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."
I'm pretty sure we have known this for generations and could have taken action earlier. Unfortunately, there is no financial incentive to do so. In fact, the financial incentive is to do the opposite: clear land for farming, living, raw materials. This is the real threat to humanity: the destruction of continuous habitat and forests. But the focus is on "Climate Change" because we can implement carbon trading and taxes on it and "fix it".
I assume they mean 60% of species, not 60% total individuals of animals. Bugs are animals, and many of them are thriving on our leftovers, processing, and farming leftoves. We've spread ants around the globe. They already were there- but we've spread more invasive ones that have huge numbers in colonies.
Now, if we ever want to become 100% efficient as a species (meaning utilizing 100% of resources and not letting any skip through the cracks)- that would mean wiping out 100% of animals and making sure all resources go directly towards sustaining human life. If any animal can survive it means we're not using 100% of the resources. Thankfully, no one really wants to live in a 100% efficient world.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Get rid of mosquitoes, and the frogs starve to death. Get rid of rattlesnakes, and you're overrun by mice.
Yeah, well except 99 percent of the species that ever existed are extinct.
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!
...we screw it up. We get rid of harmless Dodos. We don't get rid of rattlesnakes or mosquitoes.
Allegedly, dodos tasted better than rattlers or mozzies.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
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.
Saved from whom?
We pushed away from factory farming to help the welfare of the animals. Maybe it is time to go back to those methods as well as taking other extreme measures to ensure the longevity of our own species?
I'm pretty sure the article is talking about wild animals. No one is concerned about the size of the population of pigs. We need more pigs, we grow more pigs.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Get rid of mosquitoes, and the frogs starve to death. Get rid of rattlesnakes, and you're overrun by mice.
This gets brought up every time, but I'm pretty sure that respectable authorities have said that mosquitoes aren't a crucial food source for anything. (yes, some things eat them, but nothing will starve if they went away)
Mother nature. Evolution. She's wiped out far more species than man has. Over 99.9% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct since life evolved on this planet.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolu...
So while man is inevitably wiping out some species due to our expansion and applied technologies, and at a more rapid rate, we are nonetheless far from the only threat to species' survival.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Basically, fish and frogs eat mosquito larvae, but they are omnivores and eat plenty of other things. The only animal that eats a lot of adult mosquitoes are bats, but they eat other bugs as well.
It's referring to biodiversity. You won't see much speciation in 5-10 years.
"According to Darwin Humanity Has Wiped Out 60% of Unsuccessful Animal Populations Since 1970"
TFTFY
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I'm pretty sure that respectable authorities have said that mosquitoes aren't a crucial food source for anything.
That's an answer to the wrong question. The question isn't whether things that can eat mosquitoes can eat other things. Of course they can eat other things. The question is whether the CURRENT populations of animals that prey on mosquitoes, and the species that prey on them, would remain stable absent mosquitoes.
To make an example, humans do not have to eat rice. There are lots of other foods we can eat. Now let's wave a magic wand and make rice disappear from the planet tomorrow. Continental-scale famine would the instant result.
The only animal that eats a lot of adult mosquitoes are bats, but they eat other bugs as well.
And dragonflies, and mosquito hawks. Here you are ready to wipe out mosquitoes with the firm belief that you have the understanding necessary to make an informed decision, and yet you don't even know about two common insects that prey upon mosquitoes. God help our species, because we were very obviously not intelligently designed.
Here is a brilliant XKCD chart illustrating this very thing.
Forest is being cut down to make room for for cattle grazing. the XKCD graphic above shows just how bad this situation is. Us humans outnumber ALL wild animal put together and out cattle outnumber us!
100 times as much water is used to create a lb of beef than a lb of crops! Producing 1 calorie of animal protein uses over 10 times as much fossil fuels as 1 calorie of plant protein!
I think in the long run the only chance we have is for us all to go vegan. It will save the animals and the planet and therefore us as well.
Cleerline
Are you saying that rice is a crucial food source for humans?
Maybe
Humanity has saved a lot more from extinction through conservation efforts than it has "wiped out". When will activists learn that such dishonest hyperbole is doing more harm to their causes than help?
Oh, so now we're just saying things? *acts surprised"
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
What does the World Wrestling Federation have to do with animals?
Have gnu, will travel.
Also there are several thousand different species of mosquitos. Not all of them bite humans, so realistically you just need to eliminate those that do (or the ones that feed on both humans and some other animal that carries viruses dangerous to humans) and you've solved a good part of the problem.
Here in Texas, the rattlesnakes are about the only predators that keep the mice and rat populations down. Coyotes assist, but the rodents are in the billions. Feral hogs are another major issue here. Coyotes cannot take them and the mountain lions and other large cats are only in certain areas. My father-in-law has so many wild hogs on his land (East Texas), that we could literally shoot them from dusk to dawn for a week straight and not really even put a dent in their population. They are highly destructive to crops, domestic farm stock, and irrigation areas. I tend not to shoot coyotes unless they are a nuisance, but we'll shoot hogs all day long. Their meat is nasty and most of them are unfit to eat. The foxes have largely been pushed out by the coyotes. And the deer... so many deer. If humans don't cull them, their predators cannot kill enough of them and quite a few end up starving to death in the winter because the hogs eat up all the acorns and other tree nuts.
Life vs humans. Humans are destruction to all life including themselves, limitations of scale, may make it seem otherwise, but that's just because we are still in play. Mid destruction. We won't quit overstepping until everything's dead including us. That's humans for you. Destructive intelligence.
100 times as much water is used to create a lb of beef than a lb of crops!
The steak tastes at least 1,000 times better than the lettuce leaf though, so it's worth it.
I think in the long run the only chance we have is for us all to go vegan.
Eventually we'll be able to grow meat in labs and it won't be nearly as expensive or have anywhere near the environmental impact. At that point, I don't see anyone being vegan unless they have some rare condition that necessitates that kind of diet.
Obligatory XKCD of that: https://xkcd.com/1338/
This space intentionally left blank
Vince McMahon is the chief executive at WWF, not some Tanya Steele who may not even be a real person.
PlanetVulkan.com
How many species have cats wiped out.
The first step to protecting a future for our grand kids is to recognize there is NOT a global solution. There are probably already to many people.
Population is the one driving factor. Everything else is a rounding error. Anyone who actually cares about the environment would be in favor of basically ending immigration. Limit agricultural exports and imports.
Here in the US we are essentially at the replacement rate in terms of birth rate. Stop letting new outsiders in. Deal with the not nearly as complex economic problem of having a flat population size as compared to growth beyond sustainability or population decline.
Let the rest of the worlds population 'naturally' adjust to the local carrying capacity of those places.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
That's BS.
We can do better than that! I have faith in humanity.
Hey look you are having trouble paying off your bills, well guess what you are fired. Because you couldn't pay off your bills with your job, you will have no change to your troubles without a job.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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..."
Smart guy like you making statements of fact on the internet should probably read a little about it first. Mosquito hawks, aka the crane fly don't prey on mosquitoes or their larvae.
Dragonflies do eat mosquitoes but it is not the main source of their diet. They are most active during the day and late afternoon. They are finding a place to rest for the night just about the time mosquitoes start to get active. There is not enough overlap in the two insects active times for dragonfly diets to rely on mosquitoes.
The consensus is that mosquitoes being 100% eradicated would have a minimal effect on any part of the insect or animal food chain. All of the things that prey on them would have plenty of other food sources around and wouldn't notice if one day there weren't any mosquitoes to eat.
So yes, I'm ready to wipe out mosquitoes and I do feel we have the understanding necessary to call it an informed decision. They are nothing more than a disease vector that is responsible for a large portion of the deaths to illness in human history.
It's their fault for being delicious.
Table-ized A.I.
Not only will we come up with new species but we'll resurrect useful extinct animals, just as we have been doing with plants. We'll correct imbalances such as the predatory purple urchins that are destroying kelp forests. We'll create fantastic creatures inspired by Dr. Seuss to amuse the children. We're gonna have some serious fun populating what's left of the natural world.
Remember that most species, the most important ones, are too small for human eyes to see. The magnificent rhinos, giraffes, tigers ... well they are pretty but have little to do with ecological balance. Try to get some perspective about what's really important.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Actually, no.
The Dodo was named "walgvogel" ("disgusting bird") by the Dutch because its flesh tasted awful. They wiped out the entire species because it was so easy (it feared no predators) and, er, just because.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
How would that help? Replacing hippies with morons will improve the health of Taco Bell and McDonald's but thats about it. You still get a dead planet.
We need a seventh the global population and we need that as a fixed ceiling. There aren't that many hippies and you lot can't be trusted. You haven't the courage to do the next right thing.
Besides, killing yourself increases entropy and reduces intelligence, precisely what you don't want. You want reduced entropy and increased intelligence.
I don't expect you to understand that. I do expect you to get to the point where you can.
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)
Getting rid of some species is even counter productive. Toxorhynchites is a mosquito that eats other mosquitoes but does not drink blood.
Humanity has saved a lot more from extinction through conservation efforts than it has "wiped out". When will activists learn that such dishonest hyperbole is doing more harm to their causes than help?
I saw a blurb the other day that only in North America and Southern Africa wildlife has increased in numbers in recent decades - both based on income and sustainable use provided by the hunting industry ("big huntin' " ?). Probably needs verification, which I don't have...
Are they the same wildlife as was there previously? For example, here foxes are pretty well gone but we have a huge population of non-native coyotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
There is a difference between a species that was no longer relevant to the ecological web going extinct and a species that was critical to the ecological web going extinct.
I want you to take those two groups of numbers and exclude the irrelevant. Then come back and tell me how they compare. Show your working.
Want a cheat sheet answer? Almost none of the naturally extinct species were relevant, so essentially that becomes zero. Almost all the animals humans have made extinct were relevant and were hunted to extinction precisely for that reason. So the 60% remains.
Sorry, you cannot compare apples and oranges unless you're making fruit salad.
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)
No, it really hasn't.
Humanity has saved precisely nothing, just as the mass-murdering German nurse currently on trial can't claim they saved some of their potential victims.
Back story: German nurse gets it into their head that they're a resuscitation genius, so murders 170 of their patients and tries to revive them to prove it. According to the news, they did succeed in reviving one.
Can they claim to be a hero in that one case? No.
Did they save a life? No, they simply avoided another count of murder.
Extinctions or near-misses entirely caused by humans are no different from the actions of the nurse. All humanity did was avoid another count of extinction.
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)
Those 99% of the species have gone extinct in the previous billion years. We are now talking about a period of time which is less than 0.000005%. I'm not sure Earth has ever witnessed such a rapid and currently irreversible extinction event.
As supposedly a great French princess once said, 'Then, let them eat cake".
In other words, yes... for about a third of the human population. Other food sources of crucial importance are various other cereals (especially wheat, rye and maize), various species of bean/legumes and some root vegetables, like potatoes. If any of them are magically waved away, major continental-scale famine (as GP said) would ensue. They aren't called 'staple foods' for nothing.
Actually, no.
The Dodo was named "walgvogel" ("disgusting bird") by the Dutch because its flesh tasted awful.
More awful than a spoonful of mosquitoes? That's the bar here.
100 times as much water is used to create a lb of beef than a lb of crops!
Your simplication is mostly wrong. The water requirements depend a lot on location and type of crop. Also you have to consider the type of water that's used. Rainwater that's falling out of the sky for free is a different than potable tap water, or ancient well water.
Producing 1 calorie of animal protein uses over 10 times as much fossil fuels as 1 calorie of plant protein!
Again, not true. There's a huge difference between protein content of different plant sources, as well as fossil fuel requirements. Very little fossil fuel is involved when you let a bunch of goats graze on grassy mountainside. A lot more is used when you grow cucumbers in a greenhouse.
I think in the long run the only chance we have is for us all to go vegan
Not at all. The optimal mix should at least include eating animals grazing on land that's not otherwise useful.
Mathematicians declare 1+1=2
Objectors declare mathematicians have vested interest
Sometimes, interested parties lie. Yes. Sometimes they tell the truth by accident, not intending to do so. And sometimes they are indeed being honest.
Is it a better use of time to be cynical or skeptical?
Skeptics need evidence, but will be persuaded by what they see (and not by what they don't).
Cynics don't want evidence and will never be persuaded. They don't want to be, and will move the goalposts to infinity to ensure it, if they have to.
Be a skeptic, not a cynic.
You don't have to be schooled, there won't be any significant new species forming between 1970 and now, so the maximum percentage of species must be all the ones we know went extinct divided by all the ones we know about now plus the ones that went extinct, all multiplied by 100.
We don't know about cleared land, loggers aren't known for tracking such things. So we use the biodiversity of rainforests as a guide for estimating unknown species that went extinct and unknown species total. That will give us a second percentage. The tundra has a lower species count and a lower extinction level, so we've a second lot of unknowns there. Add those to the rainforest totals to get a third percentage.
We now have a spread of three possible values. It's unlikely to be below the minimum, it's unlikely to be above the maximum, it's probably close to the figure between those, but it won't be exact.
Doesn't require any schooling. Just requires a skeptical, enquiring mind.
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)
Irrelevant.
Branches of the tree of life become irrelevant ant die off. That's natural and normal.
But that is not even remotely equivalent to taking an axe to the trunk or lopping off healthy branches to make way for the diseased.
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)
Here in Texas, the rattlesnakes are about the only predators that keep the mice and rat populations down. Coyotes assist, but the rodents are in the billions.
No owls or other predatory birds in Texas? Foxes? No Domestic Cats? No other species of snake? No raccoons or opossum to eat the young mice? No bullfrogs? Nothing like a mink/polecat/weasel/stoat?
It would be very unusual indeed for a rattlesnake to be the only predator of mice in most ecosystems. If rattlesnakes died off, no doubt another species of snake could move in and take over rodent eating. Here on the East Coast black snakes do a great job.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
We need a seventh the global population and we need that as a fixed ceiling.
I hope you're not questing for an Infinity Gauntlet.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Okay, so let's look at this with some common sense.
First, this so-called "study" makes the assumption that ANY extinction that occurs during the holocene period is the direct result of man, which is an absurd statement to make. Many animal species would have gone extinct even without man's help.
Second, this so-called "study" makes the assumption that there are zero new species being created, which is also an absurd statement to make. The environment is evolving new species (or God is creating them, depending upon your religious bent) all the time.
Third, this so-called "study" is only guessing. It's not as if they went out and counted every animal on Earth and compared to some mythological count of all animals on Earth that somehow happened before Man appeared. They're making seemingly uneducated guesses based on absurd assumptions and questionably valid proxy data.
All of that having been said, please do not hear what I am not saying. I am not saying that man is not causing extinction, nor am I saying that man is not reducing wildlife populations. It's pretty intuitive that if man moves in and strip mines a mountain or clear cuts a rain forest, that many animals are going to cease to exist. This is not necessarily good or bad, we just need to understand the true long-term effects of it.
In general we should be using as few resources as we can get away with, and admit that humanity has several problems it MUST overcome if man is going to survive:
1) There are too many of us. Probably ten times as many as the Earth can reasonably support in the long term. Without action to curb our out-of-control breeding, the Earth WILL die at some point, and take us along with it.
2) Conspicuous consumption is a huge problem. Huge. Enormous. When you compound rampant overpopulation with every single person having to hoard as much "stuff" as they can, bad things happen.
3) Humanity does not understand that all life is precious. Animal life. Plant life. It is all a precious gift that we must preserve for the long term, even if it means having to control our impulses now, and tell ourselves, "no."
4) We have to stop politicizing literally everything. This study is a good example of political agenda run amok. The message is correct and true, but the delivery is steeped with hyperbole, lies, deceit, and manipulation, and so nobody will take it seriously.
That is all.... I'll be gone in a couple of years, but my kids and their kids will be around for decades to come. I fear for what this generation is going to leave for the next.
Answer seems to be 'yes' if history is to be believed. I haven't heard about my fellow countrymen wiping out mosquitoes, which they certainly would have done if they were more disgusting than those birds. ;)
--
The great oxygenation event, caused by cyanobacteria, killed off a lot of anaerobes if that counts.
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. 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 of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
Rattlesnakes are fine if you have the sense to leave them alone. They have a rattle *to warn you off*. They don't want to inject you with venom, any more than you want to get up and run ten kilometers. You're about 3.5x as likely to be killed by a dog as you are by all venomous snakes combined.
As for mosquitoes, don't get your hopes up. One female can lay 100-500 eggs depending on species every three days; under the right conditions those eggs can reach sexual maturity in about ten days. That means, in theory, that missing a single gravid female in your pre-summer eradication efforts can lead to over a million trillion descendants by the end of a 13 week summer. While in practice no single mosquito is likely to be *that* reproductively successful, in practice you're always going to miss a lot more than just one.
This combination of short reproductive cycles and large brood sizes is characteristic of a "weedy" species. In a stable ecosystem, weedy species are kept in check by species with more specific adaptation to local conditions, but when you disrupt an ecosystem, it tilts the competitive balance towards species whose ecological niche is rapid colonization of unstable habitats.
Life always finds a way, but it doesn't mean it'll be a way we as humans will find pleasant. A world in which we don't constrain our disruptive activities will have plenty of life, but it'll be algal blooms rather than salmon runs; poison ivy and sumac rather than chestnut trees. A world of mouse plagues, poison ivy and mosquitoes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
AC is right. History teaches us, specifically the Four Pests Campaign , that eliminating "pest" species can end very poorly.
I have eaten insects, but not mosquitoes. The insects I ate did not taste bad at all. Likewise, I expect a snake to have a lot of muscles, so snakes could taste good as well. Rattlesnakes are not exactly local food, so I did not try those either.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
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)
Dead species tend not to bounce back. Numbers only matter for viability.
It will take 75 million years or so to restore biodiversity.
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)
We do have some possums and coons, but they largely eat insects and fruit. The foxes have largely been driven out by the coyotes. And the fire ants have driven away most ground nesting birds like quail, plover and bobwhites. Not too many "domestic" cats out this way. The coyotes kill them. There are other snake species here and they do help, but again, rattlesnakes and water moccasins are the dominant two species with a smattering of copperheads. Texas is an odd place animal wise. The feral hogs and coyotes cannot seemingly be culled fast enough, and there are no seasons for them. Shoot at will and no bag limit.
Alligator Wrestling of course.
BlameBillCosby.com
Actually, no.
The Dodo was named "walgvogel" ("disgusting bird") by the Dutch because its flesh tasted awful. They wiped out the entire species because it was so easy (it feared no predators) and, er, just because.
The irony is that the egg yolk of the Dodo contained a unique protein that suppressed the growth of many forms of cancer. Oh well.
Yes, I made that up. But consider the idea that species that we've eradicated could have been more valuable than as targets, dinner or apparel.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Exercise and fitness is very important if you want to be a professional wrestler, and selling merchandise tshirts is a big part of the pro wrestling business too.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Sure, but thedutch eat their fries with mayonaise, so do they actually know what good food tatses like?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Irrelevant.
Branches of the tree of life become irrelevant ant die off. That's natural and normal.
But that is not even remotely equivalent to taking an axe to the trunk or lopping off healthy branches to make way for the diseased.
It is not really a tree https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... , but whatever.
Human actions are part of the evolutionary process as well. Same as all other animals.
Also, most people don't realize there are hundreds of species of mosquitoes, but only three bite humans.
Hmm, I'd be willing to bet we saw a quicker, more irreversible mass extinction, oh, 65 megayears ago, when that big rock fell out of the sky....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
We can pretty confidently say that we can eliminate mosquitoes these days and we're almost 100% sure that our last practice run didn't create zika.
The same "respectable authorities" said the cane toad would do a lot of good for Australia.
Playing God is one of humanity's worst traits and results in much needless suffering.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Get rid of rattlesnakes, and you're overrun by mice.
Mate, I'm from Australia and I have to say if your rattlesnakes are responsible for keeping your mice population under control then you wildlife scares me!
Humanity has saved a lot more from extinction through conservation efforts than it has "wiped out". When will activists learn that such dishonest hyperbole is doing more harm to their causes than help?
It's a bloody shame that the peregrine falcon ended up being such an ungrateful little fucker.
This space unintentionally left blank.
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.
They can't speak! They can't operate machinery! I mean, are we not in the hands of a lunatic?... If I were creating a world, I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, day one!
People still think Malthus was wrong.
He wasn't. He was just off by a few hundred years.
Malthus wasn't off at all. He was absolutely correct when he wrote, and remained absolutely correct until 1938.
Malthus's claim (backed by valid data and argument) was that population was limited by land productivity. Crop production could only be increased by bringing uncultivated land into production, which could only be added in a linear fashion ("arithmetically") and had an absolute upper limit.
Despite the industrial revolution, and the increasing use of fertilizers (rare before the 20th Century), crop productivity per hectare did not increase measurably throughout the entire 19th Century and into the 20th Century. The best crop productivity increased at no more than about 0.01% a year, as it had for the previous few thousand years.
Then in 1938, in the United States, crop productivity started to climb at 2% a year every year. This was unexpected and for decades economists predicted that this was a temporary anomaly which would soon "correct". Instead it has continued unabated, and has spread to the rest of the world after 1950 and is now known as the "Green Revolution".
Until the Green Revolution occurred Malthus's account was an accurate description for agriculture and population for all of history.
One key aspect of the Green Revolution (there are many contributing factors that came together to create it) is the Haber Process for nitrogen fixation, used industrially beginning around the start of WWI. Natural nitrogen fixation is only able to support a world population of about 2 billion. About 70% of all nitrogen consumed by humans (meaning 70% of all the nitrogen atoms in an average human body, higher in the U.S.) was fixed by the Haber process. True organic farming "no fertilizers" cannot feed the world's existing population, it depends on a slight of hand, it is supported by Haber Process nitrogen that has been processed through cows into manure.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Tadpoles of many species depend upon mosquito larvae.
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
This was unexpected and for decades economists predicted that this was a temporary anomaly which would soon "correct".
I think it still will "correct", but probably not soon. We're currently depleting three major ingredients: topsoil, ancient water, and phosphorous.
We can pretty confidently say that we can eliminate mosquitoes these days and we're almost 100% sure that our last practice run didn't create zika.
I worked in vector borne disease surveillance for decades, I can say with equal confidence there is no technology known or proposed that has the potential of completely eradicating a mosquito population from any region larger than a thousand acres or so. Even those genetically modified mosquitoes you've been hearing so much about only reduce an infected population in a limited area short term. That reduction will last, at most, for a matter of months; in many situations mere weeks. Still, even that could be useful in reducing anthroponotic (human-to-vector-to-human) transmission.
And by the way yes, human activities didn't create Zika, but they were a big factor in its global emergence. 70 years ago it likely existed only in a small population of rhesus monkeys in a forest on the shores of Lake Victoria, where it no doubt had persisted for thousands of years. Human encroachment offered an alternative host for the primate virus, and human trade and migration patterns carried across the entire tropical world, with anthroponotic outbreaks spreading into temperate climates. That same combination of human incursion on isolated animal populations and global emergence through migration and trade routes is behind SARS, Ebola, Marburg, MERS, Lassa Fever among others in modern times, and are likely the sources of influenza and measles.
I reiterate: life always finds a way, but given a rapid rate of global change it's not going to be a way we'll be happy about.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"the world has begun a sixth mass extinction, the first to be caused by a species -- Homo sapiens"
Cyanobacteria wiped out 90% of life on the planet. They still have us beat by a landslide.
In parts of American, they eat their fries with fry sauce - which is essentially mayonnaise and ketchup mixed together.
Owls are likely nest-site limited, so it is unlikely that they will consume anywhere near enough mice to replace snakes. That means mice-borne illnesses are likely to rise dramatically. There are simply so many interactions within food-webs that it is foolish to think that one can predict what exactly will happen as species become locally extinct.
Many flycatchers eat plenty of mosquitoes. Your certainty is highly uncertain.
Rattlesnakes are no where near the threat that most Australian snakes are. To make matters worse, venomous Australian snakes don't rattle to warn you before they strike.
"No more wastage in national parks."
How brain dead can you be? If humans pave the planet, don't be foolish enough to think that they would survive.
Sadly, only in the minds of those ignorant of biology. For example, presently we are witnessing the rise of oxygen-deficient zones in the Eastern Pacific from Washington to California. This results in mass mortality of benthic organisms, many of which form multi-billion dollar fisheries. At the current rate of warming, which is changing ocean stratification and associated mixing, we may witness mass extinctions of crab and fish populations in as little as 50-100 years. Considering that humans extract nearly 50% of all protein they consume from the oceans, this will put an increasing strain on human food sources.
Given modern day evangelicalism, what Jesus meant when he said "The meek shall inherit the Earth" is that bacteria are going to be around a lot longer than humans.
So eugenics is the only solution?
Where did you get such a wrong and silly notion?
There is no such thing as a species that is "irrelevant" to ecological webs of species interactions.
You could look at it as us hitting the gas on evolution. We're an environmental stressor the likes of which can only be rivaled by a cosmological catastrophe or super volcano going off.
Herbivores are necessary parts of grasslands. I don't think you can look at rainfall on a 200 acre pasture and count that as external water to produce cattle. If I don't run cattle on my place it goes to crap. When I rotate them around, everything is lush and green. The ground retains more water because soil is being built-up... I mean you could get rid of cattle but you'd need to replace them with bison or it would be devastating for the prairie states.
What your simple-minded reasoning fails to appreciate is that that 99% figure is for all species over 3.5 billion years of evolution. Extinction rates currently are now thousands of times faster than one sees in the historical record. Total extinctions over a 3.5 billion year period is hardly relevant to the issue of modern day extinction rates.
Your comment is known to be provably false.
This is the problem with modern Republican ideology. Bearing false witness has become a lifestyle rather than a sin.
What species will adapt to these changes and thrive?
Have humans really descended into this level of stupidity? If so, brace yourself as mentalities such as your are certain to lead to human extinction.
The question was, "saved from whom"? There are instances where species have been saved from natural extinction by mankind's efforts; in other cases, we saved them from ourselves. The 99.9% was cited simply to show that mother nature is indeed a serious threat to species survival, not just mankind. I wasn't interested in ratios or comparisons nor am I inclined to humor your homework assignments.
But who decides what species are/were relevant and which are/were not? What does that even mean?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Rattlesnakes are no where near the threat that most Australian snakes are.
If there's enough of them to actively control a mice population then they sure as hell are. I'm picturing a local pest, kind of like how we drive down the road at night and see how many cane toads we can squish with our cars, but in snake form.
Besides, how can we be so sure that this is the first extinction caused by a species? What if dodos together with other birds got away with the extinction of dinosaurs? Just because no witnesses of the dinocide(*) survived, does not mean it didn't happen.
(*) I hope it is not too early to joke about that tragic event.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
I had no idea about that weird Four Pests Campaign. This tidbit from the wiki link says that that crazy campaign, which was intended to end disease, helped contribute to 20 to 45 million people dying. Wow.
"With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides.[10] Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine, in which 20–45 million people died of starvation."
In the US, the Right completely disagree that humans have the ability to change the environment
Thats called a strawman. No one on the right says this. No one. Its just your biased bullshit response to try and de-legitimize valid criticisms to your incoherent world view.
I think you are getting species and Genus mixed up. According to this, hundreds of species of 6 types of genus, do bite people, and at least one of them has hundreds of species per genus. 3 of those genus are common in the US.
https://www.megacatch.com/mosq...
Cool random facts on this link... I remember when those damn striped Asian tiger mosquitoes became a thing. We didn't have them till the 80s. Man that is so annoying.
https://www.megacatch.com/mosq...
That's what entitled westerners tell themselves while arguing poor brown people need to practice eugenics. Because each of you uses dozens the times the amount of resources a person living in a third world country does.
As for a real solution, just end capitalism. That would be a lot easier than betting the farm on some kind of geo-engineering project to trap massive amounts of carbon, or hoping India and Pakistan will trade a few nuclear blows so the resulting nuclear winter can stop the climate methane bomb.
This event is one of the reasons I am quietly afraid when we talk about eliminating, introducing, or de-extincting a species. I don't trust us not to repeat it.
Ted Cruz: Evidence doesn't support global warming:
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/09...
GOP leaders view climate change as fake science:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
GOP-Climate change education is propaganda:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer...
Next lie, snoflake?
we have 12 years... 6 will be with the US under the control of people who push capitalism, less environmental regulation, and more profit of the future. That leaves 6 years for truly positive action.
Now consider that the US just went from 1st place to 2nd for CO2 emissions:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-...
and maybe your missing the big picture.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You said no one - here's one. You lose.
“As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us,” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week at a town hall in Coldwater, Mich. “And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
sorry Dude, you need to pay attention to what the Christians are saying.
Rattlesnakes are no where near the threat that most Australian snakes are. To make matters worse, venomous Australian snakes don't rattle to warn you before they strike.
Supposedly due to the selective pressure of being hunted, rattlesnakes are losing their rattles or staying silent.
It's ironic that hunting them so aggressively turns out to make them even more of a risk for the unwary.
On one hand, that is a horrible, cautionary story. On the other hand, we did get the great propaganda slogan "birds are public animals of capitalism" to motivate people in their anti-sparrow campaign.
And as to the "rapture" part: http://jesusplusnothing.com/st...
https://theonlinedisciple.word...
"For every Christian, the goal is to be along in the rapture. That glorious moment when Jesus takes those who belong to Him up to heaven to be with Him eternally. This is part of the series of events described in the book of Revelation that will occur during the end times."
https://activechristianity.org...
These people really believe this. I'm not trying to troll you or use strawman arguments. But don't be like them and dismiss statements out hand because you disagree with them. The fact is, these people vote and are in control of the US House, Senate, Oval Office and now have the Majority on the Supreme Court.
So we've apparently destroyed as much as the greatest mass extinctions (according to this article) and its had so little effect nobody's noticed (until this article). Guess the earth must be a lot more resilient than we thought. Thanks for the tip enviroguys!
I like good BBQ sauce with my fries. Mmmm.
We need a seventh the global population and we need that as a fixed ceiling.
I hope you're not questing for an Infinity Gauntlet.
Thanos's solution was something of a dumb one. Kill half the population, and they will be at their former population within a generation. Thanos's solution would have to be run continuously.
But water isn't destroyed when it's used... I mean, yeah, in California there are shortages, but not everywhere, and stats like this make it seem like somehow making meat destroys water...
If you want to be scared out of your mind read the book "The Sixth Extinction". It's bottom line is that we are smack in the middle of Earths Sixth mass extinction of life and humanity is the driver. Basically the ecosystem that built is is already fubar, that's her premise. She also has a lecture or two on YouTube and Ted. We have to act now if we want any sort of feasible damage control, that's the only option left according to her. And she makes good points and has solid data.
I tend to believe her.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Yes, continental-scale famine. Because rice is a crucial food source. Unlike mosquitoes, which is, according to the same poster not the question to ask. But he then refutes this statement by going into an example of a crucial food source.
Maybe
The same "respectable authorities" said the cane toad would do a lot of good for Australia.
Citation needed. Somehow I doubt these guys were alive in 1935, let alone doing science.