Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday April 12 2019, @09:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-only-natural-to-question-authority dept.

Phys.org:

Around 80 percent of the land area in Europe is used for settlement, agriculture and forestry. In order to increase yields even further than current levels, exploitation is being intensified. Areas are being consolidated in order to cultivate them more efficiently using larger machines. Pesticides and fertilisers are increasingly being used and a larger number of animals being kept on grazing land. "Such measures increase yield but, overall, they also have negative impacts on biodiversity," says UFZ biologist Dr. Michael Beckmann. "This is because even agricultural areas offer fauna and flora a valuable habitat—which is something that is frequently not sufficiently taken into consideration."

Betteridge's law of headlines says no, but is more intensive farming really crowding out native species more than less intensive farming?


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by Some call me Tim on Saturday April 13 2019, @05:14AM (3 children)

    by Some call me Tim (5819) on Saturday April 13 2019, @05:14AM (#828878)

    I agree, the fact that humans can't do anything to effect the global climate is a huge reason not to worry about that crap. If the earth gets tired of us it will eradicate us and move on. The entire wealth of the planet could be put into the effort to somehow stop climate change (who are these idiots that think the climate doesn't change?) and nothing would happen.

    --
    Questioning science is how you do science!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @10:56AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @10:56AM (#828927)

    the fact that humans can't do anything to effect the global climate

    fact? you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
    effect? you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:39PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:39PM (#828951) Journal

    The entire wealth of the planet could be put into the effort to somehow stop climate change (who are these idiots that think the climate doesn't change?) and nothing would happen.

    Ok, evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated facts indicates that we can and do influence the climate through such things as our ability to change the albedo of land on a massive scale (for example, roughly a ninth of all land is used for growing plants which tends to increase the sunlight absorbed by the land) and of course, the green house gases (and their opposite) we've put into the atmosphere.

    So it is natural to suppose that since we can change climate, we can similarly resist climate change both man-made and natural, particularly, if the part of the climate we're trying to stabilize is something relatively simple like global mean temperature.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:42PM (#828953)

    You're a flat earther.