SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
Humanity is causing a rapid loss of biodiversity and, with it, Earth's ability to support complex life. But the mainstream is having difficulty grasping the magnitude of this loss, despite the steady erosion of the fabric of human civilization (Ceballos et al., 2015; IPBES, 2019; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020; WWF, 2020). While suggested solutions abound (Díaz et al., 2019), the current scale of their implementation does not match the relentless progression of biodiversity loss (Cumming et al., 2006) and other existential threats tied to the continuous expansion of the human enterprise (Rees, 2020). Time delays between ecological deterioration and socio-economic penalties, as with climate disruption for example (IPCC, 2014), impede recognition of the magnitude of the challenge and timely counteraction needed. In addition, disciplinary specialization and insularity encourage unfamiliarity with the complex adaptive systems (Levin, 1999) in which problems and their potential solutions are embedded (Selby, 2006; Brand and Karvonen, 2007). Widespread ignorance of human behavior (Van Bavel et al., 2020) and the incremental nature of socio-political processes that plan and implement solutions further delay effective action (Shanley and López, 2009; King, 2016).
We summarize the state of the natural world in stark form here to help clarify the gravity of the human predicament. We also outline likely future trends in biodiversity decline (Díaz et al., 2019), climate disruption (Ripple et al., 2020), and human consumption and population growth to demonstrate the near certainty that these problems will worsen over the coming decades, with negative impacts for centuries to come. Finally, we discuss the ineffectiveness of current and planned actions that are attempting to address the ominous erosion of Earth's life-support system. Ours is not a call to surrender—we aim to provide leaders with a realistic "cold shower" of the state of the planet that is essential for planning to avoid a ghastly future.
Journal Reference:
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Paul R. Ehrlich, Andrew Beattie. et al. Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future, Frontiers in Conservation Science [OPEN] (DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday January 23 2021, @11:02AM (34 children)
There is this theory that proposes to look at the entire Earth ecosystem as one symbioltic organism.
Humanity is Gaia's cancer. And just like cancer, it's either going to kill the host - and itself in the process - or it's going to have to be eradicated.
Because clearly humanity as a species can't exercize restraint.
I fully believe that. That's why I chose not to have children, so they don't get to grow up on the fucked up planet we're leaving to future generations for one thing, and they don't get to contribute to the problem too.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by vux984 on Saturday January 23 2021, @12:53PM
"There is this theory that proposes to look at the entire Earth ecosystem as one symbioltic organism."
"Humanity is Gaia's cancer. And just like cancer, it's either going to kill the host - and itself in the process - or it's going to have to be eradicated."
Maybe humanity is to "Gaia-caterpiller" it agents of metamorphosis to "Gaia-butterfly". Or humanity actively brings about the next "Cambrian explosion of species" to create biodiversity at levels never seen before. Or maybe humanity spreads not just itself but Gaia to a thousand other planets... at worst humanity wipes itself and most large species out; and Gaia has millions of years of tranquility as bacteria, planktons, cockroaches, and lichens claim the planet.
Gaia survived the meteor strike. It takes ice ages and volcanoes in stride. The mass extinction of the dinosaurs just led to the rise of all new species. There is even a place for swarms of locusts, forest fires, and cancers in Gaia -- you need something to clear the space for new things to move in. Worst case (for us) that's our role. Best case (for us) we adapt and find an equilibrium. But either way, Gaia will be fine.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Lester on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:03PM (3 children)
Considering Earth as it were a being is just a nonsense of 1960's new age.
Earth doesn't give a damn about what is running in its surface. Ecosystem doesn't give a damn about what species exist.
Ecosystem is just a mechanism. Under static conditions, it reaches an equilibrium. When there is a big change, it takes some time to reach a equilibrium, That is all. In this case, human kind is a big disruption, finally it will reach an equilibrium. We, as human, may say the new equilibrium is ugly (less biodiversity), but ecosystem doesn't care.
Nevertheless, I don't think we are going to disappear as specie in a near future. What I think is that our civilization is going to collapse because we are depleting the resources that keep it humming.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday January 24 2021, @12:20AM (1 child)
It hasn't reachrd an equilibrium yet. That implies a steady state and is the sort of idea that promotes a rose-coloured disneyesque view of nature. It is more like a big pot of stew with the heat turned up high. It's bubbling and splattering bits over the side, some bits get burnt, and the whole mess is constantly turning over. There is no steady state until everything burns down to charcoal and stinks up the kitchen.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Sunday January 24 2021, @09:54AM
First, I didn't say that we have reached the equilibrium, in fact the other way around. What we see now are rapid changes. We are still in expansion phase.
Where have you read in my comment Disneyesque and rosy colored? Earth Ecosystem is just a mechanism, in fact, from a human moral point of view, it is quite cruel. It doesn't care whether there is a rich biodiversity or a few species. For instance, humans, rats and crockroaches. What is Disneyesque is all that stuff of Mother Gaia.
By the way, In the long term the universe will be burnt by entropy, but there are temporal steady states. For instance, the Amazon jungle were western civilization hasn't arrived yet, have stayed the same way, in a steady state, for centuries or maybe thousands of years.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday January 26 2021, @12:40PM
Earth as a single organism called Gaia is just framing. It's just a thought experiment.
You would be a fool though to deny that multi-organism groups often act as single entities, seemingly with a single purpose.
We are all interconnected by the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat. It would be foolish to claim each man is an island.
Rather, try to expand your perspective. Our organs show evidence that they evolved from independent organisms; does the liver know what the whole body does? Does it question its limited universe? Can it perceive its purpose in the larger being? Or does it only consider that it receives a steady stream of nutrients, and it's pleasure in sorting out the garbage?
Of course, our livers are not sentient beings. They can't know these things.
We are. The greatest test of our intelligence is whether we are able to see the bigger picture. To perceive the ways in which our individual actions affect the larger system, as the actions of others can affect us. To gaze up at the cosmos and realize, I am not the center of the universe.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @01:46PM
> That's why I chose not to have children, so they don't get to grow up on the fucked up planet we're leaving to future generations for one thing, and they don't get to contribute to the problem too.
Seconded. I had some other reasons for not having kids, but the reasons you mention were high on the list.
Arguably, the "greenest" thing anyone can do at this time is to not have kids.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Saturday January 23 2021, @03:59PM (23 children)
I appreciate your sentiments, but I take a different view. The old cliche that "children are the future" is true, and I think it is our responsibility to bring new people into the world who are properly brought up and properly educated to treat the Earth with the respect and care that it needs.
You are right that the human population has increased too rapidly, but the rate of rise is slowing as more countries become developed and people have better education etc.
What annoys me is the large number of seemingly willfully ignorant people who refuse to believe the hard science behind climate change, for example.
I've tried to do my bit, but I know that it's not enough on its own. I have made sure that my house is well insulated to reduce energy usage and both cars we have are hybrids. I've also been working from home for ten months due to the pandemic so I haven't been commuting, I still eat meat, but I have cut down.
We are moving to a different area for a lifestyle change soon, where I'll hopefully be mostly remote working. Next year, if all goes well, I'll be building a new house with triple glazing and a ground source heat pump for heating, and hopefully solar panels too.
We - the human race - really need to step up our efforts to find new ways of producing energy cleanly, and we need to make sure that it's available to all, in all countries. We can't go on burning fossil fuels.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:11PM (15 children)
Such as the published factor of three error bar on our estimate of long term climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2? Or the terrible economic models? There's a lot of exceedingly soft science in the field just from the researchers.
Well, how many centuries or millennia do we have?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:16PM (14 children)
I might have expected that sort of reply from a far-right Market-worshipping misanthrope. Why am I not surprised?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:47PM (13 children)
The problems with climate change hysteria go way beyond anything having to do with markets or dubious attitudes towards their fellow humans. It's a pretty pure version of confirmation bias.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @09:48PM
But, the market created khallow? Or is he just an externality?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @12:20AM (11 children)
Oh the irony.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 24 2021, @05:33AM (10 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @09:39AM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 24 2021, @04:05PM (4 children)
You just answered the question. Currently, we just have your word for it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @10:38PM (3 children)
We've played that game before too, you just evade by spewing more bullshit instead of owning up to anything ever.
Thankfully most users here are not as blinded by their political predilections and are very concerned about the future of our planet. Now we site back and watch you slowly slide into irrelevance as people realize how faulty your confident sounding posts really are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 25 2021, @05:49AM (2 children)
The problem is that there's nothing to "own up to" at present.
Cool fantasy, bro.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2021, @07:30PM (1 child)
We know, you deny all your faults cause yer super wicked smart *eyeroll*
Which step is denial? Shouldn't you almost be over it by now?
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday January 26 2021, @02:32AM
Smart is relative.
Funny, how you post (and apparently post and post), but never say anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @07:19PM (3 children)
You sound like TMB, and I imagine every example of you doing the thing will be met with some gaslighting goal post shifting bullshit and a continuation of your bad faith approach to discussions. Blech
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday January 26 2021, @02:36AM (2 children)
And because you post anonymously, I can never probe your past words. It's a genuine cowardice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26 2021, @07:48AM (1 child)
"It's called rational debate."
lol read the mueller report you lying sack of shit
just libertarian after libertarian that aren't real libertarians and too fucking dim to understand their own limitations
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday January 26 2021, @12:42PM
Why? Page numbers or fuck off. I don't play argument by obfuscation. Nobody including you has ever given me a reason to read that word dump.
Sounds like the problem here is that you are a dishonest idiot. You can fix that. I can't.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:42PM (3 children)
LMFAO. "I care about the environment, so I had a kid and bought two cars". You are the problem, fool.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:58PM (2 children)
Get a grip, brave Mr AC. At least khallow has the guts to troll under his account.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @01:29AM (1 child)
While the AC you are responding to comes across as a dick. There is a valid point in his comment.
The environmental damage from mining, fossil fuel extraction, and CO2 emissions embodied in the manufacturing of two cars is huge, and they being hybrids doesn't make up for that (EV doesn't either).
I bought a small fuel efficient hatchback in an attempt to do less harm (when I purchased it, its lifetime CO2 emissions [including manufacture, operation and disposal] was estimated to be lower than all hybrid passenger cars on the market except one, and that hybrid was more than double the price of the hatchback), but I realize that by purchasing and driving that car, I am contributing to the problem. Not to the degree as the flag waving moron in a giant SUV, but still pushing things in the wrong direction.
I don't think our species has the foresight and willingness to put others' interests (in this case, future generations and other species) ahead of their own, if it means any kind of deprivation. And, I believe it will take a lot more than driving hybrids and small fuel efficient cars, or even EVs to make a material difference in our trajectory.
So, yeah the dick AC is right that even people who care are still not doing what is necessary since that would result in a negative impact upon our lifestyles that we apparently are not willing to make.
- a fellow hypocrite
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 24 2021, @06:59PM
Buying a car at all is just contributing to the problem, as is living in a place where you need to have a car to live a reasonably comfortable life. Humans, by and large, should not own personal cars at all: they should be mostly living in cities (small or large) where the density is high, the city is walkable, and they can get around by walking, cycling, and by train/subway. We have cities like this now, just not in America (except NYC, which isn't doing so hot right now because of long-term mismanagement plus Covid). If you want to see how humans can live very well and without a car, just travel to Japan. There's various cities in Europe that do a reasonably good job too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @12:13AM
Up until the limit at which entitled fatsos in certain developed countries decide to teach the controversy. Fortunately, it seems they are self-limiting too nowadays [worldometers.info].
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 24 2021, @06:54PM (1 child)
You are right that the human population has increased too rapidly, but the rate of rise is slowing as more countries become developed and people have better education etc.
What annoys me is the large number of seemingly willfully ignorant people who refuse to believe the hard science behind climate change, for example.
One problem I see is that these willfully ignorant people are having kids much more than the ones who aren't.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday January 26 2021, @08:19PM
And the ignorant are winning hands down.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by hopdevil on Saturday January 23 2021, @04:54PM
I've heard this sentiment before. What you are really saying is you don't want children because you are happily being Gaia's cancer and raising children would be inconvenient for you. All that extra cash you now have goes towards fighting climate change or ensuring the planet you leave behind is fucked?
(Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Saturday January 23 2021, @05:59PM (1 child)
Thank you for not having children. It will leave more resources available for mine.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @12:24AM
Na, for them:
https://people.com/tv/doubling-down-with-the-derricos-tlc-new-series-first-look/ [people.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pdfernhout on Saturday January 23 2021, @11:01PM
... on the joy of expectation: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/openvirgle/qDQaaLewHKY/ysihGqv6D6wJ [google.com]
Something I wrote around 1992. Contents below:
==== A letter from Gaia to humanity on the joy of expectation
Don't cry for me. When I let you evolve I knew it might cost the
rhino and the tiger. I knew the rain forests would be cut down. I
knew the rivers would be poisoned. I knew the ocean would turn to
filth. I knew it would cost most of the species that are me.
What is the death of most of my species to me? It is only sleep.
In ten million years I will have it all back again and more. This
has happened many times already. Complex and fragile species will
break along with the webs they are in. Robust and widespread
species will persist along with simpler webs. In time these
survivors will radiate to cover the globe in diversity again. Each
time I come back in beauty like a bush pruned and regrown.
Be happy for me. Over and over again I have tried to give birth to
more Gaias. Time and time again I have failed. With you I have
hope. I cannot tell you how happy I am.
Your minds, spacecraft, biospheres, and computers give me new realms
to evolve into. With your minds I evolve as ideas in inner space.
With your technology I can evolve into self replicating habitats in
outer space. Your computers and minds contain model Gaias I can
talk to; they are my first children. Your space craft and
biospheres are a step to spreading Gaias throughout the stars.
Cry, yes. Cry for yourselves. I am sorry those alive now will not
live to see the splendor to come from what you have started. I am
sorry for all the suffering your species and others will endure.
You who live now will remember the tiger and the rain forest and
mourn for them and yourselves. You will know what was lost without
ever knowing what will be gained. I too mourn for them and you.
There is so much joy that awaits us. We must look up and forward.
We must go on to a future - my future, our future. After eons of
barrenness I am finally giving birth. Help me lest it all fall away
and take eons more before I get this close again to having the
children I always wanted.
===========
The preceeding is something I just scanned in from 1992, written while I was
in the SUNY Stony Brook Ecology and Evolution PhD program (where I had gone
to learn more towards simulating gardens and space habitats). I had learned
there that it took about 10 million years to regenerate lots of biodiversity
from a large asteroid impact event, and this had happened several times in
Earth's history.
The following is a related statement also just scanned in of what inspired
it written at the same time.
=================
If one accepted that modern industrial civilization has initiated
a great die-off of species comparable to the one sixty-five
million years ago, how should one feel about this?
Is overwhelming sadness and anger the best emotional response? On
the surface it may seem so. Apparently modern civilization and
the accompanying pollution and deforestation are pulling apart a
tapestry woven over billions of years. Anger at the short sighted
and narrow values driving industry may seem well placed.
Certainly feelings of joy and excitement would seem out of place.
Here are a few thoughts that may affect one's feelings. High
levels of biodiversity can be generated from very low ones in
about ten million years. On the time scales of the earth this may
not be a blink of an eye, but it is a short nap. To humans this
may mean a great loss, but Gaia might barely notice. It has after
all been only sixty-five million years since the last die off.
Not all species will be affected equally. A simplification will
occur where the more specialized creatures will be the most likely
to go extinct. Complex food webs will either loose species to
become simpler or they will be replaced entirely by new simpler
webs. This will create opportunities for generalists to move
into vacated niches. It will also produce more robust species and
food webs. In the long term this may make the biosphere healthier
in the same way pruning a bush makes it grow more.
New forms of life existing as ideas are now living and will likely
continue to expand. Language and culture and technology are
possible with humanity's growth. These allow new patterns to be
created and selected for, giving evolution a new canvas. Also
possible are new combinations of ideas and life as philosophies
evolve in combination with ecosystems.
A process that may well lead to the extinction of 30 to 99 percent
of all species has been initiated unintentionally. Conservation
of biodiversity should be done if only for aesthetic and spiritual
reasons. Anger and sadness should not overwhelm one and keep one
from making the best of the inevitable.- Paul D. Fernhout 6/22/92
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.