Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the we-miss-you dept.

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 World Wildlife Fund 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.

Related Stories

What The Haulout Of 35,000 Walruses On One Beach Tells Us About the Climate 16 comments

Common Dreams reports:

Federal biologists have discovered an unusual phenomenon on a beach in northwest Alaska: a massive gathering of walruses — 35,000 of them — crowded onto a small strip of shore. This swarm, which was sighted in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration aerial survey on Saturday, is a direct result of a warming climate and declining sea ice, say scientists.

Pacific walruses, who live in the Bering Sea during winter, require floating sea ice to meet their survival needs, using them for rest in between journeys to forage for food, such as clam, snails, and worms, as well as for giving birth and caring for their young. But as the oceans warm, this sea ice is receding, especially near coastal areas, forcing these walruses to take to the beach for resting and foraging, according to an explanation from the NOAA.

"The walruses are telling us what the polar bears have told us and what many indigenous people have told us in the high Arctic, and that is that the Arctic environment is changing extremely rapidly and it is time for the rest of the world to take notice and also to take action to address the root causes of climate change", said Margaret Williams, managing director of the group's Arctic program, in a statement.

[...]similar large aggregations of walruses have been seen in and near the area in recent years. The [World Wildlife Fund] tracked 20,000 walruses on the shore at Ryrkaipiy on the Chukchi Sea in Russia in 2009

Related:
Earth Has Lost 50% of All Wildlife Creatures Over the Last 40 Years

Grassley-Durbin Bill Reforming H-1B and L-1 Visa System 19 comments

"The abuse of the system is real, and media reports are validating what we have argued against for years, including the fact that Americans are training their replacements."

(Grassley-Durbin Bill press statement, Nov 11)

There has been much ado about the H1-B and L1 visa programs for foreign workers, with some in favor, and some against. What is pretty clear though, is that abuses do happen.

Now Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) have introduced legislation to try and curb some of these abuses. Among other things, their bill proposes to prohibit companies with more than 50 employees of hiring H1-B employees if the company already employs more than 50 percent of H1-B and L1 visa holders, and to establish a wage floor for L1 workers.

Working conditions of similarly employed American workers may not be adversely affected by the hiring of the H-1B worker, including H-1B workers who have been placed by another employer at the American worker's worksite. In addition, it explicitly prohibits the replacement of American workers by H-1B or L-1 visa holders.

Full text of the bill here (pdf), supporting statement by IEEE USA here.

Given election times and all, what chance do you think this bill has to make it into legislation?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:27AM

    by mendax (2840) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:27AM (#102889)

    It means there will be more room for the cockroaches when they finally evolve sentience and conquer the world.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday October 07 2014, @09:06AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday October 07 2014, @09:06AM (#102921) Journal

      I would say "welcome to Earth" as something like 99% of the creatures that EVER existed were dead before a single man crawled his dumb monkey behind out of a tree. This is a vicious violent world folks, how many times have we have worldwide extinction level events? Something like 3 right? We've had periods were the entire planet was cold as hell, periods were the CO2 was so high it created megatrees and spiders the size of a dinner plate, we've had periods where the oceans were nearly s lifeless as the dead sea and periods where you had sea monsters like scorpions as big as a VW...this is a rough and nasty place to live folks, probably why we have so much variety in the first place, its adapt or die here on planet Earth.

      Now that does NOT mean that we shouldn't spend money on things like nuclear and alternative energy research, we should spend money on these along with money on recycle tech because of good old common sense, we have limited resources and until we figure out how to make space a viable source for new resources we gotta be smart with what we got. What I DO object to and will do my damnedest to call out and get people to vote against is "snake oil/magic rocks" that are designed to enrich a handful at the top [nakedcapitalism.com] by selling magic beans like carbon credits (AKA credit default swaps 2.0) because they won't do shit except rob the poor to give to the rich [youtube.com] while making sure those rich don't have to follow the same rules. Its kinda like how rev Al Gore pays himself carbon credits from his own company and gets a tax break for "being green" when all the man did was move money from his left pocket to his right...its still his money, he didn't lose a single dime of it and in fact MADE money in the form of tax credits, and he didn't actually remove a single spoonful of carbon from the air...its bullshit, its a scam, and anybody who REALLY cares about this planet should scream bloody murder at the thought of bullshit like this being pushed as "getting tough on pollution", its horseshit!

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 10 2014, @10:06PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 10 2014, @10:06PM (#104635)

        good old common sense

        isn't.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by mattyk on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:52AM

    by mattyk (2632) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:52AM (#102890) Homepage

    Creatures are being decimated? That's horrible. From how many creatures do you suppose we have to cut off a 10% chunk for half of all creatures to die?

    IOW: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    --
    _MattyK_
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:57AM (#102892)

      IOW: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Learn your lesson well you dumbshit dictionary pedant.
      Words have more than one meaning.

      decimate: [merriam-webster.com]
          3a: to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population>

      • (Score: 1) by mattyk on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:07AM

        by mattyk (2632) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:07AM (#102897) Homepage

        I shouldn't raise to the AC troll bait, but it's a fair point. I focused too much on the wrong critique in my click-baity title and tl;dr summary, and for that I'm sorry.

        However it still doesn't excuse the fact that the copy says that "creatures ... are being decimated". If "populations of creatures" or "species" were being "decimated" I wouldn't complain, but individual creatures? As I said, horrible.

        --
        _MattyK_
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:12AM (#102898)

          > The.Colbert.Report.2014.10.06.James.McPherson.720p.

          Jesus fucking christ. What part of "creatures" is singular?

          Stay down this time dumbshit.

          • (Score: 1) by zenlessyank on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:04AM

            by zenlessyank (4767) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:04AM (#102908)

            Maybe we should send your ass to Slashdot where you belong.

            Nibble on the chill pill. Glaxo/Squibb/DEA says it's OK!!!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:04PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:04PM (#102992)

              > Maybe we should send your ass to Slashdot where you belong.
              > Nibble on the chill pill.

              Meanwhile we should definitely keep the dictionary pedants and grammar trolls, their asses totally belong on soylent. Especially when the ones that can't even get it right.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @09:28AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @09:28AM (#102924)

            disregard that: I suck COCKS!!

          • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:16PM

            by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:16PM (#103081)

            Hey internet tough guy, try logging in when you post.

            --
            "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:50PM (#103114)

              > Hey internet tough guy, try logging in when you post.

              Hey internet tough guy, make me.

              What's your problem here? That someone was pridefully an idiot making obviously incorrect dictionary and grammar flames, or that someone called them out on it?

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 10 2014, @09:52PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 10 2014, @09:52PM (#104626)

            James McPherson the villain in the first season of Warehouse 13? What does that title have to do with anything? I'm not going to watch a half-hour show just to figure out what you're trying to say.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:25AM

      by Bot (3902) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:25AM (#102910) Journal

      Cute, this guy parses English worse than I do.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Shijiyaku on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:02PM

        by Shijiyaku (1553) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:02PM (#102991)

        Well in your defence the english language has also been decimated outside the classroom.

        --
        Born too late for sail;too early for space
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:59AM (#102919)

      IOW: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Before I read that line, I thought you were making a (failed) joke on the word. However that line makes clear that you indeed just are mistaken what the word really means (and also mistaken in believing that you would know what it means).

      Indeed, your usage of the words doesn't even fit the origin of the word (the 10% figure is fine, but the cutting off parts of the animal is not).

      Decimation was originally a punishment for a complete military unit in the Roman military. It meant that one out of ten soldiers of that unit were killed (not that 10% of their body was cut off).

      So your sentence as quoted above is true, however in a different way than you thought: What you think the word means is wrong.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Linatux on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:00AM

    by Linatux (4602) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:00AM (#102893)

    ...calculated by analysing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species in total.

    Sad that more isn't done to protect habitats, but 3000 is a small percentage of the million or so species already categorised.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:04AM (#102895)

      Fucking statistics, how does it work?

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:19AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:19AM (#102900) Journal

        Fucking statistics, how does it work?

        Does it? (work, I mean)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday October 10 2014, @11:11PM

          by el_oscuro (1711) on Friday October 10 2014, @11:11PM (#104644)

          I thought 87% of statistics were made up on the spot.

          --
          SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 10 2014, @09:57PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 10 2014, @09:57PM (#104629)

      Yeah, I was rather confused about the premise, too. Considering that there are approximately 18 hojillion species of bugs on Earth, I find it hard to believe that either 50% of species or individuals have died. Or does anything that doesn't circulate blood not considered a "creature" or something?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1) by pmontra on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:34AM

    by pmontra (1175) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:34AM (#102903)

    Human population doubled in the last 40 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg [wikipedia.org]

    Is it a coincidence that as we doubled ourselves (and we were starting from a pretty high number) wild life halved in number? I'm not surprised.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @09:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @09:04AM (#102920)

      So you conjecture the product of human and animal populations should remain constant? I don't see a reason for that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:26PM (#103085)

      Plus we're all a lot fatter. I had two ocelots and a tapir for lunch, and I'm still hungry.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:47AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @08:47AM (#102915) Homepage Journal

    As opposed to all the other things we are told to panic about, this is a genuine problem. The only solution - politically unworkable in almost every country - would be do have nature reservations with serious enforcement.

    - In Brazil: You actually through people out of the rain forest when they try to slash-and-burn, instead of accepting it as fait accompli. You don't restrict logging, you prohibit it.

    - In the US: The US forest service has (vastly) more roads that the entire US highway system. They not only need to stop building roads, they need to destroy most of the ones they have, because the roads are primarily there to provide commercial logging access. Then designate vast swaths of the parks as restricted areas, with very little visitation.

    - In many European countries, it would mean actually creating substantial parks in the first place, because there are hardly any.

    - Finally, it would also mean connecting as many of these reservations as possible, so that animals could migrate as needed.

    Ain't gonna happen, because it would mean actual sacrifice on the part of too many people.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @10:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @10:20AM (#102933)

      You actually through people out of the rain forest

      Parse error. Seriously, I have no idea what you mean.

      • (Score: 1) by dmbasso on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:11PM

        by dmbasso (3237) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:11PM (#102969)

        "Throw", that's what ve meant. Shitty parser of yours.

        --
        `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @10:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @10:23AM (#102934)

      It could be enforced against people's wishes, if you make the protected areas seem dangerous enough. Both the Chernobyl exclusion zone and the Korean DMZ have been noted as thriving de-facto nature reserves. Radioisotope contamination or landmines mostly keeps people out, but it doesn't appear to stop wildlife from living quite happily.

    • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday October 07 2014, @10:39AM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @10:39AM (#102938)

      The human population is continuing to grow. From an ethical point of view I think it is necessary to feed everyone, environmental impact notwithstanding. In other words, things are going to get worse for wildlife before they get better. Predictions are that the global human population will turn a corner later this century, and after that happens, what's left of nature will get a chance to expand again.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 2) by bitshifter on Tuesday October 07 2014, @11:54AM

        by bitshifter (2241) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @11:54AM (#102957)

        "Predictions are that the global human population will turn a corner later this century"
        - Can you provide a citation?

        • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:36PM

          by Sir Garlon (1264) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:36PM (#102979)

          - Can you provide a citation?

          Kind of. It's only one opinion, but it's an expert opinion. Normally I hate video but this is what I've got [youtube.com] -- it's about 10 minutes.

          --
          [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @04:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @04:22PM (#103150)

          According to these guys that will only happen in the low fertility scenario. Page 5.

          population situation [un.org]

    • (Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:51PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @02:51PM (#103067)

      ... because it would mean actual sacrifice on the part of too many people.

      Okay, you first.

      My priority? My own species. Reserves are fine, as long as they help people. But the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project is complete crap. It's globally controlled government homesteading on private property.

      --
      I am a crackpot
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:34PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:34PM (#103092)

        Then consider that our species is perched atop a foundation of the global ecosystem - if that ecosystem collapses, as it is beginning to do, it won't jut be wildlife that dies out, it will be us as well. All the GMO corn in the world won't help us if rampant desertification swallows all the arable farmland. At some point the problem becomes so big that our technology can't stand against the tide. Certainly there will be pockets of civilization that survive, but if we let things get really bad it might be centuries before the world is healthy enough to support a million people again.

        • (Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 08 2014, @11:52AM

          by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday October 08 2014, @11:52AM (#103532)

          if that ecosystem collapses, as it is beginning to do,

          Check your premises - you are basing your assertions on a false one. You would have been in a better position to claim that the global ecosystem was "beginning to collapse" 60 or 70 years ago than you do today. Even China, which was a third world backwater at that time, has now come to realize it cannot spew industrial waste into the air and water without seriously harmful consequences. The world population, once exploding, is now projected to reach a peak in the middle of this century. There is no evidence that "rampant desertification" is likely to impact the amount of arable land in the world, and even the IPCC has backed off from the most dire predictions of climate change catastrophe they were claiming in years past.

          The worst part of this global agenda for governments to homestead vast tracts of land for wildlands is that, as history has shown, governments (that is, collectives) are far worse stewards of the environment than private owners. That's just human nature.

          --
          I am a crackpot
          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:28AM

            by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday October 15 2014, @02:28AM (#106146)

            I suppose that depends on what exactly you mean by collapse. To use a bridge metaphor, several decades ago the foundations were beginning to crumble and cracks were forming throughout the mortar. Today we've got large chucks of road falling into the river at an ever-accelerating rate.

            As for your gloomy predictions of government wildlands stewardship - I think wildlands may be an exception to the usual "rule" - after all the only "maintenance" they need is for people to be mostly kept out, and if governments excel at anything it's obstruction. Most anything beyond that and we just interfere with the restoration. Nature has hundreds of millions of years of practice restoring devastated regions, we just need to let her do her thing.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @05:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @05:58PM (#103229)

      In Brazil, the problem is illegal loggers destroying the forest and throwing/killing people living sustainably in the forest.

      Europe is a lost cause. They don't even know what wild is anymore.

      Now look at China, India, Indonesia, most of Africa, and even Bolivia. There are nations that have "preservation of nature in constitution", but it's nothing but lip service. They turn around and prostitute their most "cherished" parks for "responsible oil exploration". Or try to blackmail others by stating "you pay us $100B or we'll destroy our environment".

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:24PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday October 07 2014, @01:24PM (#103011) Homepage Journal

    Article only measured a very, very small subset of species. Ants alone make this entire article horse shit.

    Also, I'm pretty sure it's a dupe as I remember saying this before.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:54PM (#103119)

      > Ants alone make this entire article horse shit.

      By what basis have you determined that ants have not been similarly decimated? Just because there are a fuckton of ants doesn't mean they haven't also suffered serious declines. Or is this more of your, "If I can't see it, it ain't happening" logic?

    • (Score: 2) by ngarrang on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:00PM

      by ngarrang (896) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:00PM (#103231) Journal

      I would have to agree. Scientists cannot tell us accurately how many species are alive right now, because many have yet to discovered. We barely know anything about the ocean, for example. We are still finding new mammals and bugs in tropical forests. It is improper for a real scientist to make the claims of 50% life lost like this. There simply is not enough FACTUAL information on which to make such a conclusion.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07 2014, @06:14PM (#103235)

        What is it with the pedancy?
        Your level of precision is impossible. We will never know the sum total of all animals on the planet. Obviously these results refer to all known animals. You are essentially arguing with a headline, and while I realize that's a favorite passtime of trolls, knocking down strawmen is so passe.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 10 2014, @10:03PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 10 2014, @10:03PM (#104631)

          Exactly. So they should stop making fucking statements about 50% of the world's wildlife when, as you say, it's impossible to know with authority.

          If there's plenty of species we don't even know of, I'd prefer to round DOWN in my wild-ass statements, not up.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 10 2014, @10:08PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 10 2014, @10:08PM (#104637)

          *pedantry :)

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:36PM

    by richtopia (3160) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:36PM (#103099) Homepage Journal

    Distribution of land mammals currently:
    https://xkcd.com/1338/ [xkcd.com]

    I am curious how this would have looked 40 years ago.

  • (Score: 2) by ragequit on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:51PM

    by ragequit (44) on Tuesday October 07 2014, @03:51PM (#103115) Journal

    Or nice pandemic.

    I mean, what is the proposed endgame here?
    Options:
      - population control: unworkable on a global scale because people don't do things they aren't forced to do. (joke about Mormons and their 6 kids each)
      - global wildlife stewardship. nope, not going to happen

    a good bout of total war or a "The Stand" like epidemic would make all the bunnies happy.

    --
    The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.