1 Million Species Are Threatened With Extinction Thanks To Humans, UN Report Says (vice.com) 176
A comprehensive United Nations report compiled by more than 450 researchers warns of a dire future for both humans and nature if business continues as usual. From a news report: Human activities have put as many as one million other species at risk of extinction, according to the first comprehensive United Nations report on global biodiversity. The report, a summary of which was released on Monday, emphasizes humanity's devastating impact on the natural world, which is accelerating extinctions at an unprecedented rate in human history. People have altered or destroyed three-quarters of land environments, two-thirds of marine habitats, and 85 percent of the most important wetland regions. This leaves few areas unaffected by human activities such as agriculture, commercial fishing, industrial pollution, and urbanization, according to the report. Meanwhile, the environmental effect of these activities -- human-driven climate change -- has disrupted the habitats of 47 percent of flightless land mammals and 23 percent of threatened birds. Ecosystems that are particularly sensitive to warmer temperatures, such as coral reefs, could be virtually wiped out worldwide over the coming decades.
Welcome (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we eradicate those little MF's, and keep some corral?
Re: (Score:2)
Because we already have enough for our horses?
Oh! You meant "coral", didn't you? Never mind....
Re: (Score:1)
That actually IS tolerant.
Unlike the 17 people your crew murdered for political gain last year
Re: (Score:1)
And yet....we STILL have fucking mosquitos all over the place.
Which is only going to get worse as the global temperature rises, we'll start seeing tropical diseases further and further north (and south) as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? (Score:3, Informative)
And yet....we STILL have fucking mosquitos all over the place.
Why can't we eradicate those little MF's, and keep some corral?
Our ecosystem is extremely complex. Eradicating a pest we don't like will affect things down the line. Other species - species we depend on - like pollinators - will be affected.
Remember a pest to us is food to something we like.
My thoughts exactly. Came to say that. Flying mamm (Score:4, Insightful)
That was my first thought as well. As the AC who replied below apparently doesn't know, the effects of eliminating bothersome mosquitos has been studied over and over - anything that eats them also eats many other bugs. Which makes sense given the mosquitos lifecycle; they are a very seasonal food. That's unfortunate because you can't buy / release something that is going to eat mosquitos all day, though an entire colony of bats would sure help.
TFS says "has disrupted the habitats of 47 percent of flightless land mammals". *Flightless* land mammals. Most mammals are fine, it's only those few that don't have wings and fly they are concerned about. Are bats and sugar gliders actually a signifiant enough percentage of mammals that they needed to call out *flightless*?
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually read how they came up with that number, they literally pulled the number out of their asses. So it's more of a headline grabber than anything resembling an actual fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a thought (Score:1)
Does this consider new species that emerge from the change?
Re:Just a thought (Score:5, Funny)
#That's not how it works, extinction apologists (Score:1)
#That's not how it works, extinction apologists
Re: (Score:1)
What does #That's mean?
Re: (Score:1)
retarded 3rd worlders
I'm sure the parallel is lost on the author.
Re: New Species are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget the reason they claimed the caps were going to melt sooner. There used to be a giant hole in the ozone layer before the year 2000.
You know what closed up that hole? Legislation that banned CFC's.
So we have historical records of scientific based policies saving us from what could've become a catastrophic failure of the Earth's atmosphere among many other issues in history:
water pollution from toxic dumping, preventing overfishing by regulating boats, regulating bison consumption and the National Park system.
Climate denialists, both TV pundits and politicians -- which by the way are not scientists -- are by and large sponsored by polluting industries.
Look at the donations these asshats receive, all from coal or fossil fuel, automotive and aviation organizations. They don't believe in their own propaganda, they just like the money in their pockets.
There is nothing wrong with conservation and there is nothing wrong with being safer rather than sorry. Whats the worst case if climate change somehow ends up being nothing. what would be the damage?
Now compare the damage it would wreak if you kept denying its an issue and it becomes too late to repair the damage.
We already know the possible consequences, one of which will be extreme financial burden on nations in order to combat these issues.
It will cost us more in the long run to do nothing but that's the problem with most politics. They are seeing the short term and not the long term and therefore don't want to bother spending the money now to ensure we spend less in the future.
The funniest thing is when the world starts collapsing and we all said "We told you so." You probably won't even apologize for perpetuating an insane level of propaganda based ignorance.
Re: (Score:1)
"Whats the worst case if climate change somehow ends up being nothing. what would be the damage?" I'll take that for $50.
Money that could have gone to fix some *real* problem, will have been spent for nothing (by hypothesis). Or it will have gone to windmills that make mountain ranges look like city scapes, and kill birds. Or solar farms that cover up ecosystems.
I'm not against all such things--solar panels on roofs, or over parking lots, seem to me like a good thing. More efficient use of electricity,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I do mine who thought lead in gasoline and paint and smoking cigarettes was "healthy".
Lead in gasoline is healthy, for the engine that is. It reduces knocking, gives an octane boost, and reduces the wear on some moving parts. It is just bad when you inhale it, so get your mouth off my exhaust pipe!
V8 with 15MPG, you do know that you don't have to drive around in second, its the combustion that produces the smog, so just leaving it in neutral and floor the engine to produce maximum toxins. It might also be cool to see if you can add a diesel component and roll some coal while your at it
Re: (Score:1)
PPS: And it's America, so you can also be shot by anyone at anytime, then they can just drive away in any car at all. Even a Prius! Haha, dead bitch.
Re: (Score:1)
so you can also be shot by anyone at anytime
Did you not read the Cadillac part? Those steel babies can take the lead!
Even a Prius!
Ahh, yes the choice car of your hard core gangster! Too bad those are made out of recycled plastic bottles and tin cans; not really good at stopping lead. Also with a curb weight of nearly 5,000lbs vs the 3,000lbs of the prius, I know which one is going into the ditch.
Re: (Score:1)
you are a fucking idiot
UN isn't wong (Score:1)
China has virtually wiped out a major number of animal species in Africa to fuel their Chinese medicine industry. (src: SerpentZA youtube, et many, many others).
The rest comes from both oceanic devestation and deforestation. Both of which are not hard to fix (deforestation can be addressed for example by using sustainably harvestable black locust, a hardwood species that lasts 50+ years outdoors without the need to be chemically treated (aka "pressure treated") and grows like a weed. Companies push tropica
Re: (Score:3)
The definition of species has gotten fuzzier.
These days they count 'populations', usually of bugs, and just call it a species. Who cares if the same bug lives in the next river, that's another 'species'.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not in TFA.
https://www.ipbes.net/ (Score:1)
And since Google doesn't exist, it's like there's no way for you to spend less effort finding out than typing that comment out, hitting submit, typing a captcha, etc...
Lazy. https://www.ipbes.net/
Re: https://www.ipbes.net/ (Score:2)
Re: https://www.ipbes.net/ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This, exactly.
It's not about protecting 'species'. It's about controlling the use of habitats by misusing the Endangered Species Act. Find a piece of land. Find an animal that isn't doing particularly well on that piece of land. Name a subspecies after that particular piece of land. Voila! You can lock up that land forever. Even if that animal species happens to be an infestation in the next valley.
It's just Bad Science.
Re: Sigh Species known is going up (Score:1)
"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all."
Re: (Score:1)
What is also missing is analysis of possible measures that match at least somewhat with the desired outcomes. We should put more windmills for instance is rather counterproductive whatever the goal you are after. Considering the amount of concrete you have to put in the ground, area of forest you have to raze from the surface to get the windpark done - common practice in Germany - not even nature protected areas are really protected against this, plus the bloody windmills kill birds and insects that the gre
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Extinction happens (Score:1)
While I bemoan senseless human-caused extinction, species have always gone extinct in nature. This is useful, since it makes room for other species. Also, some of the extinct species are pests we try to kill anyways.
Finally beating nature (Score:1)
Thank goodness, we are finally winning the battle against nature. Do you have any idea how many virus, malevolent bacteria, evil parasites nature has created? And that's not to mention the millions of poisonous chemicals.
But let's not rest yet. The battle is far from won.
Not true for sure! (Score:2)
All species are endangered by humans.
Humans included!
Number is too low (Score:3)
The correct number is 1,000,001. They forgot to include H. sapiens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
since NatGeo claims 86% of species have yet to be even identified?
And we've not identified them because they're pretty niche. However, if more of the main ones go out the door, that'll definitely open up the field for them.
This would imply that there's what, about another 50 million species out there to take up the slack
And that's roughly about right, the problem is that while we're pretty aware what this world is like with the main species having the biggest slice of pie, we're not exactly sure what this world will look like when the main players are gone and the niche ones take their place. It's a bit of roll the dice here with the result ranging from absolutely no
Re: (Score:2)
Discovering heretofore unknown species does not increase the number of species that exist. *smh*
Human race is screwed (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd always held out a tiny spark of hope for humanity; this little flickering light in me which said "one say we'll travel to the stars; explore space and understand the mysteries of the universe. We'll spread peace and prosperity wherever we go.".
That spark has been extinguished. It's the 21st century and we're still screwing up the planet despite overwhelming evidence WE are behind it. We're wiping out species faster than most past global extinction level events. We continue to kill each other in fucking
Epic Win (Score:1)
Hooray for Humanity!
...including... (Score:2)
...hoomans! Who'da think it?
Start growing vegetables at home - NOW!
An old quote (Score:2)
not enough (Score:3)
Scientists and engineers need to be ready with solutions, but the rest of humanity isn't going to ask until it gets really bad. We should all pray that our science is good enough to work out effective geo-engineering methods, because we're gonna need them.
Yes, I'm getting old and cynical. Now get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Or rather, they don't have to worry. They'll be able to switch to filet minion without consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
So: More resources for the remaining species (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution doesn't deal in time, it deals in generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And yet NO evidence whatsoever... IF there is evidence, prosecute him. If not, get on with life.
But if you are going to post, maybe try an actual unbiased news site, not the unofficial mouthpiece of the DNC...
So, either Trump colluded with Russia, but is a world-class genius to leave no evidence, or he didn't collude.
So, is Trump a genius or not?
Re: (Score:1)
CNN is not a credible source. Quote something supporting your statement from the report.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't you feel silly now?
Re: (Score:2)
quick google...
"Although celiac disease occurs worldwide, it has a higher incidence among people of European descent, especially those of Celtic heritage..."
So maybe you're on to something. That's a deep game you're playing!
Re:Republicans none the least of them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, because non-Republicans are so much more environmentally friendly. Get your head out of your ass. There's tons of "I'm with Her" stickers on SUVs going through McDonald's drive-thrus today.
Yeah, but they still support progressive policies on the environment. Their other car is probably a hybrid, or electric. Or they do other things to help the environment. At the very least, they support political candidates that pushed or will push for better gas mileage, or for enforcing a timeline for all automakers to switch to electric, or moving toward renewable energies, etc, the list goes on. As AOC put it best: "Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future."
Re: (Score:2)
What ever happened to: "The best government is that which governs least" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Few jurisdictions make more noise about their devotion to climate purity than California, where zillionaire film moguls, pop stars and entertainment impresarios build homes the size of Texas while professing their absolute determination to have other people reduce their carbon footprint." (Link [nationalpost.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that with Texas, at 2.84x more per capita.
In summary, you're a fucking dolt. You're not wrong about those idiot ass pop stars and film moguls, but you made the critical mistake of thinking your shit didn't stink 2.84x worse than theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As AOC put it best: "Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future."
As some anonymous, older, and wiser person said, "Practice what you preach."
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, that tool Yarmuth is the congressman for Louisville. Mr self described socialist democrat. The whole town elected officials are 80% democrat. They preach this global warming green shit all the time. Do you know what happens every weekday between 630am and 9am? All THREE major interstates I-71 , I-64, and I-65, along with the bypasses I-264 and I-265 turn into complete gridlock. Traffic comes to a complete hault. It does not do this when school is out of session? Why??? Because these fucking green
Re: (Score:1)
The SUV guzzler carting the fat liberal around to fast food joints EXISTS only because Republicans have profited from every step along that lifestyle you claim to hate, that which Republican policymaking specifically protects 24/7.
In my world, you'd have to have a good reason for needing an SUV, or pay through the nose for the added consumption of it because of the outsized effects of your wasteful chosen lifestyle and the additional costs on taxpayers and the environment that engenders... but you know, th
Re: (Score:1)
Who gets to decide what a "good reason" is?
You?
They paid extra for that SUV, they pay more for gas, licensing, and titling.
Fuck off with the mommy government nonsense.
Re: (Score:1)
"Who gets to decide what a "good reason" is?" - The same people who decide anything, dumbass. Studies and polling and committees and the whole gamut. You'd complain either way, but the idea is that we study it first.
"You?" - No. But if I were to, you'd probably be pretty ok with the difference. SUV's are subsidized by taxpayers. You used to be against that, then for it, then against it... you can't decide, either way it's complaining.
Mommy government exists. You pay taxes to it. It can either be r
Re: (Score:2)
AOC is a fucking moron! To her, "better future" means suffering to all but the elite (like her).
I'd say fuck that bitch, but I don't ride asses.
Are you SURE that it's HER that's the moron?
Re: Republicans none the least of them. (Score:1)
Can we stop turning every thread into a political fight club?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We were talking about the party political objectives, obviously. You know, allowing toxic wastewater to be deposited into aquifers. That sort of thing, Republican policies allow explicitly and shamelessly as if polluting were the goal.
Go on, deny it, liar. Pretend that Republicans are the party of environmental protections, I just want to hear you say it, watch your nose grow.
Re: (Score:2)
Right.. Because none of you lefties live in big houses or drive cars.
Of course we do. But ours are efficient and environmentally responsible.
And it sure wasn't the left that killed the nuclear power industry, was it? Of course you geniuses decided that wind was "cleaner" but if you've ever been around a wind farm, the stench from dead birds.....
You made that up. Did they give you cancer, too?
You really need to learn about glass houses and stones..
Ah, yes.
Emissions per capita by state:
New York: 8.61T
California: 9.26T
Vermont: 9.38T
Massachusetts: 9.49T
Oregon: 9.56T
Connecticut: 9.77T
Rhode Island: 10.08T
Idaho: 10.18T
Maryland: 10.38T
Washington: 10.40T
New Hampshire: 11.25T
Florida: 11.41T
What do those have in common?
Let's look at it from the bottom:
Wyoming: 111.55T
North Dakota: 74.81T
West Virginia: 52.47T
Alaska: 47.17T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they benefit. The fact that someone benefits from something does not mean that they need that thing, or that better forms of that thing do not exist.
Given the actualized costs of the crappy energy production of the smaller state, would we prefer we get our energy from other sources? Yes. We would.
But then again, I live in a state that uses very little imported energy resources outside of oil, and Teslas grow on trees
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No actually.
The UN is not some monolithic organization. It's a family of about two dozen specialized international agencies falling under one umbrella. Like any large organization, some parts are good some bad. Can't tar them all with the same brush.
The issues you mention are due to the UN Security Council and certain authoritarian states blocking said
Re: (Score:2)
The same UN that claims that Iran is a "human rights champion"? The same UN that refuses to condemn nations that put homosexuals to death? Yeah. Ok.
AC uses straw man [wikipedia.org]. It hurt itself in the confusion.
Re: (Score:1)
One species extinction can kill of dozens of others
think what happened when the Hippos stopped stirring the water those snails carrying schistosomiasis lived in [sciencemag.org]
Result? Millions of extra cases of a crippling degenerative parasitic disease.