SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A professor famous for predicting the imminent demise of the human race at regular intervals since the 1970s has predicted the imminent demise of the human race.
Paul Ehrlich, who is the Bing Professor of Population Studies at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, says it's definitely on this time. In a tinned statement issued on Friday, the arm-waving prof lays it on the line:
There is no longer any doubt: We are entering a mass extinction that threatens humanity's existence ... the window of opportunity is rapidly closing ...
"[The study] shows without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event," Ehrlich said ...
"If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover, and our species itself would likely disappear early on," said lead author Gerardo Ceballos.
The original article can be found at The Register, with coverage of the cited study coming from ScienceMag.org
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Open4D on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:45PM
Yes. It sounds like Ehrlich may be an exaggerator. But the basic point is correct, and we shouldn't let the Register use him as propaganda against sustainability goals in general.
For example, one of the main things that caused Ehrlich's earlier predictions(?) to be wrong was the Green Revolution [wikipedia.org]. But Norman Borlaug, who won a Nobel Prize as the "father of the Green Revolution" was clear that his work only provided "breathing space", and that humankind has to work towards a sustainable population level. (He was on the advisory board of the Population Media Center [wikipedia.org].)
I suspect one reason some people are so vehemently opposed to this line of thinking is they imagine it implies some kind of criticism of people who have had large families (which may apply to them, their parents/grandparents, or other people they care about). But it doesn't, it's just a discussion about the future; the way forward.
Another reason might be the assumption that stabilizing or reducing the population size can only be achieved through drastic measures. But I really doubt that. For example, here [populationmatters.org] is a noticeably non-drastic manifesto from the UK's Population Matters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:31PM
...which depends largely on petrochemical-based fertilizers.
The supply of dead dinosaurs is not infinite.
It also depends on pesticides--some of which are destroying the pollinator species.
...not to mention herbicides--some of which were found to be so dangerous they were used as weapons of war.
Methods of existing on the planet will have to change.
-- gewg_