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: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:11PM (4 children)
Exactly. It is somewhat unfortunate that it's always called saving the environment, when that actually is only a necessary part of the end goal which is is saving humanity.
Of course it doesn't help that many people show great hubris on human ability to handle bad situations. If our ecosystems fail in a big way, overpopulation will cease to be a problem quite quickly, and instead basic survival will become the main struggle again.
And even if we survive, we'll not be able to start a second industrial revolution later, since all easily exploitable energy resources have been used up by the first one and won't replenish in the next few millions of years. Thus even in the best case, humanity will likely be stuck in a medieval level society forever.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday January 23 2021, @06:27PM
Like the Sun, wood, water, and wind? Even if we ignore the many easily exploitable renewable energy sources, we still have a lot of easily accessible coal in the ground. And oil renews on a long enough timeframe. The Ghawar will never be the oil field it used to be, but it can generate enough oil to start an industrial revolution.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday January 23 2021, @06:34PM
Only if by choice...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @09:37PM (1 child)
Forever is an awfully long stretch of time, and necessity is the mother of invention. Sapients will develop a biological civilization in a mere few thousand years, I reckon, when there are no easier options and IF they do in fact need it. And that latter is a BIG if, given that working classes lived WORSE than hunter-gatherers through the whole "civilization" game except the last century or so.
As repeatedly demonstrated all over the world, a tribe needs only a vestige of biological civilization, namely poisoned arrows or blowdarts, to keep their "civilized" neighbors out for a thousand years, till those acquire assault rifles in bulk. Which, in absence of machine civilization anywhere, will be a mite complicated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @04:26AM
Who are the hunter-gatherer working class? Explain to me how you believe this worked.