Slashdot Mirror


Just 5 Percent of Earth's Landscape Is Untouched, Report Finds (axios.com)

A comprehensive new high-resolution analysis of human modification of the planet finds that just 5% of the Earth's land surface is currently unaffected by humans, far lower than a previous estimate of 19%. 95% of the Earth's land surface has some indication of human modification, while 84% has multiple human impacts, the study found. New Atlas reports: The researchers from The Nature Conservancy and Conservation Science Partners used publicly available, high-resolution data from ground surveys and remotely sensed imagery on land use in 1 square kilometer grids to provide a spatial assessment of the impact of 13 human-caused stressors across all terrestrial lands, biomes and ecological regions, including: Agriculture; The physical extent of human settlement; Transportation, including railroads and minor roads; Mining, energy production; and Electrical infrastructure, including power lines.

52% of ecological regions and 49% of countries are considered moderately modified. These regions are highly fragmented, retain up to only 50% of low modified lands and fall within critical land use thresholds. Only 30% of terrestrial ecological regions and 18% of the world's countries have a low degree of land modification and retain most of their natural lands, which are distant from human settlements, agriculture and other modified environments. The study found the least modified biomes tend to be in high latitudes and include tundra, boreal forests, or taiga and temperate coniferous forests. On the other hand, the most modified biomes include more tropical landscapes, such as temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, as well as mangroves.

88 comments

  1. 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's still a surprisingly large amount. Still though, it would be better if we leave at least 10%-20% alone entirely. As the quote goes, "the planet doesn't need our help to survive, the planet needs our absence."

    1. Re:5%? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just Antarctica + Greenland is already way over 5%. Vast areas of Siberia, Alaska, and Nunavut are uninhabited wilderness.

      I would like to see a better explanation of their methodology.

    2. Re:5%? by thesupraman · · Score: 0

      Quite.

      These people haven't overflown Australia have they..

    3. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget the desserts ! :-)

    4. Re:5%? by quenda · · Score: 2

      Australia has been inhabited throughout, if sparsely, for tens of thousands of years.
      Early inhabitants altered the ecosystem by sending megafauna to extinction, and lighting frequent fires, drastically changing forests.
      Even before the recent introduction of farming, mining and towns, there was little or nothing of the landscape left "untouched".

      Antarctica and Greenland are relatively virginal compared to Australia.

    5. Re: 5%? by quenda · · Score: 1

      The "living in harmony" thing is not total BS. They did after a time reach a sustainable equilibrium.
      We have no idea if or when industrial society will do that. Or if it is desirable.

    6. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just Antarctica + Greenland is already way over 5%. Vast areas of Siberia, Alaska, and Nunavut are uninhabited wilderness.

      I would like to see a better explanation of their methodology.

      The word wasn't "uninhabited" the word was "unaffected" which means something completely different. Greenland, for example, has a vast loss of icesheets (depth; area sometimes increases as the ice sheet flows faster) and so large areas of Greenland, even where nobody has ever walked are affected. You could remotely measure changes, for example by seeing loss of reflectivity from glaciers that are covered in soot. You don't need detailed methodology to understand that uninhabited areas can be affected by people.

    7. Re:5%? by Ross+Finlayson · · Score: 2

      But much of the remote land in Australia is still used for cattle grazing - in which case it won't count as "untouched".

    8. Re: 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quotation needed. What experiment do you base your less people result on?

    9. Re: 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ezra 2:29 is shorter if you don't include spaces.
      BAM. I am Todd Bentley!!

    10. Re:5%? by jpaine619 · · Score: 0

      As the quote goes, "the planet doesn't need our help to survive, the planet needs our absence."

      Why? It's not humans that cause mass extinctions... We've driven some species extinct. So what? Why do all you idiots have so much self hatred? 99.9% ... That's the percentage of species that have existed at some point on Earth and are now extinct. We didn't do it..

      You people are weird.. You blame all humanity for some few small errors in judgement. If we disappeared tomorrow, how long for Earth to forget us? 1,000 years? 10,000? An eye blink in relation to how long life has existed.

      Ultimately Earth is doomed anyhow.. Sun goes nova in maybe 4 to 5 billion years.. Life will be gone way before that.. Maybe 1 billion more years until the Sun swells to the point life is no longer possible on Earth. Humans are the only species that currently has any hope of escaping that fate.

      Quit acting like humans are some aberration. We are the currently the pinnacle of evolution and, unlike any other animal on the planet, we alone can recognize our mistakes, as a species, and correct for them. We, alone, are the only hope that life has of existing beyond the death of the Sun.

    11. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Existence is perpetual change. Get used to it.

    12. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lmao Today, I destroy and celebrate because 4 billion years from now. WTH!

    13. Re:5%? by sosume · · Score: 0

      They divided the world map in 20 squares. Human activity was not found in only one those squares, probably in Greenland. Solid methodology.

    14. Re: 5%? by sosume · · Score: 1

      The equilibrium that existed meant humans get to live and the large animals had to die. This has happened consistently everywhere men was introduced.

    15. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Australia's ecosystem got screwed up a long time ago by artificially introducing foreign animals.
      It isn't untouched.

      Antarctica and Greenland are ice covered and as a result their landscape changes drastically by human introduced climate change.
      Even Siberia is thawing.

    16. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to guess. We've already been given a roadmap for 10,000 years.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

    17. Re: 5%? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Except in Africa, where the humans originated?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re: 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like a good equilibrium to me.

    19. Re:5%? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I would like to see a better explanation of their methodology.

      No, you fucking anti-science asshat, you wouldn't. If you had wanted to see it, you'd have read the linked article. Since you obviously don't care enough to put a lick of effort into educating yourself, I'll summarize for you, in the hopes you can at least make it through a /. comment:

      We analyzed all terrestrial lands excluding Antarctica.

      That said, the reason they can get to 5% is that they apply a "fragmentation metric" to the places with human impacts, and estimate them as falling off as you move away from where they find these impacts. They bin the human impacts by severity, and the higher the severity of the impact (open pit mining, e.g.) the further they estimate the impacts extend.

      This is far from perfect, but it's not a terrible method. Running a railroad line through deserted land doesn't just impact the land under the tracks. During construction you're altering the land, changing the drainage, foliage, etc. There may be dumps of rock and soil from construction, or roads built to bring in materials. While in use, the pollution and noise isn't constrained to the immediate area. Animals who die on the tracks don't live under them generally.

      Since they excluded Antarctica, and you noted Greenland, it's clear that you don't know about Camp Century. (Not that they necessarily picked up much of that, but holy shit.)

      I think it's fair to argue that they made this "fragmentation metric" too large, but if you really want to do that, you're going to have to publish a rebuttal, not just post lazy, ignorant shit on /..

      If you'd been motivated enough to even just skim the article, you'd find this graphic, which looks pretty much like what I personally expected, and probably in line with what you expected as well: https://wol-prod-cdn.literatum.... Since you you find this challenging, HM stands for Human Modification, and green is low, and red is high.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    20. Re: 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no they arent. most of it isnt even suitable for that. most of it is totally unusued

      ffs and take siberia and sahara too.

      the methodology sounds suspect.

    21. Re: 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so you're OK with all of the large animals dying off in the last great extinction, which subsequently made it possible for you and most modern lifeforms to exist, but you're not OK with protecting that existence. Animals (including humans) kill other animals to survive. That is life and if you can't handle that, then you should probably just kill yourself now.

    22. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All life on Earth will be dead in about 500 million years due to the steadily increasing solar output. The oceans will also be boiled away by that time.

      You're right about everything else though. Most species that existed are now gone and humans had nothing to do with any of it. In fact, humans would not exist if it weren't for all of the previous extinction events, so we owe our very lives to the extinction of many species.

    23. Re: 5%? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yup, we killed off the elephants, and whales, and cattle, and rhinos. Oh, and I'm sure we were at fault for the dinosaurs too. /sarcasm

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re:5%? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The word wasn't "uninhabited" the word was "unaffected...

      Please read the subject line again.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    25. Re:5%? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      They divided the world map in 20 squares. Human activity was not found in only one those squares, probably in Greenland. Solid methodology.

      I'd love to see a map of dividing a sphere into 20 squares.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    26. Re:5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I believe that climate change is, and always was, happening. We know that the sun's output is steadily increasing. We know that rotations and orbits vary. We know that a single, high velocity meteor can (and has) kicked up enough crap to alter the climate. We know that weather is not reliably predictable.

      It's nature. Get used to it, junior.

    27. Re:5%? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a map of dividing a sphere into 20 squares.

      They were non-Euclidean squares.

    28. Re:5%? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      There is an Agenda here. Good luck on getting a rational explanation of the methodology. Probably something to do with essential oil residue or something. ;)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  2. A million years of human history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd be surprised if humans haven't had an impact on most of the Earth's landmass.

    1. Re:A million years of human history by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting your figure of 1 million years? Modern humans evolved around 200,000 years ago. The humans prior to that weren't us. Different species. That species no longer exists. Including them in the results is bullshit.

    2. Re: A million years of human history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If as a white Male I'm responsible for slavery and other "crimes of my ancestors" then humanity as a whole is also responsible for what our precursor species did. All the way back to the first form of life, so congratulations humans are responsible for all life, death, and extinction on the planet. Liberal logic.

    3. Re: A million years of human history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice strawman. Nobody is blaming you for slavery except yourself. Idiot.

    4. Re:A million years of human history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The homo group has been around for over 2 million years. You might want to make a distinction in a false attempt to elevate yourself above the other members of that group, but you are still one of them.

      Humanity started about 2 million years ago.

  3. This seems very unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost all the land area of Greenland and Antarctica has never had a single human walk on it, let alone modify it.

  4. Gentrification, Ho! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Where is this 5%? I bet the rents are still really cheap there.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. The definition of "affected by humans" is the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The cited "study" has apparently chosen to define a lot of land as "affected by humans", though many parts of the world are actually quite desolate and humans spend little or no time in those areas.

    Take a look at the satellite views of the center of Australia, or Siberia, or the Sahara desert, and you will see there are large land areas which are
    devoid of humans.

    I think the quoted 5% is a cooked up number, and that the participation of the Nature Conservancy is a dead giveaway to the reality that there is an agenda behind the cited study. The Nature Conservancy is an extreme organization which seeks to deny humans access to wild lands by buying up land and making it private and off limits to the public. This is the worst kind of elitist bullshit and some of us will trespass on land owned by the Nature Conservancy as an act of defiance toward the wealthy swine who want to grab up land and prevent the average person from accessing that land.

    Basically, FUCK the Nature Conservancy and its elitist agenda. I will hike or ride my mountain bike anywhere I damned well please and I don't give a rat's ass what some Prius-driving douche bag thinks about me doing it. Come and get me, motherfuckers. Just be ready to rock and roll when you do, because I am.

  6. Re:The definition of "affected by humans" is the k by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > I will hike or ride my mountain bike anywhere I damned well please and I don't give a rat's ass what some Prius-driving douche bag thinks about me doing it.

    You know quite a lot of humanity considers mountain bike riding douche bags to be sharing their bag with prius driving douche bags..
    Just pointing out reality.

    I wonder if you are so ready to 'rock and roll' with the pickup driving shotgun toting types who dislike you both equally?

  7. Go to New Mexico by guacamole · · Score: 1

    Outside of Albuquerque, the only big city, the population density there is so low that you can end up driving dozens of miles between even seeing gas stations.When driving through a rare small city, you may realize it's a ghost town as most buildings are abandoned and their windows are boarded up.

    1. Re:Go to New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way. Full of white people.

    2. Re: Go to New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That used to be the case
          Lately old Mexico has been leading an invasion of New Mexico. Pretty soon the state will be more properly known as New Old Mexico.

      No matter what Mexico is in charge the Indians are still getting fucked. I love how all the self hating white liberals who are for the Mexican invasion have never heard of Cortez, and somehow think Native Americans love Mexicans.

    3. Re:Go to New Mexico by Ross+Finlayson · · Score: 2

      But I'll bet that even in most of these remote desert areas, you'll find roads (or remains of roads) not far away. For fun, I like to visit Degree Confluence Points (http://www.confluence.org/), and I've been surprised at how easy most of them are to reach, even in supposedly remote patches of desert. I rarely have had to hike more than a couple of miles from a (admittedly, often 4WD) road.

    4. Re:Go to New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The racial diversity in the state is currently at 73.5% whiteys, 10.5% other races, 9.3% Natives of North America, 3.3% two or more races, 2% African Americans, and 1.4% Asians.

      3 out of every 4 are pale skinned. If you want 4 out of 4, head on up to Maine, or the Dakotas, or hell, Canada. For 5 out of every 4, go to Putinland.

    5. Re:Go to New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even necessarily about land that's in current use.
      In South America, time and again whole swaths of jungle people thought was so dense and unpopulated that they surely had to be primal forest turned out to have entire lost civilizations in them, active until about half a millennium ago, sometimes perhaps a little older, that used to put the land to intensive use.
      So, even while that land is not currently in use, it has been heavily influenced by human activity in the past. Same with Australia, which seems to have been completely transformed by human activity during the stone age, no less.

      I'd not be surprised to find out that the areas of Albuquerque you are thinking of have a storied past, with plenty of human activity over the millennia. Oh, and your ghost towns: well, all that land is far less than untouched.

    6. Re: Go to New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you scared of brown people? You repubtards own all the guns. You have your leader in charge. The guy is literally a figure head for you guys. He represents all you dumb fucks. And yet you still aren't happy. You aren't happy until there is a class of people below you, that you can point at and say I am better than them at least.

      It's sickening.

    7. Re: Go to New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By and large brown people are low intellect, disease-carrying criminals, that's why.

  8. Don’t blame ME! by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    I can only touch, at most, laying flat on my back, spread-eagled, MAYBE 10 square feet, 12 tops... but it cannot be higher than that, and I doubt it’s even that much. Most of the time, I only touch about one or two square feet, because I’m standing up or walking around.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:Don’t blame ME! by Dins · · Score: 1

      >Don’t blame ME!

      Step it up, dammit! You've got a lot of planet touching to do!

    2. Re:Don’t blame ME! by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      I’m concerned about what proportion of the planet consents to me touching them, though. Many parts of the planet, especially some attached loosely to the surface, (mainly by a hundred and twenty or so pounds of gravitational force each,) at the interface between the top of the solid crust and the bottom of the principally gaseous layer, seem to be less than excited to have me touching them... which is sad, as many look eminently touchable.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  9. Meaningless by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What part of the Earth is untouched by ants? Fungus? Gophers? Butterflies? Is that good or bad? We must define some criteria that makes land preferable - furtile, healthy to live on, aestatically pleasing and so on. Complely free of humans does not strike me as a rational criteria.

    1. Re:Meaningless by quenda · · Score: 4, Funny

      What part of the Earth is untouched by ants?

      Cyanobacteria! Since they spewed their toxic oxygen into the atmosphere, nothing has been the same.

    2. Re:Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What part of the Earth is untouched by ants?

      Antarctica, ironically.

    3. Re:Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for sharing. You can also share your ideas for free on www.echofavor.com

    4. Re:Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've thought about this before and what makes us 'un-natural' if we aren't just another part of nature. Apparently a stone wall is fine but a wind turbine is not when it comes to this difference. I'm not sure about a rational criteria but the thought is certainly not new as I have read about similar notions in George Orwell's 'The Road to Wigan Pier'. I think it represents the wholesale destruction and resource depletion of nature that we need to be careful of changing our environment without consideration or control that in 60 million years all that will be left of us is a thin layer in sedimentary rock.

  10. And this is news? by aglider · · Score: 2

    It's a few hundred thousands years humans are reshaping the planet. Faster and faster as the technology allows.
    And when you have a few billions of bare standing apes strolling all over the planet, actually all of it, it takes years to reshape it.
    I can bet that only portions of the large deserts (hot or icy) are part of that 5%.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  11. It's the LIFE, baby. by aglider · · Score: 1

    Before there were lichens and fungi to reshape the landscape.
    Then came the plants, the amphibians, the reptiles, the birds, the mammals and Internet.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  12. Re:The definition of "affected by humans" is the k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if you are so ready to 'rock and roll' with the pickup driving shotgun toting types who dislike you both equally?

    I have never had a problem with the rednecks who drive pickup trucks and tote long guns. Oddly enough, they are a lot easier to get along with
    than some of the the sanctimonious pricks who drive a Prius. I think the difference is that the Prius people are actively looking for a reason to be offended and the rednecks in the pickup trucks don't tend to get pissed off unless you give them a reason to be pissed off. If you offer them a cold
    beer and a friendly smile, they're instantly your buddy. The real world is not like some silly movie. Generally you get back what you project into the
    world. This is something the arrogant liberal types don't seem to grasp.

  13. First access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've often wondered if there are spots or areas that no human being throughout all of history have never seen or set foot on, and I've wondered if I've ever been the very first human to interact with a spot like that.

  14. This is a duplicate so are we at 10% now ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    Or is it just a contest to see how many times Slashdot can dupe a story ?

  15. Oh and once again Really ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Just how much of Antarctica is impacted ?

    Not only a dupe a fear mongering dupe.

  16. Re:The definition of "affected by humans" is the k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Nazi tries to rationalize support for genocide, retard fox news at 11"

  17. taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they really used for cattle? In many places around the land owners with cattle get tax breaks. Some of my neighbors have them in their ranch just for the tax breaks.

    1. Re:taxes? by DeSigna · · Score: 1

      Are they really used for cattle?

      Yes, they are. Some are also used for sheep. Our dry climate and adapted ecosystems require a lot of space to support livestock, so there's a lot of massive pastoral leases on marginal land that nobody could find any other use for in the 1800s.

      For example: Australian livestock stations over 4000 sq km in size

      The largest station (or "ranch") in the USA misses this list by nearly 1000 sq km. If the largest were its own country, Anna Creek, it'd be around 147 out of nearly 200 countries ranked by land area, beating out about a quarter of countries in the world.

  18. Re:The definition of "affected by humans" is the k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definition is quite clear:

    The cited "study" has apparently chosen to define a lot of land as "affected by humans", though many parts of the world are actually quite desolate and humans spend little[...]

    "Little" => per defintion touched/affected by humans.

    [...]or no time in those areas.

    "No time" => possibly unaffected, but if people used to live there and now don't it has still been touched/affected by humans. Perhaps older generations made it undesireable to live there or even uninhabitable. Just because people don't spend any time in Prypjat now doesn't mean it isn't affected by humans.

  19. 5% Untouched is very misleading by n2hightech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They looked at 1km squares and if anything in it has been changed by man then that whole 1Km sq has been affected. So you have someone in a 4 wheeler run across a patch of desert and leave a mark the whole 1 Km square has been affected. Technically they are right however in all practical ways they are misleading. The more meaningful number might be the 30% of land that has low modification. Low modification most people would see as untouched. A lot of the 52% of moderately modified land is still fairly untouched. So a more correct and less concerning title would be 82% of the earth's surface still nearly untouched by man. Of course that would not get people all worked up and worried would it. Numbers don't lie liars use numbers...

    1. Re:5% Untouched is very misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, that 4 wheeler rolling through the desert might not be as harmless as it seems. https://www.nps.gov/jotr/learn/nature/cryptocrusts.htm

    2. Re:5% Untouched is very misleading by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      There is also a lot of "untouched" land surface that happens to be under an ocean.

    3. Re:5% Untouched is very misleading by Solandri · · Score: 1

      They looked at 1km squares and if anything in it has been changed by man then that whole 1Km sq has been affected. So you have someone in a 4 wheeler run across a patch of desert and leave a mark the whole 1 Km square has been affected. Technically they are right however in all practical ways they are misleading.

      The way to prevent these sorts of measures from being misleading is to use the same criteria in both directions and give both numbers. i.e. Look at 1x1 km blocks and see what percentage contains some human encroachment (say 95%). Then look at 1x1 km blocks and see what percentage contains some areas without human encroachment. (say 95%).

      The you combine the two numbers to say that by your measurements, "the percentage of land untouched by humans is somewhere between 5% and 95%." If those error margins are so large that the statement sounds ridiculous, then you need to go back to the drawing board and work on developing a better way to measure which reduces your error margins so they're not laughable.

    4. Re:5% Untouched is very misleading by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that the stuff under an ocean is referred to as "land surface" by anyone, except, perhaps, you.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:5% Untouched is very misleading by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      What constitutes "touching," exactly? A backpacker walking across the land? An airplane flying over it? Smoke from a campfire wafting over it? Climate change?

      By defining what "touching" means, you can pick a number from 0% to 50% untouched, just change the parameters.

  20. Re:The definition of "affected by humans" is the k by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    You know quite a lot of humanity considers mountain bike riding douche bags to be sharing their bag with prius driving douche bags..

    Yeah? How the fuck did you come to that conclusion? You take any polls? Are you assuming the arbitrary number of people you know, and whom consider mountain bike riders to be douche bags, are representative of the population as a whole? Or did you just make that shit up on the spot?
    Yeah, that's what I thought....

  21. What percentage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What percentage is unsullied by the presence of negroes?

    1. Re: What percentage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What % of America is sullied by repubtard, racist, and sexist idiots?

      Going by our last presidential election, id say at least 40%.

  22. Just for reference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire land mass of the whole United States is approximately 5% of the Earth's land surface area. Assuming this study is even remotely true, that is still a lot of untouched land.

  23. Re: The definition of "affected by humans" is the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but counting Antarctica as affected by humans because some explorer visited it once is taking it too far, and it reads like thatâ(TM)s what they are doing.

  24. Re: The definition of "affected by humans" is the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. The logic on repubtards these days is astounding. You guys are seriously fucking retarded. Dumbest group of people I've seen in my life. A bunch of suckers being taken for a con. A bunch of scared little white bitches. Scared of a couple thousand brown men. It's really quite pitiful if you ask me.

  25. Untouched by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pretty sure 100% of earth has been crapped on by one species of bird or another. Does that not qualify as "touched"?

  26. Announcing a new tour service to untouched places! by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Sign up today! Now accepting passengers for a worldwide tour to all the places untouched by humans! Be the first in your economic tier to poop where humans have never walked. Flick cigarette butts and plastic 6-pack rings onto soil unsullied by anyone! For a true affluent-adventure, we will provide the equipment needed to drill and frack on these virgin locations. Imagine the glory! Consider the potential economic advantages! Fantasize how you'll be able to lord it over your so-called friends and relatives!

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  27. Re:The definition of "affected by humans" is the k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only idiots ask and answer their own questions.

    That's what I think.