Slashdot Mirror
More Than 75 Percent of Earth's Land Areas Are 'Broken,' Major Report Finds (vice.com)
Like a broken cell phone that can only text or take pictures, but not make a single call, more than 75 percent of the Earth's land areas have lost some or most of their functions, undermining the well-being of the 3.2 billion people that rely on them to produce food crops, provide clean water, control flooding and more. From a report: These once-productive lands have either become deserts, are polluted, or have been deforested and converted for unsustainable agricultural production. This is a major contributor to increased conflict and mass human migration, and left unchecked, could force as many as 700 million to migrate by 2050, according to the world's first comprehensive evidence-based assessment of land degradation, released today in MedellÃn, Colombia.
Land degradation -- including deforestation, soil erosion, and salinity and pollution of fresh water systems -- is also driving species to extinction and aggravating the effects of climate change, the report concludes. It was written by more than 100 leading experts from 45 countries for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES is the 'IPCC for biodiversity,' a scientific assessment of the status of non-human life that makes up the Earth's life support system.
Land degradation -- including deforestation, soil erosion, and salinity and pollution of fresh water systems -- is also driving species to extinction and aggravating the effects of climate change, the report concludes. It was written by more than 100 leading experts from 45 countries for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES is the 'IPCC for biodiversity,' a scientific assessment of the status of non-human life that makes up the Earth's life support system.
Can we please stop saying that anything that has any type of problem is "broken?"
There is no way you can really claim 75% of the Earth's land mass is "broken". That is insane, it would imply the world was starving and farms everywhere were no longer viable.
I'm imagining they reached this conclusion after declaring any bit of land they could find a candy wrapper or wandering plastic bag as "polluted".
But then it is the "IPCC for biodiversity", so that really says it all as far as how much stock you can place in the report.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's the end of the world yet again?
This type of fear-mongering is not helping anyone out. Too much wolf crying, and people won't believe, nor care, when something that actually has an impact is happening. Had we had this much noise back in the '80s, nobody would have bothered banning CFCs, just because people would consider the ozone hole as something that was something impossible to do anything about.
And cultures that desire only a male heir?
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
> "The UN-backed report underscores the urgent need for consumers, companies and governments to rein in excessive consumption – particularly of beef – and for farmers to draw back from conversions of forests and wetlands, according to the authors."
Land degradation threatens human wellbeing, major report warns
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-degradation-is-undermining-human-wellbeing-un-report-warns
In other news, 100% of IPCC scientists live in urban areas and have never visited a farm.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Of course the USA is only a small part part of the earth's land area.
Still, I agree: 75% seems like an overestimate.
Isn't that what bigotry is for? The poor.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Like a broken cell phone that can only text or take pictures, but not make a single call, more than 75 percent of the Earth's land areas have lost some or most of their functions, undermining the well-being of the 3.2 billion people that rely on them to produce food crops, provide clean water, control flooding and more.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not like a broken car, then it doesn't matter.
Japan, and much of Europe is already pretty much not having babies enough to replace the aging population - that is a large part of why some countries there are attempting to accept a lot of refugees.
The more advanced a country is, the more population growth declines, and eventually becomes negative. Breeding and overpopulation is the LAST thing you should be worried about. Worry quite a lot more about what happens when most economies are dependent on a larger base of young people to support an aging population, and those young people do not show up... If you think restless youth are bad just try angry elderly .
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The total costs will be hugely less than what we are spending to deal with the mess they are making.
Poor people use fuck all resources. The average 1st worlder uses at least 100x resources than the average 3rd worlder.
Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.
On average, one American consumes as much energy as
o 2 Japanese
o 6 Mexicans
o 13 Chinese
o 31 Indians
o 128 Bangladeshis
o 307 Tanzanians
o 370 Ethiopians
https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm
You jest, but don't be surprised if the vast majority have never been to "fly over country".
In fact, it is highly likely that these people would quickly starve should there be some catastrophe.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Wow, none of you actually read the underlying report.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, common sense says this is bollocks.
This https://www.umweltbundesamt.de... is a picture about the usage of area in Germany. Germany is a very densely populated country.
Blue is water, yellow is mining etc. in between settlements and traffic/streets/rails.
Dark green, about 30% woods. 50% light green is agriculture. Those two numbers are misleading as a wood has pretty special restrictions to be counted as a wood. So I would estimate it is more likely 40% woods and 40% agriculture, by a layman definition.
While we worldwide have erosion problems, e.g. in 3rd world countries like the central USA, and we have deforestation especially in south america and salt accumulation on fields especially in Africa, it is not really plausible that 75% of the landmass should be "damaged".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Agricultural practices that yield short term profits is not the same as feeding people.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's you're you pillock!
It's clear on the face of it that the underlying report can'tr possible support the headline/summary of the report.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
To make 75% even remotely true, it means that most places are completely corrupted and ruined.
No. Please re-read. Not everything is to one extreme or another. "have lost some or most of their functions" the key word there is "some". If once fertile virgin soil now requires amendments in order to be productive, that's a lost function. In the US this isn't a big deal, we normally use fertilizers and amendments in our agricultural practices. If you don't have these, then your going to have to use crop rotation and more land area as you let some of the land go fallow for one or two years. Local changes in climate (not to be confused with global climate change) can put people who use these more primitive methods of farming in a really desperate situation.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
He is right though. Popultion growth is the main driver of migration. The population grows in every country, the hunger becomes less and less. And they want to tell us that the food production is shrinking and driving migration? ...
I think these aid organisations are all unable to correct their world view, especially where they are actually causing problems.
A main driver of population growth is the reduction of child deaths
What? 'Your' is the word that makes you mad...I'm doing it right.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Many of the denial posts here seem to come from people who may think that a manicured and weed free lawn is 'natural'.
Like a broken cell phone that can only text or take pictures, but not make a single call, ...
You can make phone calls with a cell phone? And... talk... to people...?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What, you thought we weren't being attacked?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When you fly over the US, you see miles and miles of nice green farmland and everything looks fine. The problem is that that land has lost much of its topsoil and what is left has been poisoned with chemicals and the groundwater is depleted. From 30,000 feet it looks fine but when you look closely, not so good.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Of course not, because if they did that they might actually learn something.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Yeah, it's so polluted that you can only get harvests 5-10x as big as they were getting a century ago....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Good for the next few years but not for the next century.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Its worse than that.
They are classifying ANYTHING as broken.
They classify natural deserts as broken.
They classify natural mountains as broken
They classify ALL human farming (no matter how productive for how long) as broken.
As far as I can tell, its pretty much only natural untouched forests and jungle they consider to be not broken.
Interesting worldview, that..
Someone got a bit caught up in trying to rationalise a stupid-high number.
Which is why the comparison with the IPCC is rather appropriate. In both cases there’s a scientific study with bad (or even alarming) news, but a title and summary that aren’t supported by the study’s content, and are nothing short of politically motivated sensationalism. I just don’t get why true environmentalists would hurt their cause in this way by allowing such sensationalism to cast doubt on such studies... because the conclusions actually supported by the data are dire enough.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
"have lost some or most of their functions" the key word there is "some". If once fertile virgin soil now requires amendments in order to be productive, that's a lost function.
Well congrats for pointing out the weasel word that let's them make spurious claims while remaining technically true. But it doesn't change the fact that this is fear-mongering bullshit.
Put another way 75% of Earth is no longer pristine.
The article says that 75% of the land has lost at least one of its functions.
No, the report doesn't even say that. It says...
Less than 25% of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity.
The metric they are using is biodiversity and the assessment technique they are using estimates that most of the forcing function for a reduction in bio-diversity is human related climate change since the beginning of human existance (not actually direct human intervention) which is how they can presume impact for areas where humans have never visited (and get to 75%-90%)....
Consequently, if your metric is not biodiversity, or if your threshold is not "escaped substantial impact" since the beginning of human existence due to climate change or direct intervention, your mileage may vary...
The actual report states "land degradation now critical". Nowhere in the actual report does it use the term "broken". The writer at MOTHERBOARD.COM, Stephen Leahy used the word "broken" in his headline. Nor is there any asinine comparison to 3.2 billion people to cell phone use in the report.
https://www.ipbes.net/news/med...
nothing short of politically motivated sensationalism
No, you're making this political. The sensationalism is about getting clicks and money, not about politics.
That got flushed out in February of last year.
Here's a hint for a happier life: Don't read anything where the summary screams "bullshit".
Why would I bother to read anything based on an obvious lie like "75% of land is broken".
Now if someone somewhere wrote a better summary that actually made some sense, then I might be tempted to read the report. But as things stand I can be pretty sure (A) that will not happen and (B) the original report is very likely a complete waste of time (mine and theirs).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Overestimate? The word you are looking for is: lie.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Neither 75% nor "broken" appears in the media release
It says
"Media Release: Worsening Worldwide Land Degradation Now ‘Critical’, Undermining Well-Being of 3.2 Billion People"
"Less than 25% of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity – and by 2050, the IPBES experts estimate this will have fallen to less than 10%"
That's not remotely the same as what the Slashdot headline says
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Put another way 75% of Earth is no longer pristine.
Yeah, no big surprise there. Even the moorlands of Great Britain would have been forests some thousands of years ago before humans cleared them.
It's sensational journalism that isn't quite as exciting once you pick at the details a bit.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why can't it be about both? There's nothing more satisfying than padding your wallet and ego simultaneously.
Knowledge Brings Fear
If the underlying report is so different than the summary, then why did the summary get up-voted and on the /. home page? Because if the underlying report isn't so sensational, then no one will care, and thus no eyes drawn. So I guess it's the fault of those who read the summary and say "no freaking way that report can even be close to correct" and forgo the entire thing, rather than those who completely twisted and misrepresented the report. Or, you know, you could provide a quick sentence about WHY the summary was wrong...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And interestingly enough, the US is about 25% of the world GDP...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They also consider a farmer who harvests trees from a few acres and turns that land into productive farmland as making the land "losing some of its functions". It used to be forest, now it is farmland, we're doomed!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And front row seats what are the odds of that. Grab the popcorn, itll be a great show.
[($)]
All the FISH.... :)
[($)]
wouldn't we then be a virus?
[($)]
Fucking AC says what?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No they haven't, because the freakin' thing hasn't been released yet (source, about halfway down). All that's come out is a media release summary. If you put out a media release without the accompanying scientific report to support it, it's probably bullshit you don't want people to be able to call you out on.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Typical AC, build your own strawman to attack! It's not unexpected when 25% of the world's energy is consumed creating 25% of the world's GDP...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Will be self correcting.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Doing what right? Showing you're a bit thick?
And if push ever comes to shove, a famine can always be arranged. That is why I fear the oncoming civil war.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
What TFS is saying is that 75% of all cars leak oil, have less than perfect emissions, or other problems up to and including sitting on blocks in somebodies front yard. What TFA apparently is really saying, is that 25% of all cars are sitting unused on new car lots.
Read the report? I'm not convinced that most of them read the summary, let alone the article or the report...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
"Oh dear! 75% of the land surface isn't actually arable, or even habitable. Humans must have ruined it!"
I note that people who make these broad proclamations *never* have any sense of the scale of the planet. They see a hobby farm and think that's all of agriculture.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"you are bigotry attacks the poor"?
Where did you learn English? Especially contractions?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Ask him: If you fell off the edge of a flat Earth, to where do you fall? Ask him: If i fly a plane East in a straight line, will i be lost forever when i fly off the edge of the Earth, or will i eventually return right where i started, but from the West? Ask him: Are other planets flat? Like the moon, for example? Ask him: Why doesn't the ocean spill off? Ask him: What's underneath, on the other flat side? i'd love to hear his responses...
OOPS. Posted on the wrong story :-) ...Slashdot doesn't let us edit or delete. "It's in our backyard... it's in our front yard. Pollution and contamination are shortening all life. We're going to have to unite as a people and say 'no more'! We, the people, are going to have to put our thoughts together to save our planet here. We only have one water... one air... one Mother Earth." - Corbin Harney