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, 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?