Slashdot Mirror
Humanity Has Wiped Out 60% of Animal Populations Since 1970 (theguardian.com)
Artem Tashkinov shares a report: The new estimate of the massacre of wildlife is made in a major report produced by WWF and involving 59 scientists from across the globe. It finds that the vast and growing consumption of food and resources by the global population is destroying the web of life, billions of years in the making, upon which human society ultimately depends for clean air, water and everything else. Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction, the first to be caused by a species -- Homo sapiens. Other recent analyses have revealed that humankind has destroyed 83% of all mammals and half of plants since the dawn of civilisation and that, even if the destruction were to end now, it would take 5-7 million years for the natural world to recover. Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF, said: "We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it."
Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent. https://www.ecowatch.com/bioma...
:wq!
Frogs have plenty of alternatives to mosquitoes, and mice have plenty of natural predators.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Logging companies aren't the ones destroying habitat. That's mostly from farming and ranching, and suburban growth.
Brazil just elected a president who wants to privatize even more of the Amazon, so expect the rate of deforestation there to increase from its current rate of six square miles per day.
Bugs are animals, and many of them are thriving on our leftovers...
Nope.
Bugs dying off too:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Better get used to it.
It's still a long slide to the bottom.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
Unfortunately they almost exclusively replant fast growing species like pine. They are planning for the next trip through that area in 20-30 years to cut down mature trees again. They hardly ever plant hardwoods and when they do it's only because they are forced to by state or local regulations. They will come through and cut down trees that take 50 to 70 years to reach maturity. Trees that are worth a ton of money because they take so long to grow. Then they plant cheap, fast growing pine to "replace" the hardwoods they cut. Even if they plant 10 pine trees for every hardwood they cut down it's still not a fair trade.
I'm glad they are planting more trees but don't pat them on the back. They have a financial incentive to plant a ton of evergreen trees. They will need something to cut down and process in the future. It has exactly zero to do with environmental stewardship and everything to do with future profits. The one and only reason companies in the US do anything that seems environmentally responsible is because they are either forced to do so by regulations or because they know if they don't they will go out of business since their won't be any trees left for them to cut down.
Hardwoods account for a very small portion of lumber sales precisely because they don't grow fast.
Pine forests are being replaced by Pine forests.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
AC is right. History teaches us, specifically the Four Pests Campaign , that eliminating "pest" species can end very poorly.
Pigs doubling in number isn't quite the same thing as 90 species of megafauna suddenly coming into existence at 10% the number of pigs.
We both know that.
Therefore we both know that you don't listen to the experts because they don't agree with what you believed beforehand. Has nothing to do with whether they're right.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Funny, but not factually accurate. The KT extinction event was just the start, it took thousands of years for the extinction of species to reach its peak. We are outpacing it by a fair clip.
The report, written for the general public is documented with 281 references. The Living Planet Index maintained by the WWF is backed with solid research, some of which is also linked to in the references here.
So no, this is not "pure speculation", and yes there are absolutely massive observed decreases.
Ignoring the science doesn't make it go away.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age