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.
until we extinct ourselves.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Quotes from Paul Ehrlich:
***
Yup, he is virtually the dictionary definition of alarmist, and yet...
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
An estimated 250 million preschool children are vitamin A deficient. An estimated 250,000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight. (WHO Vitamin A Deficiencies)
Well, he may have been a few years out, but, as unbelievable as it might seem, his numbers are in the right ball park. (I'm not really interested in any "rationale" for these figures, I'm just pointing them out)
Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollutionis certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
Again, maybe a few years out, (I say maybe because historical figures are both hard to find and considerably less reliable), but: "In new estimates released today, WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died - one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.
Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
Hmm, it almost feels like you're quoting this because you disagree with the premise. Are you suggesting that DDT (and many other chemicals, manufactured in large quantities during the last century, such as CFC's, tetra-ethyl lead, etc.) are not harmful to human health and do not reduce life expectancy?
Granted, his maths on life expectancy contained a rather basic mistake, but I'd say the principles he was warning about were, and are, valid.
In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
Yup, blatant exaggeration (scare-mongering, alarmism, call it what you will)! In reality rates of deforestation at the start of this century were around 5.4 million ha/yr with estimates giving around 1803 million ha of tropical forest globally in 2000. Assuming a constant rate of deforestation (a BIG assumption) this means we've only removed about 8% of global rainforest over 30 years. I'm a little more hesitant to pooh-pooh the 50% species loss figure because, while it sounds inconceivable, some species are not numerous, have very small ranges, and are very very 'fragile'. 50% biomass loss, not a chance, 50% of number of species ... unlikely but we have to admit the possibility, and that in itself should be cause enough for us to do something to prevent it (in fairness I think we,
>there is not enough time to get enough of humanity off the planet
Sure there is. If we discovered the Earth was doomed (say, a Mars-sized rock was headed our way but we had a few decades), we could (in theory) put a massive concrete cylinder in orbit, spin it for artificial gravity, build a city inside, have a few hundred years' worth of spares and replacement volatiles, and put a big-ass nuclear Orion drive on the back end and ship off a sustainable breeding population to an extra-solar planet.
> in order for it to survive.
Oh. Well, if you're going to be THAT picky... we probably need a couple of hundred years' worth of medical and environmental technology advancements if we expect to have great odds of surviving the trip, and non-zero odds of surviving at the destination.
I'm unsure whether you meant to claim that the numbers you gave supported him, but no, they really don't. Saying he's right on "principles" while being horribly wrong on the actual facts is the whole point. He claims the number X will happen REALLY SOON NOW - BE SCARED!, and X doesn't happen. ... and that's been the case throughout his whole career.
1) He did not mean soot from wood burning stoves in India/Africa with "smog" btw, that's where the millions of deaths due to pollution comes from. Electrify now! Doesn't matter if it's coal plants or solar for this.
2) Food supply has outstripped demand. Vitamin A deficiency is a real threat though, so make sure to hit the nearest anti-GMO protestor on his/her head since they're blocking golden rice.
3) DDT hadn't reduced life expectancy to 42 years. Neither has anything else. You can't be right "on principles" when you're so horribly wrong on the facts.
it's in my head
I'll just cut and paste my responce from a post just like yours posted above.
Well none of that rediculousness changes the fact that the population counts of most large mammals are crashing globally.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.