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.

12 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. The planet will survive by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The planet will survive by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The planet is a rock, I don't care if it survives unless it turns out that it is an intelligent rock. I care that we survive, or failing that that our successors survive. And I care that some of our art survives: some of the beauty we have brought into the universe should be remembered, for a time.

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
    2. Re:The planet will survive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Again this idiocy. There is no shortage of food. There is an excess of population growth and rampant capitalism. GMOs only solve the cash problems of some corporations.

  2. Re:This is a genuine tragedy. by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:This is a genuine tragedy. by swell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...
  4. Ehrlich the big mouth by ishmaelflood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ehrlich the big mouth by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..and yet he still gets government grants for research.

      This guy has been wrong again and again for 50 years, and he is still getting government funding, and his papers still pass peer review.

      Meanwhile the press is calling him "not an alarmist"

      Open your eyes people. Words are cheap.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  5. Re:This is a genuine tragedy. by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Many will die, some will survive by Arzaboa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Many will die, some will survive by skam240 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isnt a mass extinction event, it's "just a period of massive flux"?

      That's exactly what a mass extinction is, you're just rewording things to make them sound more pleasent.

      "It's not a tax cut for the wealthy, we're just reducing their taxes". How in keeping with the the times you are.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  7. Re:He emphasized by Troed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:He emphasized by skam240 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.