Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years...
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
No, that doesn't look good.
[video=youtube;yZvLoaKMBrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZvLoaKMBrI[/video]
Maybe we should move someplace else and let the planet get on without most of us for a bit.
[video=youtube;yZvLoaKMBrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZvLoaKMBrI[/video]
Maybe we should move someplace else and let the planet get on without most of us for a bit.
and at times in pre history 99% etc
and some when in the future the sun will supernova and 100% life extinct in the solar system
then it starts all over again
and some when in the future the sun will supernova and 100% life extinct in the solar system
then it starts all over again
True, but it isn't the proportion that is the key figure here. It is the timescale. 50% in 40 years is unprecedented. It is way, way faster than any previous extinction rate that we are aware off.
pretty sure some extinction events where pretty quick one actually enabled us to Evolve and exist
nature will sort it out whether we are part of it then is another matter
it already has some standbys deep n the ocean on thermal vents that live in high temp toxic waste with no access to sunlight or what we commonly think of as essentials for life ((As we know it )
You reckon there's more life in our solar system then dunc?
I do agree though, until the sun blows up it will only ever be the end of the world as we know it.....the earth has time on its side, it'll sort itself out
Not saying the end of the world is a good thing mind lol
Interesting figures there. I found the footprint data interesting. Denmark is so high compared to UK for example. Plus our biggest impact is due to built up land. Well that is not really surprising but what is a smaller footprint than i thought it would be is carbon. The UK actually has a lower figure than a lot of western, developed countries. I accept we are a major problem and the solution but a little part of me thinks that as a Brit we can have the smallest of consolations in that it would look like we are not that bad. Mind you how much of an impact can such a small nation as ours have? The biggest threats are to come in the form of the developing countries. The more populous nations become more developed with a higher level of wealth and a middle class demanding more and more of the quality products the developed west has had for years. Things as simple as more meat consumption with such a big impact.
I read some interesting articles in the National Geographic on food production over recent months. Take protein production, the best of the current ways to go is farmed fish but only if you watch what you feed them. It is possible to feed the fish vegetarian diet even if they are carnivorous. Feeding fish with fish is one of the least efficient ways to go with fish farming but it happens. There is much talk of insects but we are a long way from that if we switch to efficient farmed fish. Try to find the nat Geo article on it as it gives the weight of protein required to make the common protein sources of beef, lamb, pork, fish. Seems the old idea that pork was ok is not true. Lamb is almost as bad as beef IIRC but pork is not far behind. Farmed fish is almost negligible compared to beef.
Then there is the space to rear land protein sources compared to that of fish. Also there are some pioneering fish farms right in the middle of USA doing it all scientifically to optimize the efficiency. All an amazing read I thought.
Just thought I would mention it since the OP's article is a typical Guardian green article laying doom and gloom everywhere. I am not disputing the article's information about the 50% decline. The issue is not as black and white as that article claims. The figures could be taken out of context or missing other relevant information from other sources. I am not being an apologist for anyone and am most definitely not a global warming denier but I don't always agree with these single report articles that are meant to appeal to a certain reader demographic. It is kind of like a Daily Mail article for the greens if you get my drift. A green scare story for the Guardian readers.
I read some interesting articles in the National Geographic on food production over recent months. Take protein production, the best of the current ways to go is farmed fish but only if you watch what you feed them. It is possible to feed the fish vegetarian diet even if they are carnivorous. Feeding fish with fish is one of the least efficient ways to go with fish farming but it happens. There is much talk of insects but we are a long way from that if we switch to efficient farmed fish. Try to find the nat Geo article on it as it gives the weight of protein required to make the common protein sources of beef, lamb, pork, fish. Seems the old idea that pork was ok is not true. Lamb is almost as bad as beef IIRC but pork is not far behind. Farmed fish is almost negligible compared to beef.
Then there is the space to rear land protein sources compared to that of fish. Also there are some pioneering fish farms right in the middle of USA doing it all scientifically to optimize the efficiency. All an amazing read I thought.
Just thought I would mention it since the OP's article is a typical Guardian green article laying doom and gloom everywhere. I am not disputing the article's information about the 50% decline. The issue is not as black and white as that article claims. The figures could be taken out of context or missing other relevant information from other sources. I am not being an apologist for anyone and am most definitely not a global warming denier but I don't always agree with these single report articles that are meant to appeal to a certain reader demographic. It is kind of like a Daily Mail article for the greens if you get my drift. A green scare story for the Guardian readers.
pretty sure some extinction events where pretty quick one actually enabled us to Evolve and exist
nature will sort it out whether we are part of it then is another matter
it already has some standbys deep n the ocean on thermal vents that live in high temp toxic waste with no access to sunlight or what we commonly think of as essentials for life ((As we know it )
Those vents are interesting phenomenon. Back in the day when I was a student studying extractive metallurgy (mining processing) Those deep see vents were considered a major source of minerals if we could just economically mine them. It was all in the future back then (probably over 20 years ago). Same with other deep sea mining. The sea bed is an amazing source of valuable minerals if you can just get it all up economically. Although I do wonder if you'd get mining rights on the deep ocean floor, especially on those vents. The greens would probably go mental on the issue.
pretty sure some extinction events where pretty quick one actually enabled us to Evolve and exist
nature will sort it out whether we are part of it then is another matter
it already has some standbys deep n the ocean on thermal vents that live in high temp toxic waste with no access to sunlight or what we commonly think of as essentials for life ((As we know it )
"Pretty quick" in evolutionary terms is still a few thousand years at least, more like tens or hundreds of thousands when you are referring to vertebrates like us. 40 years isn't even an eyeblink.
I agree the rest. The concern is that losing that many species this quickly destabilises the ecosytems that have evolved over millions of years, with unpredictable consequences, and we are going to have to face those consequences.
A few thousand years for the new species to evolve: agreed. But as I understand the Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction Event (in which 75% of all life forms disappeared; including plant, animal, and avian) some theorize that the extinctions occurred in possibly only a few years (a single generation)
The point that I am making is that 50% extinction in 40 years is off the scale rapid compared to normal extinction rates. It is a rate of extinction equivalent to one of the 'catastrophic' extinction events, such as the Cretacous extinction caused by the planetoid impact, as mentioned above.
Therefore, recent extinction rates are not 'normal' and can't just be dismissed as "Oh its a natural process, don't worry about it". This is a catastrophic extinction. Given that the planet has not been hit by a meteorite, or had global mass volcanic eruptions or suchlike, then the cause of the catastrophe is us.
Before someone says it, climate change processes are of course normal, but those normal climate change processes are slow, leading to extinction rates measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of years, not 40. However you weigh it up, these extinction rates are not normal.
Therefore, recent extinction rates are not 'normal' and can't just be dismissed as "Oh its a natural process, don't worry about it". This is a catastrophic extinction. Given that the planet has not been hit by a meteorite, or had global mass volcanic eruptions or suchlike, then the cause of the catastrophe is us.
Before someone says it, climate change processes are of course normal, but those normal climate change processes are slow, leading to extinction rates measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of years, not 40. However you weigh it up, these extinction rates are not normal.
Did anyone look at the methodology they actually used? Seems extremely week to me. WWF also claims it's the result of loss of habitat and hunting rathet than global warming. That is why areas in the Amazon have such high loss rates.
That being said, the methodology they used is just so weak it's hard to say if it is any use at all. They sampled 10,000 population containing 3,000 species. Sounds like a lot, but in reality it's nothing. That is three populations per species. The margin of error is extreme. If a single one of the populations disappears that . Is an immediate 30% loss. Considering that there are billions upon billions of populations of billions of species, it's hard to say the sample means anything.
Aside from that, would a 100% decrease in a population of frogs which have 100 surviving members in the population due to the introduction of 10,000 cattle in the area harmful or not? I don't know, but it's something we must look at before freaking out.
And lastly, just from a common sense stand point this doesn't make any sense. 50% loss in our lifetimes, yet no one noticed until the Guardian published an article? Something doesn't add up.
That being said, the methodology they used is just so weak it's hard to say if it is any use at all. They sampled 10,000 population containing 3,000 species. Sounds like a lot, but in reality it's nothing. That is three populations per species. The margin of error is extreme. If a single one of the populations disappears that . Is an immediate 30% loss. Considering that there are billions upon billions of populations of billions of species, it's hard to say the sample means anything.
Aside from that, would a 100% decrease in a population of frogs which have 100 surviving members in the population due to the introduction of 10,000 cattle in the area harmful or not? I don't know, but it's something we must look at before freaking out.
And lastly, just from a common sense stand point this doesn't make any sense. 50% loss in our lifetimes, yet no one noticed until the Guardian published an article? Something doesn't add up.
Does it matter if it's a "natural process?" The Cretaceous-Palogene Extinction wasn't "natural" in the sense that it was a normal evolution; it was caused by an outside event.
The point is that the so called "normal" process will, or should, deal with the recovery (sorry, "recovery" probably isn't the best word as the results would be different from before the event)
The problem as somebody else stated is whether mankind will be a part of the resulting evolutionary landscape or not.
Similar threads
