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.
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.
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."
I'd be surprised if humans haven't had an impact on most of the Earth's landmass.
Where is this 5%? I bet the rents are still really cheap there.
You are welcome on my lawn.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or is it just a contest to see how many times Slashdot can dupe a story ?
Just how much of Antarctica is impacted ?
Not only a dupe a fear mongering dupe.
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...
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....
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.
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.