dont all eat like westerner. otherwise you'll need 1-2 extra planets Earth just to feed everyone).
We need to get it down to a pre-explosion level and let other "species" reclaim a majority of the areas that we have expanded into in order stop the decline in biodiversity. There's nothing that indicates that that will happen.
...soon. There nothing that indicates that that will happen soon.
On the other hand, there are indicators that that will happen eventually :
in the developped western world, natality rate is falling under 2, sometime even under 1 (= not every couple have a kid at all).
The population of several european countries only growse due to immigration. Not to born babies.
As they progress along their demographic transition, all the countries will eventually lower the number of babies each couple makes.
And you'll eventually see negative population growth.
At least if we are still around by then.
If we've managed to wipe ourselves out by completely destroying the environment (and climate), then it's another story.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You lost me at "Paul Ehrlich is not an alarmist."
That would have killed the joke.
I look forward to every new day because that's life
That statement alone defines a successful life.
(virii?)
Nope.
viruses
Yep.
correct. this is not a place for janitors and white trash, so your measures of success are absolute failure compared to this group of people. and we are absolute failure to the big-corp ceos - which is why we are not invited to their forums, like your idiot thoughts are unwelcome with us. and the only 14 year olds here were in 1997. we're old and have surpassed your entire life's accomplishments 20 years ago.
Amusement for you is getting constantly shit on. Sad life.
We have predators? Pray tell, what exactly searches for humans to eat? Most act to protect territory or their violence is a direct result of human stupidity. We probably taste like shit anyway.
Our worst enemy is other humans.
We Anthropocene Enthusiasts know truth when we fabricate it.