from the better-go-find-me-some-more-worms dept.
Disappearance of meadows and prairies, expansion of farmlands, use of pesticide blamed for 29 percent drop since 1970.
The number of birds in the United States and Canada has dropped by an astonishing 29 percent, or almost three billion, since 1970, scientists said on Thursday, saying their findings signalled a widespread ecological crisis.
Grassland birds were the most affected, because of the disappearance of meadows and prairies and the extension of farmlands, as well as the growing use of pesticides that kill insects that affects the entire food chain.
"Birds are in crisis," Peter Marra, director of the Georgetown Environment Initiative at Georgetown University and a co-author of the study published in the journal Science, was quoted by Reuters as saying.
Forest birds and species that occur in a wider variety of habitats - known as habitat generalists - are also disappearing.
"We see the same thing happening the world over, the intensification of agriculture and land use changes are placing pressure on these bird populations," Ken Rosenberg, an ornithologist at Cornell University and principal co-author of the paper in Science told AFP news agency.
"Now, we see fields of corn and other crops right up to the horizon, everything is sanitised and mechanised, there's no room left for birds, fauna and nature."
More than 90 percent of the losses are from just 12 species including sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, and finches.
The figures mirror declines seen elsewhere, notably France, where the National Observatory of Biodiversity estimates there was a 30 percent decline in grassland birds between 1989 and 2017.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @01:17AM
It's fine because we have 3 billion downloads of Angry Birds, so you see the birds went into our phones.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @01:27AM (1 child)
So there's a silver lining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:13AM
That silver lining still on your windshield? I made that shit; and don't hope losing me too.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @01:30AM (74 children)
This is one of the reasons I say we need to see a 90% reduction in the number of humans on this planet. There are simply to many of us.
The carbon footprint of a single human is incredibly high. Each breath we take releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Everything we do uses energy that releases carbon into the atmosphere. Everyone seems to talk about ways humans can reduce the amount of carbon our activities release into the atmosphere, but nobody talks about how we can decrease the amount of carbon released by 100%. That is by not existing. Each human that doesn't exist releases zero carbon into the atmosphere. Each human that doesn't exist eats zero fish, allowing the fish population to recover. Each human that doesn't exist doesn't take up space that is needed by wildlife. Each human that doesn't exist doesn't travel, thereby not spreading fungal spore, bacteria, viruses, and other things that harm local flora and fauna.
We've reached a tipping point. It's either us or the world. We need to stop acting like Ebola. We need to start acting like a symbiote instead of a parasite or virus.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 23 2019, @01:40AM (9 children)
Silent Spring: the suburbia+farmland edition.
Eh, good luck with that - we've been killing each other over every excuse imaginable since forever... Now we're in a global economic competition where the 6 billion people want to live like the other billion who have been screwing up the planet 10x harder than the 6B.
These problems are coming, soon, but convincing people with less than 20 years to live to sacrifice anything for something that may not materialize for another 200 years is impossible. Maybe after Miami and friends are dealing with a 6' increase in sea level, we might get some global action on the worst of the issues - except for the 2 billion people who are cackling with glee at their good fortune relative to the rest for whatever reasons...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @01:57AM (8 children)
The only way it might possibly happen is to give some sort of major incentive to not having children and some sort of major penalty for having children. The way things work now, we incentivize having as many kids as possible.
The best thing for our planet would be for everyone born prior to 2010 to be sterilized worldwide. We need to go several generations without any new people. By the time those who are nine now are ready to have kids, a one-child policy could have a decent effect. This isn't something that could happen overnight, but it could be a decent tourniquet to slow the Earth's bleeding.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:13AM (2 children)
I expect you have been sterilized already as an example to the rest of us, yes?
(Score: 3, Touché) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:42AM (1 child)
Not as an example to the rest of you, but yes.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:04AM
Good, good, next you fly into a murderous rage when the bitches don't believe your word that you can't get them pregnant. It's a slippery slope to serial killing all women, but you've taken your first heroic step.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 23 2019, @02:49AM (2 children)
Check out China's population effect of their "One Child" policy. Spoiler alert: population still grew, quite a bit.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:59AM
One Child failed for the same reason communism failed. People under-reported their children and over-reported their economic productivity. Any plan that requires people to be honest is automatically doomed to failure. This naive fool EJ can't quite seem to grasp the reality of human nature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:35AM
What a fucking stupid comment. Really... You don't realize that the KIDS of the people at the time when 1 child policy was enacted, still had their ONE child?? And they didn't exactly die instantly either. So of course the fucking population will grow. But it will also AGE.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/china-unprecedented-demographic-problem-takes-shape [stratfor.com]
You see those numbers??
Now see Philippines,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Philippines#/media/File:Bev%C3%B6lkerungspyramide_Philippinen_2016.png [wikipedia.org]
it's a fucking disaster waiting to happen because TOO MANY KIDS. Even Thailand has got a hold of their population,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Thailand#/media/File:Bev%C3%B6lkerungspyramide_Thailand_2016.png [wikipedia.org]
Want another exploding population graph?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria#/media/File:Nigeriapop.svg [wikipedia.org]
In all those exploding population graphs, even if you limit to ONE child only, you will still get population increase simply because there are so many kids already and those kids will have their children.
Not understanding population demographics like this is almost as bad as failing at global warming. "We reduced carbon emission - so why is it still getting warmer every year??"
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 23 2019, @02:49AM (1 child)
We already know how to do that. It is called being middle class.
Peasant farmers need lots of children, because they're the labour force to get the harvest in, and anyway if conditions are bad enough several won't live to adulthood.
All the developed countries have reducing populations, with extreme outliers like Japan and Italy losing population pretty quickly. The places still growing populations are the poor places. Also the more religious parts of the US.
This site has some good graphs to play with. [ourworldindata.org]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:54AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PskzHl6plWk&t=265 [youtube.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @01:44AM (3 children)
You're welcome to reduce the excess population by killing yourself.
(Score: 2, Informative) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @01:59AM (2 children)
Typical idiot response. This isn't about people dying today. It's about fewer people being born.
I will just thank you for doing your part by being unfuckable, so at least you won't be adding any new kids to the planet.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:03AM
Fewer people will be born tomorrow if you kill fertile women today. Better start now. The future is depending on you.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:23AM
Simple. Increase their standard of living until they get to middle-class.
Next: maintain them in gig-economy and wage-and-loans-slaves, on the brink of losing their status; they'll waste themselves in the fight to keep the status and forget about children.
This is how US has the economy booming and the fertility rate declining under the value of replacement rate [vox.com]. Easy, see?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Informative) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @02:02AM (35 children)
Ok. You first.
Now that the obvious joke is aside. Population reductions almost never hit the rich elites. I strongly suspect it'll hit the poor blighters in the third world or the poor in the more developed world highly disproportionately. Even diseases follow that course. Seen much Ebola in the wealthy countries?
Enjoy your world full of the descendants of the current rich. They may be doing subsistence farming, but that's who it'll be. Not a whole lot of diversity there.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:04AM (26 children)
Why do small minds always go directly there? This isn't about suicide. Why do you immediately think about that? It's not something that will happen overnight. It's about not having kids the world can't support.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:09AM (1 child)
If it isn't about suicide, then it's about murdering women before they can squeeze out kids the world can't support. Why do you hate women, misogynist serial killer?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:15AM
Slashdot called and wants you back.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @02:11AM (13 children)
Sorry, evolution don't work that way. If you don't have a biological imperative telling you to reproduce, you don't get to keep existing. If you do have one, you're going to keep increasing in numbers until something external changes your ability to do so.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:18AM (3 children)
That's how Ebola kills its hosts, just like we're doing to Earth.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:23AM
Save the Earth. Kill the infection. Murder women today.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @02:32AM
Odd. I thought that it was the inflammatory substances it has your infected cells synthesize in large amounts to cause hemorrhaging and release of bodily fluids so as to spread itself to the next host more effectively. (Yes, there are diseases that so over replicate that they clog up the systems bringing on death. Ebola isn't one of them. It gets your own defense systems to destroy your organs)
But what do I know. I'm a small mind. I bow to your greater intellect and knowledge. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:39AM
Exactly. Humans can either be parasites or pathogens. At the moment, we are pathogens, driving our own extinction.
Don't worry, the
moronspeople here don't understand the difference.(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:20AM
It doesn't have to be an external factor that counteracts population growth. Overpopulation leads to an increase in whackjobs snapping, advocating forced sterilization, and going on killing sprees aimed against breeders.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:26AM (7 children)
Then US is heading towards extinction, with a 1.72 fertility rate in 2018, following a 1.76 in 2017 [vox.com].
Those "illegal aliens"? They are the only ones keeping America alive now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:36AM (1 child)
FUD. This is the same type of thinking that leads CEOs to crater their companies by looking only at growth as the measure of success. When you reach 100% market share, you can't grow anymore. I suppose from that point forward, you're a complete failure as a CEO.
We don't need to increase the number of people in the USA. We need to DEcrease the number of people until we're at a level that can be easily sustained by the environment without needing to use massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, which destroy our oceans and insects.
If the USA had only 1 million people, it would be trivial to feed everyone. There would be plenty of space. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power could sustain us all. There would be no shortage of freshwater to drink. Things would be so much better than they are now. Sure, it would be a bumpy road to get there, but everything worthwhile is difficult.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:49AM
The ones that actually use massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides are the population involved in agriculture. As of 2012, barely over 1% of US population was involved in agriculture [wikipedia.org] and, still, US is a net exporter of food.
The moment you start reducing the US domestic demand for food, the food will just be exported; the fertilizer and pesticides will be maintained at least at the same levels, if not even higher (if the American farmers want to drive the prices lower to compete internationally).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @02:36AM (4 children)
Exactly. It's why the anti-immigrant fervor of the Trump-istas is such an anathema to me. Immigrants are almost always a benefit unless there is an existing overpopulation problem in a country. Immigrants generally have to have a certain baseline level of health, intelligence and motivation or they wouldn't be making the trip no matter if they are legal or illegal (though someone will surely strike me down for using such prohibited words. ;)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @11:19AM (3 children)
You're dropping a very important adjective from the phrase "illegal immigrants" and massively changing its meaning. Was this intentional?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:51PM
You're an idiot, thanks for playing but youuuuu're ouuuuttaaa heeeeere.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @05:43PM (1 child)
Oh, just riffing on the current political correctness status of illegal immigrant (Hasn't "politically correct" itself become politically incorrect to use?) I work at a University so am exposed to more of this nonsense than some.
I was referring to both legal and illegal. My current boss is a legal alien (British subject). And I've met a lot of excellent legal immigrants.
I've also dealt a lot with the illegals when I did refrigeration repair at restaurants. (I guess "undocumented migrants" is the current term. It'll likely be another ten years before that becomes an epithet. We keep renaming things over time as one term gets tainted. Look at the history of idiot, moron retarded, special, etc. Each were introduced as a neutral word and quickly became unacceptable. Humans are funny critters).
The upshot is that I've met few "illegals" who were lazy etc. More often I've seen them taken advantage of because of them not having a legal status where they can go to the cops or authorities when their employer does something outrageous. I've seen it where someone brings over Asians to work in restaurants and promises he'll help them get a green card. Then when that never happens he'll threaten them with turning them in if they squawk about it. Same bastard was having them stay in what was basically an open barracks in his McMansion on the west side of town and only had pay laundry facilities for them. He himself was Asian.
Lather rinse repeat with several different cases. You never have clear proof where you can report them and you'd end up hurting the wrong people anyway.
The whole legal/illegal thing is a farce on both sides of the issue as the businesses want the cheap labor and often can get the authorities to look the other way. I'd a lot rather have a documented guest worker program so that they are identified and have a legal status and can bring charges when they get ripped off (we have thugs that specifically target the Hispanic illegal immigrants here as they know they're unlikely to go to the cops.). Some get upset about wanting identification, but how would they feel about a European neo-Nazi on the run getting into the country illegally. It's all about whether they are "the good guys" or the "bad guys"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 24 2019, @03:19AM
Ditto. It would completely destroy our economy to pay them minimum wage tomorrow but I'm sure we could get it squared away in a decade or two.
What I meant was you said Trump folks are anti-immigrant. The left out adjective makes the difference between that statement being dead on the money or an outright falsehood in the vast majority of cases. Hell, every legal Mexican I've talked politics with since 2016 voted for Trump. They also hate illegals more than anyone else I've ever met. Not by a little bit. By a shitload.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @02:21AM (9 children)
You immediately focused on the labeled joke in the first line and didn't answer the actual problem in the latter part. Was that a TL;DR, or did you not have a real answer to it?
90%? That's gonna take a lot of technology to do if you want to not go back to neolithic living. Without massive automation there are levels of population required for given levels of technology due to the subtasks of getting and fabricating the materials. (And yes, I've thought a good bit about how to reestablish society and what is needed for different levels of tech. It was a common topic on the transhumanist forums long before most even had heard of them.)
But, since I'm such a small mind I'll just wait for your answer, Wiley Coyote. Careful with that anvil. :)
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:31AM (8 children)
Please consider thinking logically about the situation before posting. This doesn't happen overnight. We have plenty of time to put together an appropriate plan for downsizing the population. There is no post-apocalyptic scenario here.
Towns die all the time. People move away. There is no reason we should need to ship food across continents. If there are few enough people, the supply-chain can be localized in an efficient manner. You just refuse to accept that anything other than "more is better" is a possibility.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:03AM (7 children)
This is hysterical.
"You just refuse to accept that anything other than "more is better" is a possibility."
Like some straw with that man? But hey. I'll just let you tell me what my beliefs are. It'll save both of us lots of time.
"Towns die all the time. People move away."
To other places, usually. Though some of them do move to the cemetery.
Your problem is this sticking to a %90 reduction number. If it were say, the population in 1900, of 1.6 B, with our improved technology we might be able to do it. But, you're wanting to go back to levels of the 17th century. That's fine if you want to have that lifestyle, but it's not what you saw in Europe in that time. Most of it was far more nasty brutish and short in the parts of the world that didn't have reasonably effective governments like, say, China.
I don't believe in AI and automation enough to think it will come all that soon to save us from the current realities of running a society. I've seen that rosy prediction several times going back to the 60s and it never worked out. And without it, the amount of labor needed to keep the computers and health care running just won't be there. (I work at a research institution that does a lot of health related research. There's a lot under the hood of making those medicines. A whole chemical industry and the steel, electronics, polymers and such that underpin it). Now maybe we can get so good with genetics that we can make microbes to turn a lot of them out, but we are a loooong way from it.
If you just want to wave a wand and mutter the incantation of "appropriate plan" with no specifics you're doing the same thing as our current climate and energy plans which are firmly based on the sand of carbon capture that doesn't exist.
You excoriate me for being illogical and small minded, but you don't seem to have done a lot of actual thinking about the methods of getting to where you want. You're just repeating mantras that you've likely heard from others who also don't have to worry about running societies.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:43AM (6 children)
Sorry for follow up posting to myself. But I have to correct something.
The way the comment about China is phrased it sounds like I'm saying it was nasty brutish and short due to bad government. I was actually saying that it had a pretty effective government even then when there were mass famines going on due to weather etc. They would have been far worse without the Chinese government of the time.
The Chinese had a level of bureaucratic sophistication far beyond Europe for much of history and much of the social hierarchy of their elites was based on an examination system of high sophistication.
For the nasty brutish and short, I was meaning much of the rest of the world.
The history of China has been one of my interests for some time and I apologize for phrasing this so poorly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @04:00AM
China is the population reduction success story. So successful that they are going to reverse course and offer incentives to have more children. Too bad those haven't worked for Japan [cnn.com] and South Korea [citylab.com].
We have one guy here calling for 90% population reduction, but we have several countries offering incentives to have more children, with China moving in that direction. How interesting.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday September 23 2019, @04:40AM (4 children)
I see no reason why reducing population to the levels in the 1700s means we have to go back to the technology and living standards of those times. That's a silly argument to suggest that we could not maintain our current level of technology with a world population of 800 million.
A lower population would help a great deal in preserving natural habitat, species, and reducing tensions. I don't know about any specific target, such as 90% lower. How on Earth do proponents of that much reduction think we can possibly get there without disaster?
One of the most powerful ways to keep population in check is empowering women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @06:04AM (3 children)
The 90% goal is completely unrealistic. We are at 7.7 billion and on track to hit at least 10 billion globally. Maybe 12 billion or more. These estimates could be conservative, and they don't factor in anti-aging at all.
While many Western countries will probably decline in population, U.S. will hit at least 400 million, maybe 500 million.
You use the word "target". There is nothing like climate change accords for population growth, and probably won't be in the coming decades. Several countries are trying to boost their birth rates instead. China doesn't want its population to decline below 1 billion.
We are looking at a 50% increase rather than a decrease. Maybe the trend will reverse and we will return to today's population around the year 2200. But we could continue towards 20 billion instead. The planet can support a lot more people if agriculture, distribution, and energy technologies improve. On this timescale, we will have very cheap renewable sources displacing fossil fuels, and practical nuclear fusion. Even subsistence farmers benefit from new technologies.
Africa is ground zero for the growth. Population of the continent is expected to quadruple. It was 820 million in 2000 and could be 2.5 billion by 2050. There is more prosperity and less war there, and women are becoming more empowered. Birth rates will go down, but per capita consumption of resources and energy will go up.
A lot of money and effort is being spent on improving fertility. Once artificial wombs and related technologies are developed, we may see some surprising trends in the West. In particular, women won't be necessary for childbirth or eggs, and for couples there will be no need to take time off work for the latter months of pregnancy. Reproduction will not depend as strongly on marriage rates or sexual activity rates, although the equipment could be too expensive for the lower/middle class to access.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:45AM (2 children)
What are you on?
By 2020 3billion people will be on the move due to global warming already. $100T will be underwater. Sorry, under plastic-filled water.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @09:04AM
Fuck what I'm on, I want that Noah's Bark you're smoking.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 23 2019, @02:57PM
From what? Water has to come from somewhere. It's not coming from Greenland and Antarctica because those aren't melting fast enough.
Will you learn from experience when your hysterical predictions don't happen?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:38AM (5 children)
Are you serious?
In that place where the high number of children born is a survival/evolutionary strategy?
But of course. At least those have some money to waste while having the American Dream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:11AM (4 children)
"Are you serious?
In that place where the high number of children born is a survival/evolutionary strategy?"
We've seen decreases in the rates of childbirth among them, but not the mass reduction EJ is calling for. Do you really think the elites are just going to nip off somewhere and not use their clout to make sure their kids are among the remaining %10 even if it's done over a long time period? Are you that trusting of them?
We haven't seen anything like that kind of reduction in population in history save for mass famines and perhaps the plagues that swept the new world after the Europeans landed.
%90 causes things to crash even in a society with the level of just above hunter gathering. Many of the Native American ones were much higher than that. That's why the remaining natives were in such a disarray for such an extended period.
You're in totally uncharted water there, and my money is that the poor will get the shaft in it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @04:04AM (3 children)
I'm not trusting them as persons, they are sociopaths.
Their net fertility rate is still below the replacement rate [wikipedia.org] (a phenomenon as old as the antiquity [wikipedia.org], just ask aristarchus).
Especially when you take into account that maintaining the elite status is also conditioned by the same degree (if not higher) of sociopathy - which is actually pretty hard to guarantee on the biological descendants line.
Personally, I'm more worried about the "corporations elite", in which a mega-corporation propagate in history; a corporation is not restricted by factors such as fertility to find the replacement sociopaths:
- IBM is still with us after providing tabulation machines to the Nazi;
- Bayer [wikipedia.org] is still with us after a long history started by selling heroin as cough suppressant in 1898 and, more recently, knowingly providing medication infected with hepatitis-C/HIV in Asia and Latin America (thousands died of AIDS so acquired).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @04:37AM (2 children)
There is some merit in what you're saying on the reproduction of elites. But, in the past, it's been the normal course of a society. As such it's to some extent invisible to those who are having it happen.
This according to EJ is a conscious policy that would have to be put into law. Elites excel at working the system to their own advantage.
I don't think I'm as down on elites as you are, though. To my way of thinking, given that we're both computer using citizens of industrialized wealthy countries, a lot of people in the world would consider both of us to be those dreaded "elites". (I don't think either of us are terribly wealthy, though I really don't know about your situation. It's just that the societies we are in have so much wealth concentrated in them that even the lower middle class are elites compared to much of the world.)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @04:59AM (1 child)
Being an immigrant from a East European country in Australia, I know that most of the people of this world doesn't look to the middle-class in developed countries as "dreaded elites".
At the very most, the ones that may look at us** this way are some whose countries were invaded by the "civilized world" in the name of "western civilization values" (or just interest) - a good way to bring up the "terrorist/freedom fighter" spirit in the same person (usually, a psychologically labile one - born or shaped in this way by their life experiences).
** the "computer using citizens of industrialized wealthy countries"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Wednesday September 25 2019, @12:09AM
I didn't think of them as "dreaded". Just comparative economic elites. And most of Eastern Europe has a higher living standard than much of the world.
Go to parts Sub-Saharan Africa or India. Even portions of western China (One of China's problems is the difference in standard of living between the industrialized east and the west. They started the "Go West" initiative not just for reasons of fairness, but because the CPC worries about the social problems that have come up from the disparity and the travel of people from the west to the east in search of good jobs.)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 23 2019, @05:37PM (1 child)
Challenge accepted and completed.
Middle-aged, middle-class, non-breeder reporting for duty, sir!
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @05:45PM
Well, I'm middle aged too (57), middle class and no kids so I guess it'll be a race to see who "wins" ;)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @02:08AM (6 children)
You go first. I'm gonna stay and turn the lights out after.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:23AM (5 children)
Seriously? You're one of those? Why does your brain instantly go to suicide? You already read my post saying that this isn't about suicide, yet you decided to post the same idiotic response that other small-brains post.
Look at all the talk of environmentalists about the extreme actions we need to take to save the planet. Penalizing reproduction is a very minor thing compared to other possibilities. It's already been used in China, and their society didn't collapse.
This is something that affects rich and poor alike. I'm talking about a penalty along the lines of losing half or more of your net worth if you violate the reproduction clause. In truth, wars WILL be fought over this, and we may not survive them anyway.
If the people born since 2010 want to have a future, then those born before 2010 need to forego children any more children.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:35AM (1 child)
I don't see any mention of suicide in what TMB said.
Relax. He only said he'd like you to be before him as the subject of those extreme actions.
In fact, he implied more than that: he would like to be the last so that he's the one to turn off the lights.
Are you more relaxed now? (considering what TMB could do to make sure all he wants happen)
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:38AM
You know exactly what he meant. He meant he's between posting cooldowns on Slashdot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:41AM
Violate the reproduction clause and get harpooned in the uterus. Oh man, this law enforcement is going to get bloody.
Hey small brained idiot, the one child policy didn't really work in China, because people are capable of a neat trick called lying about how many children they have.
Best of luck with your depopulation plans. Serial killers who target women like to start with prostitutes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:47AM
You're being made fun of because your 90% reduction will not happen without unprecedented violence. There is no evidence to suggest that we will get anything different than the slight downward growth trends, hence "you first".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth [wikipedia.org]
Maybe we will see population peak at 10-12 billion before declining after 2100. But you won't see anything close to a 90% reduction from current before the year 2200.
Technology will keep people alive longer and feed most of those people. It will prevent significant epidemic casualties since our sanitation and medical technology is way better than it was in 1918 at the time of the Spanish flu.
Anti-reproduction laws or voluntary reduction won't cut it. Only war will make a significant difference.
What might happen is Africa will be allowed to bleed, since much of the population growth will be concentrated there. But even that is incompatible with international norms, and Africa is becoming more prosperous and peaceful and has untapped resources that can sustain the growth.
You can get to 90% by launching nuclear bombs, killer robots, and grassroots support for mandatory sterilization on multiple continents (good luck with that).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @11:21AM
Most everyone is one of those. Anyone saying "there are too many humans on the planet, we need to get rid of 90% of them" has just said something enormously stupid and should be responded to in kind.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:04AM
"This is one of the reasons I say we need to see a 90% reduction in the number of humans on this planet. There are simply to many of us."
-
We can start with eliminating the imbeciles who don't know the difference between "to" and "too".
That's right, you semiliterate fuck, I'm talking about you.
Kill yourself now.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:52AM
Okay, hold still...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:59AM (6 children)
Every nation advanced enough to consider the environment a thing worth saving is in population decline. The populations of Europe, North America, Australia, Japan, and the like are all falling and will continue to fall, meanwhile Africa as a whole is slated to add another 3+ billion by the end of the century. If you want to achieve your goals, without outright murder, the continent of Africa would need to be partially sterilized.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @06:41AM (5 children)
Alternatively, just bring them on a development level high enough to care about their environment.
They'll "sterilize" themselves the way the "western civilization" did (post-1970'ies) and in 2 generation tops (i.e. about 50 years) you have the population decline to sustainable levels.
See also Japan for a brutal case of declining population due to economic development. Declining population [wikipedia.org]:
economic development as cause [wikipedia.org]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Monday September 23 2019, @08:21PM (4 children)
Does that mean that the only way for a country to reach a state where it cares about the environment enough to take action to save it, or to reduce their birth rate with that effect, is for the country to grow its industry and consumption to western levels?
If so, the greater scale of global pollution and defaunation [wikipedia.org] would be all the more catastrophic and I suspect would far outweigh any benefits of those later reductions in birth rate.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @10:18PM (3 children)
I was about to reply with a 'citation needed', but then I googled [google.com].
Fuck! This planet doesn't have a problem with overpopulation, it has a problem with consumption!
The immediate implication: eliminating one westerner does more than taking out 10 Afghani or Pakistani or around 20 Timor-Leste inhabitants [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 24 2019, @01:23PM (2 children)
In a century, the collective footprint of 1 US resident (added up over all those years) and their descendants will be roughly 4 Afghanistan, 7 Pakistan, and 8 Timor-Leste residents. If we were to somehow manage to continue to a thousand years from now, it would take 24 present day US residents to match the environmental footprint of one present day Pakistani resident. ~55k US residents to match the environmental footprint of one present day Timor-Leste resident. And 180k US residents to match the environmental footprint of one present day Afghanistan resident.
Obviously, the populations in question would crash first. But it would be the high growth rate states that would do the crashing and recrashing. That's going to increase their footprint per person as they destroy habitat, cause species extinction, lob some WMD, etc.
The solution to this mess is to transition everyone to a system that works: the high consumption, low fertility, environmentally aware developed world.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday September 24 2019, @03:30PM (1 child)
You're still missing the point. When no developing countries are left, where does this high consumption world send its millions of tons of plastic waste? Where does it build its pollution-spewing factories? And how are the factory workers going to afford this life of high consumption without driving up the price of the products they manufacture (and so consume)--unless the fat cat factory owners have to start soaking up the difference?
Globally, there needs to either be reduced consumption per capita, or a reduced population, until we can go full-on post-scarcity by growing food in extremely compact spaces, unlimited energy through fusion or massively improved renewables, a fundamental redesign of the economy, 100 % capture and recycling of all waste (perhaps firing it into the sun or burning it in the reactors), even expansion into the solar system and beyond. I don't know if the majority of those things will ever be achieved by humanity. I suspect they won't be for a good few centuries, in any case.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 25 2019, @01:09AM
Landfills or recycling. Like it does now.
What pollution-spewing factories? Why do we have a need for those things?
By using their wages to buy the things they want. And if your factory worker is making industrial pumps, they aren't going to be buying them for their own city-sized water treatment installation.
We're not going to go full-on post-scarcity as long as we treat cheap shit as if it were something precious. This is not the first time that someone has proposed creating a post-scarcity society through a lot of artificial scarcity. Post-scarcity means too cheap to meter, plenty of consumption, and waste is not a serious concern for the consumers consuming.
Notice how all the above concerns you mention have simple solutions which have been around for generations. We're not yet to a post-scarcity society, but we've already checked off a lot of the boxes. This "reduced consumption per capita, or a reduced population" goes the wrong direction.
But let's suppose we decide to abandon the idea of the post-scarcity economy and muddle through with a reduced economy, you still have to figure out how to deal with population growth. The wealthy societies are now less wealthy and hence, naturally higher fertility, and the poor societies will never get to the lower population growth of the present developed world. That means forced population control. Our record on that is mixed.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Monday September 23 2019, @07:20AM
I think what you meant to say was: We need to stop acting on Ebola.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:59AM
I would be happy if we juts act like a parasite. At least parasite doesn't kill its host.
But we are not parasite, we are like a disease instead. Too stupid to even recognize that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 23 2019, @02:55PM (4 children)
So overpopulation is important to you, right?
So what if the carbon footprint is moderately high? The climate impact is very low for that impact. right?
But why is that modest environmental impact supposed to be more important to us than our existence? Sure, if we wanted to optimize for reducing our environmental impact, permanent population reduction is the way to go. But sorry, that's bullshit on multiple levels. First, it doesn't fix the problem. It only takes a little more than three doublings of population to recover from a 90% population reduction. At the rate, humanity was growing around 1950, that's about 150 years give or take - you won't get much diversification of species in that time period (aiming for a target that species extinction from humanity is on the order of species creation). A solution that has to be redone every century or two is already pretty fragile. But then note that these repeated population culls (doesn't have to be death, could be some sort of sterilization) evolutionarily select for high fertility and resistance (to whatever methods are used for the cull) people because they're the ones who can grow to fill the cap till the next cull.
Second, much of the mass extinction has already happened in prehistory (that is, before humanity even learned to write). There's been a substantial extinction in large animal species over the past 20k years. Sure, it probably won't compare to an uncontrolled human die-off from famine, where just about every large animal in sight would get eaten. But it remains that a number of horses have already left this particular barn.
What makes "the world" more important? Let us recall the key ignored fact here. Humanity is the biggest thing to have happened to Earth probably since life developed in the first place. We're the only species that can go off of Earth on its own. We're the only species that can intentionally shape the world (and elsewhere) to suit our desires.
Fourth, another ignored fact is that 10% of the world's population has already done a great deal to solve overpopulation and environmental problems. That would be the developed world. Fifth, if you want to look for the 90% to sterilize, it'll be the poor 90% because they're the high fertility part of humanity.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday September 23 2019, @08:23PM (3 children)
...by outsourcing those problems to the developing world.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 24 2019, @04:49AM (2 children)
That is a popular excuse. The developing world would somehow be clean and pristine, if it weren't for all those developed world cooties.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday September 24 2019, @10:32AM (1 child)
Where would the developing world's industry be without the massive demand and funding of the developed world? It's western levels of consumption that are driving the environmental damage, regardless of where the stuff is manufactured or disposed of.
See the evidence c0lo [soylentnews.org] dug up in response to me.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 24 2019, @12:22PM
It'd be in worse shape with more impoverished people and less habitat, large tasty animals, etc.
Sorry, that's blatantly misguided. The next few years aren't going to be the only time of danger for Earth's ecosystems. What's going to matter is that no matter how you spin it, the developed world has declining population and the poorest parts of the developing world do not and will expand to consume all resources - unless they change.
And footprint is not footprint. The environmental footprint so described doesn't accurately describe one's harm to the environment - particularly centuries or millennia down the road when considering the footprint of one's descendants.
That higher consumption means indefinite negative population growth with considerable environmental protection. It's a good trade as a result.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @06:38PM
You first...
(Score: 1) by Trilkhai on Monday September 23 2019, @03:03AM (1 child)
I'm much more concerned about the impact of developers being able to convert open land of all types — including small farms/ranches — into cheap housing with only a tiny postage-stamp-sized yard if any at all. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see open meadows than farms/ranches, but those small farms can at least still provide trees, brush, pastureland, etc. for the insects to develop and birds live in, and the old homes with huge yards do to a (much) lesser degree; closely-spaced homes, apartment buildings, etc. don't even offer that much.
When I was growing up in the suburb I live in, we heard crickets & grasshoppers every night during summer, saw all kinds of birds, had tons of frogs, were regularly visited by opossums (which loved the wide variety of fruit trees the 60s developers had installed in the big backyards), and so forth. Now I can't remember the last time I saw a frog or opossum, it's rare to hear even one cricket or grasshopper during summer nights, and the birds are pretty much limited to blackbirds, gray finches, an occasional robin, scrubjay, owl, or small hawks. OTOH, the part of town my brother lives in has instead become closely acquainted with the bold rats that used to live in the 'creek-front' area that was recently turned into apartment buildings & shopping centers...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 24 2019, @04:54AM
Well, think of all the poor people they're helping. That impact isn't purely negative.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:33AM (5 children)
When cancer comes for you, the world will be a better place.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:36AM (3 children)
"When cancer comes for you, the world will be a better place."
If that's you, EJ. I can give you some joy. I already have it.
Prostatic cancer. It's not invasive or aggressive, but it's there. Sorry, but I don't intend on checking out anytime soon. :)
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @04:59PM
I don't post Anonymously.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @05:01PM (1 child)
Also, I don't joke about cancer or make psychotic babbling posts about women being evil. I'm not sure if it's the same person, but I've been downmodding all of their nonsense.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @05:50PM
Yeah, there have been a number of ACs that are... well.. less than exemplary. My apologies for implying it was you.
I'm very open about having cancer. My hope is that by doing that more people will get regular check ups and catch it and other medical conditions early while it's less of a problem. I've lost a number of friends to things that could have been treated if they were found earlier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:54AM
You're a toxic piece of shit, and when you off yourself, the world will be a better place.
Don't reproduce or kill birds before then.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:34AM (4 children)
I'm not going to argue with the article. I've not done wide area bird counts. But, I can tell you what I've seen where I live. It's rural central Illinois. Ground zero for intensive agriculture, and a very high use rate of neonicotinoid soil pesticides (corn rootworm is the big use here) and others. I live in the same house I did when I was a child (I moved away and moved back 20 years ago).
Since I was a child in the 1960s and 1970s, the biggest thing I notice is the return of the birds of prey. When I was young, there just weren't hawks to be seen. Now I usually see several a day on my way in to work (about 25 miles, mostly rural), and there's even a nest of bald eagles just outside of St. Joseph, IL. The eagles have been there for at least four years. I hear owls at night much more often that when I was a boy.
The second thing is the great increase in the number of crows. More on that later.
Third is the massive increase in Canada Geese, but mostly in the city areas. The shallow ponds that stay thawed year round at apartment complexes and housing developments are a magnet for them. They used to just fly over while migrating but now many stay year round.
The number of sparrows, robins, starling, juncos, etc in my yard is not noticeably less than what it was, but I'd not be surprised if it is somewhat reduced due to the higher number of top predators (hawks and owls).
My strong suspicion is that the increase in hawks and crows etc is due to the banning of dieldrin and aldrin which were very long life pesticides that got passed up the food chain. DDT was banned about that time, but it wasn't used nearly so widely here as the above soil insecticides which were also used for seed treatment. After emergent spraying, such as was done with DDT was much less then than now. Nowadays we have crop dusters and helicopters buzzing around all the time.
Crows do a lot of digging up of planted seeds so it's not surprising they were heavily hit by that. Also, the pesticides get concentrated as they pass up the food chain and really hit the birds of prey.
So, I'm guessing that the damage from converting grassland to farmland was long since done (besides, this area, despite the thought of the Illinois prairie, was actually mostly swampy forest. It wasn't until German immigrants did a lot of ditching that the land was drained in the 1800s.). I'm not sure what all the factors in the reductions other places are, but I really haven't seen them here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @09:02AM (1 child)
The birds are dying because the insects are dying.
Compare the number of bugs in your area NOW vs. 1960s?? Notice anything?? And what do most birds eat?
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:07PM
Not really. When I walk through grassland it's about the same number that fly up or skitter out of the way. Lots of grasshoppers around this year. Fireflies are about as numerous now as they were then. Difference is that I used to catch them in a jar then. Now I clean them off the windshield.
A lot of the birds they're talking about are seed eaters as well. I'm just not seeing the declines they talk about.
Now, there is a quite possible confounding factor. If the bird populations were already depressed in my area when I was a kid by the pesticides I mentioned, the removal of them may have caused enough increase to mask an overall decrease over a broader region. That's one of the reasons I'm not trying to argue with the article. A layman's observations in one small area can be very different from what is happening overall.
I'd think I'd notice a major decrease in insects. As an example, when I came back to central Illinois in 1999, I immediately noticed a startling lack of wild honey bees. Bumblebees were still around, but not honeybees. This was likely due partly to the varroa mite that was wreaking havoc on North American bees. Some have tried to link it to neonicotinoids, but the timing isn't right. The decrease started before the neonics were heavily used here. And we are one of the heaviest usage areas for them. We also didn't see much colony collapse disorder here either.
Again, there can be a lot of confounding factors. The head of our Intregrated Genomic Biology facility, Gene Robinson has an article here from a few years back: https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/205852 [illinois.edu]
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Monday September 23 2019, @04:33PM (1 child)
We can't shame the cat owners about their babies being let outside with claws. Oh you can't declaw them and you can't keep them from going outside... Let other people deal with it but I'm going to do whatever I want and fuck everything else. Repeat by millions and big problems result... and history repeats.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Tuesday September 24 2019, @06:09PM
Remember we're looking at change from then to now. But, the number of cats hasn't gone up to that extent. In the 70s, there were no neuter and release programs in the rural areas. Every barn still has its bevy of mouse maulers. If anything more cats are kept indoors now than then. So, my guess is that it's a wash.
That said, I talked to some of the outdoorsmen types I work with and they see some of the effects in the studies. Pheasants are down and they say that in the areas outside of town, songbirds are as well. The suspicion is that the open space between fields and along roads has been reduced. I haven't noticed it so much as I'm mostly in the town edge area and these are more full country types. Once they mentioned it, it was obvious to me too. There are less small copses of trees around as well. This gives a lot of birds less space to nest, makes them choose poorer place for it and makes them more vulnerable to predators. Also, bobcats seem to be up in numbers which is another predator pressure that was rare when I was a kid.
In town bird feeding seems to have become more popular as well which may have masked any decrease in the areas I see. (Though I do know that a lot of bird feeders have a hawk watching them It's sort of a buffet line for them.)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 23 2019, @12:54PM (2 children)
"Disappearance of meadows and prairies, expansion of farmlands" is a canard often repeated by misanthropes. The arable land in America was long since cultivated. There aren't people out there clearing forests now like they did in the 1800's. If anything, it's farmland that's shrinking as suburbs expand.
So clearing land is just not a factor. Pesticides may be responsible. Some research says they are, others differ. We have precedent that says changing our pesticides can affect wildlife, such as when we banned DDT and birds recovered.
There's a countervailing phenomenon that TFA didn't mention: wildlife is re-colonizing our cities. In Brooklyn there are robust colonies of monk parakeets. Peregrine falcons nest in Central Park. Bald eagles have begun nesting in Inwood Park at the tip of Manhattan. Coyotes have been seen in neighborhoods in the Bronx. Racoons have been raiding the trash in Sunset Park, in Brooklyn.
We have this idea that if there are humans, nothing else can survive, but the wildlife moving back into our cities, even our biggest, busiest, loudest cities, seem to be telling us something different. Perhaps species adapt to new pressures and learn to exploit new circumstances.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:56PM (1 child)
Wow, there is some seriously disturbed level of anti-environment bullshit. Housing and farms have been increasing steadily just about everywhere. You should probably put the keyboard down and find some other hobbies.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 24 2019, @01:44PM
You might have missed this phrase:
And Phoenix666 was right about farmland too. From this article [ufl.edu].
The author was later off by an order of magnitude due to bad math (0.7% decline, not a 7% decline), but it is still a decline.
Truth is an absolute defense against nonsensical claims of "anti-environment bullshit".
What I think is relevant is that farmland is probably more intensively exploited than it was a few decades ago. They've probably ended a number of feeding opportunities for birds over the years.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday September 23 2019, @01:26PM