SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds.
Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world's foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilisation.
The new estimate of the massacre of wildlife is made in a major report produced by WWF and involving 59 scientists from across the globe. It finds that the vast and growing consumption of food and resources by the global population is destroying the web of life, billions of years in the making, upon which human society ultimately depends for clean air, water and everything else.
"We are sleepwalking towards the edge of a cliff" said Mike Barrett, executive director of science and conservation at WWF. "If there was a 60% decline in the human population, that would be equivalent to emptying North America, South America, Africa, Europe, China and Oceania. That is the scale of what we have done."
"This is far more than just being about losing the wonders of nature, desperately sad though that is," he said. "This is actually now jeopardising the future of people. Nature is not a 'nice to have' – it is our life-support system."
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 31 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)
Population control isn't really a problem in the United States, or pretty much any 1st world country. The massive growth in population isn't happening there, it's happening in the 3rd world countries. So, do you support that massive growth by subsidizing food and cost of food via aid or do you let them starve to death? So far, the first world's response has been, let's end world hunger! While it's definitely a good thing to want to help starving children, anywhere. That doesn't mean it's not going to cause a whole different set of problems and / or eventually end up with a global hunger crisis.
I find it quite annoying when someone starts going off on a we need population control rant and the first thing they do is say how much the United States needs it. Sure, maybe you're extremely biased against certain groups and don't want them to be reproducing. That's not the same as, massive population growth in the USA. In fact, I've taken to thinking most people who are spouting population control, have a specific set of people in mind. So, either they hate rich people 'cause they're poor, or poor people 'cause they're rich, or maybe they're racist, or they could just be off their rocker.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 01 2018, @02:45AM
"Feed the world" was that sappy christmas time promo back in the 1980s... there's more hunger (hungry people) in the world today than there was back when that effort started pumping Food Aid into the 3rd world.
Charity isn't a long term solution for much of anything.
I don't know about your "most people" but let me be clear what I want to spout about population control: equal for everyone, everywhere, all countries, all races, all economic statuses, at least to the degree possible. There will be those who want, or at least have, more children than allowed, and while that should be strongly dis-incentivized, it should be done on an equitable basis - not US$10K per child, but rather 10% of all income after the birth (until the death? is one of a million thorny questions.) The problem with any "control" like this is tracking and enforcement, but the technology to achieve 99.999% compliance exists, as long as the penalties aren't so draconian as to drive the enforcers to help the violators get away with it I think it could work - much like legalizing recreational drugs: better to be legal, taxed and regulated than driven underground.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/