Most people with objections to the article seem to be doing so on the basis that people have made similar predictions previously that didn't actually come true.They go on to assert that the WWF is just coming up with junk science to prove its hysterical points.
While that may have been true in the past, it's not now. Population biologists agree with the central premise of the article. They describe the current trend as the "6th great extinction"(E.O. Wilson and National Geographic have both written on the subject). So it's not junk science by any means.
Also, addressing the argument that the humanity will be self-correcting. Population biologists disagree. They argue that we're nearing a point of no return, a time at which the damage to the ecosystem becomes a self-perpetuating downward spiral, the death of a few species will cause the rest of the ecosystem to fall apart(the biological version of a deflationary spiral in economic terms).
The UN FWIW agrees with the WWF.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people with objections to the article seem to be doing so on the basis that people have made similar predictions previously that didn't actually come true.They go on to assert that the WWF is just coming up with junk science to prove its hysterical points. While that may have been true in the past, it's not now. Population biologists agree with the central premise of the article. They describe the current trend as the "6th great extinction"(E.O. Wilson and National Geographic have both written on the subject). So it's not junk science by any means. Also, addressing the argument that the humanity will be self-correcting. Population biologists disagree. They argue that we're nearing a point of no return, a time at which the damage to the ecosystem becomes a self-perpetuating downward spiral, the death of a few species will cause the rest of the ecosystem to fall apart(the biological version of a deflationary spiral in economic terms). The UN FWIW agrees with the WWF.