Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF

[G_j]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

(...meanwhile...)

Species across land, rivers and seas decimated as humans kill for food in unsustainable numbers and destroy habitats

--

The number of wild animals on Earth has halved in the past 40 years, according to a new analysis. Creatures across land, rivers and the seas are being decimated as humans kill them for food in unsustainable numbers, while polluting or destroying their habitats, the research by scientists at WWF and the Zoological Society of London found.

“If half the animals died in London zoo next week it would be front page news,” said Professor Ken Norris, ZSL’s director of science. “But that is happening in the great outdoors. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live.” He said nature, which provides food and clean water and air, was essential for human wellbeing.

“We have lost one half of the animal population and knowing this is driven by human consumption, this is clearly a call to arms and we must act now,” said Mike Barratt, director of science and policy at WWF. He said more of the Earth must be protected from development and deforestation, while food and energy had to be produced sustainably.

The steep decline of animal, fish and bird numbers was calculated by analysing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species in total. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative “Living Planet Index” (LPI), reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates.

..more..

[tonyt53]

1. Not buying into that - as far as the US goes. Deer have thrived, as have eagles, hawks, and turkeys.

Many other species have adapted and are doing well. Yeah, some have struggled. but most are doing well.

[zappaman]

3. yeah, if you say so, professor.

[tonyt53]

5. Facts bother you, huh? The programs of the Fish & Wildlife agencies is working here in the US.

They have done a commendable job in reintroducing species to areas that had been vacated by those species. Put down your phone and go outside. Get out of your car and take in the world around you. But you probably won't see any wildlife at Starbucks.

[LanternWaste]

4. I too refuse to buy scientific research studies merely if they invalidate my bias and narrative.

I too refuse to buy scientific research studies merely if they invalidate my own personal biases and the narrative I construct for myself. Our own unlearned and anecdotal observations, though lacking in relevant knowledge and fact, is far more convenient to our preconceptions than some stupid study.

[tonyt53]

6. You don't get outside much either, do ya?

[NickB79]

16. I get out a lot. I live in a semi-rural part of Minnesota.

I hike. I fish. I hunt. And what I see are forests and prairie replaced with monoculture soy and corn. Almost no life in these fields. Every year there's less wilderness and more farmland, more suburban sprawl.

[NickB79]

12. You know there are more species than just deer and turkey, right?

There's this thing called an ecosystem, composed of thousands of species. You may have heard of it?

And even in Europe and North America, things are not looking good.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-threats-against-birds-cats-wind-turbines-climate-change-habitat-loss-science-united-states/

A National Audubon Society report called "Common Birds in Decline," for instance, shows that some widespread species generally thought to be secure have decreased in number as much as 80 percent since 1967, and the 19 others in the report have lost half their populations. The figures reflect an array of threats faced by birds throughout North America. (Read about the decline of European songbirds in National Geographic magazine.)

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters/3012/

Every spring since 1989, entomologists have set up tents in the meadows and woodlands of the Orbroicher Bruch nature reserve and 87 other areas in the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The tents act as insect traps and enable the scientists to calculate how many bugs live in an area over a full summer period. Recently, researchers presented the results of their work to parliamentarians from the German Bundestag, and the findings were alarming: The average biomass of insects caught between May and October has steadily decreased from 1.6 kilograms (3.5 pounds) per trap in 1989 to just 300 grams (10.6 ounces) in 2014.

"The decline is dramatic and depressing and it affects all kinds of insects, including butterflies, wild bees, and hoverflies," says Martin Sorg, an entomologist from the Krefeld Entomological Association involved in running the monitoring project.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/amphibians-declining-alarming/

A new study finds that frogs, toads, salamanders and other amphibians in the U.S. are dying off so quickly that they could disappear from half of their habitats in the next 20 years. For some of the more endangered species, they could lose half of their habitats in as little as six years. The nine-year study, published on May 22 in PLoS One by scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), examined population trends for 48 species at 34 sites across the country.

[Cakes488]

13. That's your examples?? Deer, eagles and hawks? LOL Please get educated, thank you.

[tenderfoot]

31. I saw an elephant at the zoo - they're totally thriving everywhere

Rhinos too.

Then there's the bumble bee...

[2naSalit]

2. One of the main reasons that

I am ashamed to be a human.

[The2ndWheel]

9. Even having the ability to be ashamed is part of it

All the things you probably enjoy, education, medicine, technology, and whatever else, is all part of the issue. It's not just the bad stuff like corporations. Doing all the good stuff, and trying to minimize the downsides of every action, is probably doing more long term damage than allowing the downsides to keep us in check.

There is no counter-balance to humanity. You know how we want to regulate corporations? Well we don't allow anything to regulate us as a species. We even increasingly write the rules which govern us, like any good corporation does.

There's nothing to be ashamed of. This process started a long time ago. Sharpening a stick or rock, specifically planting a seed somewhere. Thousands and thousands of years of history, complexity, and momentum. Your shame doesn't matter.

[Orrex]

7. We'll show the Permian how to run an Extinction.

FUCK YEAH!

[The2ndWheel]

8. Human progress comes at a cost

How do you think we're able to get to where we are as a species and civilization? There's a reason the rest of life doesn't travel into space, or live everywhere, or move faster than they physically can with their own physical bodies, or have grocery stores, etc, etc, etc. That stuff doesn't come cheap.

[Cakes488]

11. It should not come at the cost of the planet and the other residents on it.

That's part of this problem...we think we are so much more important than other animals.

[DLevine]

14. +1

[Calculating]

18. Isn't that just evolution though

A species will inherently do whatever it can to give itself an advantage and provide for its offspring. The other species on the planet had just as much time as we did to develop means to defend themselves from us. According to scientific theory, there's nothing inherently immoral about what we're doing outside of the fact that we're doing it in unsustainable ways which will eventually cause problems for our own species. Sustainability is the key to everything.

[The2ndWheel]

20. Should's are a human thing

Whatever it is that we call reality doesn't care about should and should not. If the planet is finite, if we exist within physical reality, our progress has to come at the cost of the planet and/or other residents on it.

If we're not more important than other animals, like the other person said in one of the replies, then there's no reason we would act differently than other animals. The only difference is our actions are amplified by our technology, and our ability to attempt to control as much of the planet and the other residents on it that we can.

[NobodyHere]

33. Well we are more important

[DLevine]

34. That's the attitude that will eventually do us in. nt

[Cakes488]

35. + 10,000

[Calculating]

10. As always

Human overpopulation is the issue. Even keeping our current consumption and technology, the world would be a much better place with only 500mil-1billion humans.

[The2ndWheel]

17. It's never an issue until after it's an issue

Which makes it tough to deal with, since you can't just kill people.

The issue isn't even overpopulation in and of itself. It's the ability we have to sustain 7+ billion people which is the real wrench in everything.

[Marthe48]

15. I feed the birds and squirrels

There are fewer individuals and less diversity in my yard, which I keep as untamed as possible. Even insects. Used to be we'd leave an outside light on and have hundreds of bugs, and lots of different kinds. Now just a few, and not many different kinds. Just so sad.

[ronnie624]

19. "We have lost one half of the animal population

and knowing this is driven by human consumption, this is clearly a call to arms and we must act now,” said Mike Barratt, director of science and policy at WWF."

The earth's ecological systems are the source of exergy for our economic activity. People are in extrene denial about the energy system that powers our civilization. Capitalism is absolutely unworkable for a densely populated, technologically advanced civilization. Better wake up.

[The2ndWheel]

21. Which economic system is workable in that situation?

[Calculating]

22. One focused on sustainability

Which doesn't rely on unlimited growth and unlimited consumption to keep the wheels turning.

[G_j]

23. exactly.. nt

[The2ndWheel]

27. And that system is?

What would you give up that you like for the greater good? Not something someone else likes, and you don't. Not something that you do or have that you're not a big fan of anyway.

The tricky thing about sustainability is we don't know what isn't sustainable until it's not sustainable. We're currently sustaining 7+ billion people in our various economic systems, and still adding to that number every day. Until we actually have fewer people from one day to the next because everyone is dying as a result of the things we're doing being unsustainable, then what we're doing is on the sustainable side.

We basically have 4 options:
1) More people doing more
2) More people doing less
3) Fewer people doing more
4) Fewer people doing less

#1 is what we're doing. #2 is too many people(the developing world). #3 is too much consumption(the developed world). #4 isn't a society we would recognize, if it's any kind of modern society at all. Governments and businesses the world over would collapse if #4 were to happen.

What it comes down to are the choices. We're not good with having to make choices. We can't agree on what choices there should be, who gets to make them, who gets to propose them, who gets to enact them, etc. Our solution to that problem has been to grow the pie. That way, in theory, everyone can have everything they want/need. That's not just capitalism and profits for the rich. That's everyone.

Our hope is that everyone can have everything they want and/or need, so that everyone can live full lives, and reach their full potential. And also save the polar bears, and the oceans, and the soil, and the trees, and all the rest of life. Except for the stuff we want to eradicate.

If anyone comes up with a system that can do all that, with no downside to any of it, they'll get a trillion dollars. They'll have all global awards named after them. We might just rename the UN to whatever that person's name is.

[G_j]

30. that's a lot of ink

to convey that it's all hopeless and we're screwed.

[ronnie624]

25. You're thinking in purely ideological terms.

Any system we use, absolutely must be consistent with fundamental scientific principles. Our current one is most definitely not.

[The2ndWheel]

28. Humans can't fly or move at 50mph

That's just physics and biology. We need all kinds of resources to do that stuff, and it's a luxury, not a need(as in food, water, sleep, etc). Step 1, get rid of or stop using any transportation that isn't our own 2 legs. What else can we do?

[jalan48]

26. Meh. Fat shaming is a bigger problem this election it seems.

[Oneironaut]

29. Humans will only survive if we leave earth.

Otherwise, suburban sprawl and industries will eventually kill everything, leading to our own demise.

As a species, we are generally too stupid to not kill ourselves. Like every animal shaped by evolution, our instinct is to reproduce until we run out of resources and die. If you put a bunch of deer on an island, they'll do the same thing.

Unfortunately, civilization won't make it off earth either. There's no incentive to. We'll probably further pollute and destroy the environment until our inevitable extinction.

[hardluck]

32. Like I Trust These Guys On The Environment...

[Cakes488]

36. Their hairspray use alone is doing us in...LOL