Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday July 11 2017, @10:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the putting-your-affairs-in-order dept.

Environmental scientists are warning of a sixth mass extinction, pointing to a decline in vertebrate population sizes, even among species of least concern:

Many scientists say it's abundantly clear that Earth is entering its sixth mass-extinction event, meaning three-quarters of all species could disappear in the coming centuries. That's terrifying, especially since humans are contributing to this shift.

But that's not even the full picture of the "biological annihilation" people are inflicting on the natural world, according to a study published Monday [open, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1704949114] [DX] in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Gerardo Ceballos, an ecology professor at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and his co-authors, including well-known Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, cite striking new evidence that populations of species we thought were common are suffering in unseen ways. "What is at stake is really the state of humanity," Ceballos told CNN.

The authors: Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Rodolfo Dirzo.

Also at The Guardian and DW.

Related: For the Second Time, We Are Witnessing a New Geological Epoch: The Anthropocene
Crystals Win in the Anthropocene: 208 Manmade Minerals Identified


Original Submission

Related Stories

For the Second Time, We Are Witnessing a New Geological Epoch: The Anthropocene 30 comments

11,700 years ago, the Earth suffered a catastrophic climate change. As the ice age ended, sea levels rose by 120 meters, the days grew warmer, and many kinds of plant and animal life died out. But one animal began to thrive more than ever before. Homo sapiens, which had already spread to every continent except Antarctica, came up with a new survival strategy. Today, we call it farming.

Thanks in part to that innovation, humans survived to witness the dramatic transition from the Pleistocene epoch to the Holocene—it was the first such geological transition in almost 2 million years. But now geologists say we're witnessing another transition, as we move from the Holocene into an epoch called the Anthropocene. Here's what that means.

[Continues...]

Crystals Win in the Anthropocene: 208 Manmade Minerals Identified 26 comments

Scientists have found over 200 new minerals that exist only due to human activity:

Scientists have identified 208 new minerals that owe their existence wholly or in part to humans. Many in the list have been found down old mine tunnels or on slag heaps where water and even fire have had the opportunity to work up novel compounds.

It is another example, the researchers argue, of our pervasive influence on the planet. New minerals and mineral-like compounds are now being formed faster than at anytime in Earth's history, they say. "These 200 minerals are roughly 4% of the total known minerals, but they all occurred in the last couple of thousand years, most in the last couple of hundred years," explained Robert Hazen from the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington DC.

[...] It is further evidence, if more were needed, that Earth has now entered a new epoch. Currently, geologists label the time since the last ice age, 11,700 years ago, as the Holocene. But there is a push to introduce a new classification to reflect the immense, planet-wide changes driven by humans in recent decades - and for it to be called the Anthropocene Epoch. The list of new man-mediated minerals bolsters the case.

Also at The Washington Post, Scientific American, and The Guardian.

On the mineralogy of the "Anthropocene Epoch" (DOI: 10.2138/am-2017-5875) (DX)


Original Submission

The Latest Chapter in Earth's History: The Meghalayan Age 8 comments

Welcome to the Meghalayan Age - a new phase in history

The official history of Earth has a new chapter - and we are in it. Geologists have classified the last 4,200 years as being a distinct age in the story of our planet. They are calling it the Meghalayan Age, the onset of which was marked by a mega-drought that crushed a number of civilisations worldwide.

The International Chronostratigraphic Chart, the famous diagram depicting the timeline for Earth's history (seen on many classroom walls) will be updated. It should be said, however, there is disquiet in the scientific community at the way the change has been introduced. Some researchers feel there has been insufficient discussion on the matter since the Meghalayan was first raised as an idea in a scholarly paper [DOI: 10.1002/jqs.2565] [DX] six years ago.

[...] The Meghalayan, the youngest stage, runs from 4,200 years ago to the present. It began with a destructive drought, whose effects lasted two centuries, and severely disrupted civilisations in Egypt, Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and the Yangtze River Valley. It was likely triggered by shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. The Meghalayan Age is unique among the many intervals of the geologic timescale in that its beginning coincides with a global cultural event produced by a global climatic event, says Stanley Finney, professor of geological sciences at Long Beach State University and Secretary-General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which ratified the ICS proposal.

The middle phase of the Holocene will be referred to as the Northgrippian, and runs from 8,300 years ago up to the start of the Meghalayan. The onset for this age was an abrupt cooling, attributed to vast volumes of freshwater from melting glaciers in Canada running into the North Atlantic and disrupting ocean currents. The oldest phase of the Holocene - the exit from the ice age - will be known as the Greenlandian.

Scientists are still working on defining the (ongoing) Athropocene and some have criticized this new definition.

Related: For the Second Time, We Are Witnessing a New Geological Epoch: The Anthropocene
Crystals Win in the Anthropocene: 208 Manmade Minerals Identified
Anthropocene News: Scientists Warn of "Sixth Mass Extinction", the Era of "Biological Annihilation"


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.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @10:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @10:50PM (#537834)

    Asteroids got nothing on us

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:21PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:21PM (#537838)

    Thats assuming that scenario 8.5, which is 10 degrees per year, scenario is proven true.

    However, when the Bodes network algorithm is completed, the F values equals 1.2, which means 1.2 degrees of warming per century is natural.

    So this report is basically imaginary blackmail asking for cash to shut up children of the selfesteme generation.

    Ultimately more Fake news.

    Why is soylent still a man mde global warming believing platform? Are you situated in the California thought bubble?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:27AM (#537867)

      In California right now, there aren't enough liberal tears to put out the fires [sky.com].

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:15AM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:15AM (#537886) Journal

      It isn't only climate change, it is habitat destruction. But then, I suppose you'd like to see a world in which only humans, corn, cows, pigs, and chickens exist.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:28AM (#537913)

      Hahaha, came for the "fake news" claim and was not disappointed. Was gonna add my own sarcastic troll version but NO NEED!

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:26PM (27 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:26PM (#537839)

    >including well-known Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

    You forgot to mention what he is well known for. Apocalyptic doomsday scenarios that never, ever come to pass.

    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

    .

    “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

    .

    Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

    .

    After 50 years of this, you'd think people would catch on.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:47PM (21 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:47PM (#537848) Journal

      We got lucky with technological improvements and some political sanity. That luck may run out.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:49AM (13 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:49AM (#537897) Journal

        We got lucky with technological improvements and some political sanity. That luck may run out.

        Well, sure. But whose fault will it be when we get "unlucky"?

        “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

        This is known as "bad luck.” -- Robert Heinlein.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:31AM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:31AM (#537917)

          And of course khallow doesn't see the ultimate irony in using that quote himself.

          Heinlein had a lot of good stuff, but the man also had major issues. Also, I hope you realize that you and your ilk are the "right minded" people as far the the US of A is concerned. Thanks for holding us back you dick.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:11AM (6 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:11AM (#537934) Journal

            And of course khallow doesn't see the ultimate irony in using that quote himself.

            Ah, yes. The tu quoque [wikipedia.org] fallacy. That's really strong reasoning there.

            Heinlein had a lot of good stuff, but the man also had major issues. Also, I hope you realize that you and your ilk are the "right minded" people as far the the US of A is concerned. Thanks for holding us back you dick.

            Notice that this AC fails to have even a single reason why this is alleged hypocrisy or "ultimate irony". It's just another empty accusation from an empty person.

            • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:49AM (3 children)

              by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:49AM (#538018)

              Ah, yes. The tu quoque [wikipedia.org] fallacy. That's really strong reasoning there.

              A non-argument statement cannot be fallacious by definition. You are missing the vital part 3 in the cited article "Therefore X is false".

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:17PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:17PM (#538056) Journal

                A non-argument statement cannot be fallacious by definition.

                And a red herring as well. Since no such "non-argument" was presented, we can move on...

                You are missing the vital part 3 in the cited article "Therefore X is false".

                ...to another red herring. Just because a part isn't explicit doesn't mean it's missing.

                Let's analyze the post in question:

                And of course khallow doesn't see the ultimate irony in using that quote himself.

                Heinlein had a lot of good stuff, but the man also had major issues. Also, I hope you realize that you and your ilk are the "right minded" people as far the the US of A is concerned. Thanks for holding us back you dick.

                First, there's an explicit claim at the end that I'm "holding us back". It's based on the unfounded assertions that a) I'm a member of the "right-minded" class who opposes some productive, creative minority (what makes it a tu quoque fallacy argument is the insistence that I'm suffering from the same problems I decry and hence, by insinuation my argument can be ignored), b) Heinlein "had major issues" so we can again safely ignore his quote (ad hominem fallacy), c) there is some objective viewpoint called the "US of A" which can determine my status as a right-minded hold-backer and once again, ignore the Heinlein quote.

                All I can say is that as a near-libertarian, I'm far more liberal on economic, social, and individual liberties than most people on SN (and definitely more liberal than the crowd who thinks I have magic mental failwaves to hold people back with my mere opinion). In particular, I don't "hold" people back. Instead, I see the major problem as one of consequences. Many advocates for various sorts of actions don't consider the consequences of their actions. They merely assume things will become better as a result of the action. For example, if one glances at the article of the story, it is strongly implied that climate change is more serious than habitat destruction.

                And the causes are well-known. People are burning fossil fuels, contributing to climate change. They're chopping down forests and other habitat for agriculture, to the point 37% of Earth's land surface now is farmland or pasture, according to the World Bank. The global population of people continues to rise, along with our thirst for land and consumption. And finally, but not exclusively, poachers are driving numbers of elephants, pangolins, rhinos, giraffes and other creatures with body parts valuable on the black market to worryingly low levels.

                Notice how "climate change" which is actually anthropogenic global warming is listed first. But wouldn't you think that turning more than a third of the Earth's surface into farmland or pasture would be a bigger deal than the mild global warming forecast for the next century? That level of habitat destruction is climate change in itself, no less, and yet it's in its own mental compartment. Climate researchers are notorious for going through great efforts to remove the effects of habitat destruction from their data (such as filtering out urban heat island effects from temperature data).

                Similarly, notice how generic "humanity" is blamed for everything, but the most significant problems are occurring in Africa (note that all the animals mentioned above as being affected by "poachers" are African), Asia, and other high population, impoverished areas. These are areas that would be the worst affected by global warming mitigation efforts - which let us note, have been spectacularly useless to date aside from making poor people poorer.

                This is the typical tunnel-vision syndrome. These authors and the journalist are so blinded by ideology that they can't properly list the worst causes of species decline and extinction nor implicate the people and regions most responsible for such.

                Anyway, anyone basing solutions off this ideology will have the problem that it will fail. They won't understand the problems well enough to make things better and even in parts where they do, they won't apply solutions that work (such as creating developed world societies). At that point, some scapegoat needs to be blamed for the failure. Apparently, I've been nominated. But my take is people, who correctly predict both the problems you face and the failures you achieve, but who have taken no action to inhibit your course of action, aren't really holding you back.

                • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:45PM (1 child)

                  by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:45PM (#538373)

                  And a red herring as well.

                  Raising a tangential issue is not a red herring when it's done in a way that does not detract from the original conversation. Either you are implying that I'm trying to defend AC's point by not arguing it (which is inaccurate and unjustified), you believe I'm somehow preventing you from continuing that conversation with them (how exactly?) or you are carelessly misusing terms of which you have incomplete understanding.

                  First, there's an explicit claim at the end that I'm "holding us back". It's based on the unfounded assertions that a) I'm a member of the "right-minded" class who opposes some productive, creative minority (what makes it a tu quoque fallacy argument is the insistence that I'm suffering from the same problems I decry and hence, by insinuation my argument can be ignored), b) Heinlein "had major issues" so we can again safely ignore his quote (ad hominem fallacy), c) there is some objective viewpoint called the "US of A" which can determine my status as a right-minded hold-backer and once again, ignore the Heinlein quote.

                  Your reply was structured as follows:

                  And of course khallow doesn't see the ultimate irony in using that quote himself.

                  Ah, yes. The tu quoque fallacy. That's really strong reasoning there.

                  A reasonable reader would assume that the sentence you cite before alleging fallacious reasoning is the statement you believe is fallacious. Here you are talking entirely about the second paragraph of his comment, which is not the one you originally cited.

                  AC's comment separates that part in a separate paragraph from the rest of his comment. This implies a break in the line of reasoning and beginning the presentation of a new idea. Therefore, the only link between the first and second paragraph one can presume are those explicitly specified, of which there are none. As such, the most sensible interpretation of his comment is that it contains two separate points, the first being a moral judgement of you and the second being inconsistent drivel.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:42AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:42AM (#538504) Journal

                    Raising a tangential issue is not a red herring when it's done in a way that does not detract from the original conversation.

                    I think it detracts from the original conversation.

                    And of course khallow doesn't see the ultimate irony in using that quote himself.

                    Ah, yes. The tu quoque fallacy. That's really strong reasoning there.

                    A reasonable reader would assume that the sentence you cite before alleging fallacious reasoning is the statement you believe is fallacious. Here you are talking entirely about the second paragraph of his comment, which is not the one you originally cited.

                    The second paragraph elaborates to some degree on the statement of the first. I discussed the second paragraph since that gave insight into the poster's statement of the first paragraph.

                    AC's comment separates that part in a separate paragraph from the rest of his comment. This implies a break in the line of reasoning and beginning the presentation of a new idea.

                    Sometimes that is true, but not in this case and certainly not as a general rule. I wouldn't even consider it a rule for completely different posts under different stories. You have to look at the context of the writing to decide if it is unrelated.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:54PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:54PM (#538072)

              "Notice that this AC fails to have even a single reason why this is alleged hypocrisy or "ultimate irony". It's just another empty accusation from an empty person."

              That post is voted insightful, so it isn't possible for that to be true.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:43AM (#538000)

            > Heinlein had a lot of good stuff, but the man also had major issues.

            Heinlein was a man, therefore the quote is wrong.

            okay

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:39AM (3 children)

          by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:39AM (#537920) Journal

          Well, sure. But whose fault will it be when we get "unlucky"?

          That is like asking who's fault it is that gravity exists. Sometimes there isn't any better solution or it can't be had right now due to limitations.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:33AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:33AM (#537938) Journal

            That is like asking who's fault it is that gravity exists. Sometimes there isn't any better solution or it can't be had right now due to limitations.

            Or someone playing whack-a-mole with the productive members of their society.

            It's worth noting here that the "luck" had been in play for decades before 1970. For example, the infrastructure for breeding/discovering and distributing more efficient strains of crops had been around globally since after the end of the Second World War, and in place in the developed world for at least a century before that. So the agricultural gains or "luck" that have permitted humanity to grow to its current extent has been around since well before the 1970s when Paul Ehrlich made his extremely erroneous predictions.

            He also ignored economics. There's a variety of natural ways for humanity to deal with scarcity of a natural resource, by using it more efficiently or by using something else instead.

            My view is that to say that Paul Ehrlich was wrong merely because humanity was "lucky" is to insult the billions of people who have toiled hard to make the Earth a better place and tame the problems that never became serious.

            • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:47PM (1 child)

              by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:47PM (#538237) Journal

              R&D results is not a deterministic activity. It requires hard work, persistence and indeed some luck. Previous gains will not guarantee future ones. Getting people to use resources efficiently without learning by hard mistakes is not an easy task. Free market economics is not necessarily overall efficient.

              I don't doubt people work hard to make the world a better place but realities puts up limits even for hard work. Sometimes people find a a way around them by doing something else. Sometimes not.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:48AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:48AM (#538506) Journal

                R&D results is not a deterministic activity. It requires hard work, persistence and indeed some luck. Previous gains will not guarantee future ones. Getting people to use resources efficiently without learning by hard mistakes is not an easy task. Free market economics is not necessarily overall efficient.

                And you had "good luck" in not getting struck and killed by an asteroid while writing that post. At some point, the likelihood of the "luck" becomes so high, it makes little sense to speak of luck.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:52AM (5 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:52AM (#537898) Journal

        We got lucky

        Oddly, that was Ehrlich's excuse each time he was challenged and forced to face his utter failure.

        Yet each time when asked to point out the particular piece of luck he could not find a single convincing answer.

        Mass extinction events do not come along slowly as in "entering its sixth mass-extinction event".

        They are sudden events and have external causes, such as impacts or volcanoes (blamed for at least 5 of those 6).

        Human plagues, wars, etc, which were within our power to prevent, had we just a tiny bit of knowledge, don't even enter into the equation of a mass extinction event.

        Seriously, the zombie apocalypse is more believable than drifting into an extinction event.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:12AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:12AM (#537946)

          Global warming gets a lot of blame while everyone ignores the real problem.
          Yes, we are in the midst of a mass extinction. The external cause is that 3/4 of the Earth's non-frozen, non-water surface has been cleared and replaced with a little thing called agriculture. Not many wild creatures live there anymore. But hey, people gotta eat.

          Global warming is real, and yes, it's caused by humanity, but the more I learn about what's really going on in the world, the more I start to think GW is just a scapegoat; a smoke-and-mirrors distraction, redirecting our attention away from a more nefarious reality. There are much bigger problems on the horizon. Just watch. Really.

          • (Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:14PM (2 children)

            by ewk (5923) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:14PM (#538033)

            3/4? Dude... what have you been smoking?

            It's about 11% of total land surface and about 36% of the total surface that could be made suitable for some sort of crop production.

            --
            I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:04PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:04PM (#538082)

              The Land Area of the World is 13,003 million ha. 4,889 million ha are classified as ‘agricultural area’ by the FAO (this is 37.6% of the Land Area). The agricultural area use is divided into 3 categories: arable land (28% of the global agricultural area), permanent crops (3%) and permanent meadows and pastures (69%) which account for the largest share of the world’s agricultural area.

              source [ourworldindata.org]

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:27PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @03:27PM (#538128)

                Yes, exactly. 37.6% overall land area times 28% of that arable ~= 10.5%.

                --
                "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 ilsa on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:55PM

          by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:55PM (#538240)

          Mass extinction events do not come along slowly as in "entering its sixth mass-extinction event".

          What do you base that statement on? Maybe a few naturally occurring cataclysmic events have caused a couple of rapid mass-extinctions, but there is nothing that says a mass-extinction event can't happen (relatively) slowly.

          In the past few hundred years, humans are personally responsible for the extinction of a whole whackton of different species, and the only reason we haven't wiped out a whole whackton more is because of active conservation efforts.

          Just because you feel personally threatened/attacked by the idea that your mere existence is contributing, however indirectly, to a planet-wide catastrophe, doesn't mean it's not true.

      • (Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:19PM

        by ewk (5923) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:19PM (#538035)

        Think of it as evolution in action...

        With the possibility that us human may not be the fittest to survive anymore. :-)

        --
        I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:55PM (#537852) Journal

      Dooms day stories sell. The Revelations of St. John has done well for nearly 2000 years. And, all good dooms day stories have an escape hatch built into them, for the chosen few. Everyone loves all the death and destruction, but they imagine that after a little suffering, they can escape the fate of their fellow man. I think Ehrlich wants to be the prophet who manages to save the select few, or something like that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:04AM (#537880)

        God blessed them; and God said to them, "Boink and make lots of babies, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:58AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @12:58AM (#537877)

      The peer reviewers spew the same prattle. Publishing this makes a mockery of science. It's outright fraud.

      Hundreds of thousands of species will perish, and this reduction of 10 to 20 percent of the earth's biota will occur in about half a human life span....This reduction of the biological diversity of the planet is the most basic issue of our time.

      - Thomas Lovejoy

      Human efforts have been notable for their lack of attention to the living world that supports us all. In the face of the worldwide extinction crisis, we should redouble our efforts to learn about life on Earth while it is still relatively well represented.

      - Peter Raven

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @02:38AM (#537919)

        You obviously haven't been paying enough attention. This story may be a bit sensationalized and predictions too dire, but we have already lost a rather large number of species. If the ocean keeps warming and acidifying then you can bet on a large portion of aquatic life to die off, and that will trigger a chain reaction across the food chains. Possibly we could lose a lot of oxygen producing algae and such, that would put a crimp in the entire world!

        We have been saved by technological revolutions, but we're stripping the topsoil and destroying ecosystems still at a quite rapid pace. It amazes me that there are people such as yourself who are supposedly intelligent yet completely throw away such worries. In this case it is better to play it safe than gamble with the future of the planet.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:51AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:51AM (#537995) Homepage
      Don't forget the classic 1970 prediction: "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.

      Think I'm gonna have sushi for lunch, gotta do my bit...
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:37PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @11:37PM (#537843)

    Get your popcorn here! Popcorn!

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:55AM (2 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday July 12 2017, @01:55AM (#537899) Journal

      As long as it's not seasoned with mosquitoes.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:28AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:28AM (#537971)

        Yeah feed the trolls...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:41AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:41AM (#538011)

          I'm confused now: Do the trolls eat popcorn, or mosquitoes?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @04:09AM (#537945)

    It's what's for dinner.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:09AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:09AM (#537964) Homepage Journal

    Ehrlich is a fruitcake, or else a coldly calculating type who knows that doomsday sells.

    That said, one thing is definitely true (and I say this as someone who despises most ecological activists): we humans occupy too much of the planet's surface. There is too little space left for other species to exist unmolested. What spaces do exist (national parks, for example) are isolated islands with little opportunity for exchange between them.

    The effect is probably most visible on the higher level predators. Cityfolk here celebrate every time someone actually sees a wolf, becuase the farmers and ranchers had totally driven them from the country. A bear? That's a real rarity. Of course, once a predator is spotted, some sort of unfortunate accident quickly follows. The local farmers know nothing [quickmeme.com]...

    We pressure 2nd world countries (Brazil, for example) to preserve their wilderness. What we aren't doing is making efforts to rebuild our own. The forests in Europe are expanding - which is great. Now we need to designate large areas of these forests and leave them alone; let them return to true wilderness. Block people from living there, from farming, from logging, from building roads, from doing anything other than visiting briefly.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 2) by ilsa on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:44PM

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @06:44PM (#538235)

    If you look at relatively recent reports about Chernobyl, you will find that wildlife has come back to the area with a vengeance.

    The radiation is still an issue of course, but the fact that nature and wildlife is flourishing, demonstrates that just having humans living in an area is more devastating to the local ecology than an exploding nuclear reactor.

(1)