Why are there no comments about the expansion?
I'm really disappointed in you people.
Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
51–60 of 380 posts
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I implore you to be politically active, to consider support for candidates that at least acknowledge that there is a problem. Consider a carbon tax. Consider big, international efforts to clean up our oceans. Consider sexual education efforts in developing nations. Consider carbon re-capture efforts. There's a ton of things we can do, but we have to start doing It has all been said before. None of this is going to…
For that, humanity needs spiritual process — people like Putin trump , NK, China etc will not let that happen unless we provide them with a tool for inner transformation of their experience of living
The largest arms dealers sit on the UN security council. One of them is currently wanting to abolish the INF treaty and they aren't in Asia.
I would say that spiritual mumbo jumbo ain't going to cut it, a business case needs to be made that green energy is going to offer better profit and more security than more nukes.
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#53More rats and cockroaches in New York, more mosquitoes in Hawaii, more seagulls in Boston, more pigeons in San Francisco, more crows in the bay area, what is this article talking about?!
Humans are the new ecosystem. Animals, plants, beings that live out a symbiotic or parasitic relationship with us and our imprint will thrive ... those that don't likely suffer.
But this new ecosystem would not survive on its own – e.g try feeding billions of humans without animal pollination…
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s not sustainable? The human population doubling again? Or maintaining the current population? Clearly we have to address climate change but it’s not a growing population that is unsustainable, if anything the progress over the past 50 years has indicated the exact opposite.
Human population by itself is not the measure we should worry about. With enough technological progress, the earth could reasonably sustain 100+ billion people. The problem lies in the doubling of human population in little more than a generation. The problem lies in that we are not being sustainable with this. We are depleting resources whilst polluting and rapidly changing our environment. For the moment, we only h…
There is no scientific basis for the claim that the earth could sustain 100+ billion people. These types of unsubstantiated claims are not just false but dangerous, as they suggest there is no need for significant action and change.
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#55Those animals weren't suited to reproduce in the modern era and were thus eliminated. End of story
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock. Climate change will cause famine, natural disasters and mass migrations. Poverty, overpriced health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase.
> I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock[...] I wouldn't call WW3 a fix (short term anyway). Even a small nuclear exchange would have devastating ecological consequences [0] [0] "Radioactive fallout from these weapons’ debris clouds would reach the stratosphere, where it would travel worldwide, potentially contaminating crop…
Dark. I can see the immediate consequences would be atrocious. How would nuclear fallout affect wider gene pools and extinction rates? I’ve always envisioned the “apocalyptic” scenario to be a nuclear winter. Is that accurate?
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock. Climate change will cause famine, natural disasters and mass migrations. Poverty, overpriced health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase.
> I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock[...] I wouldn't call WW3 a fix (short term anyway). Even a small nuclear exchange would have devastating ecological consequences [0] [0] "Radioactive fallout from these weapons’ debris clouds would reach the stratosphere, where it would travel worldwide, potentially contaminating crop…
I think the idea is that the massive depopulation caused by what you describe would function as a ‘fix’.
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s not sustainable? The human population doubling again? Or maintaining the current population? Clearly we have to address climate change but it’s not a growing population that is unsustainable, if anything the progress over the past 50 years has indicated the exact opposite.
Human population by itself is not the measure we should worry about. With enough technological progress, the earth could reasonably sustain 100+ billion people. The problem lies in the doubling of human population in little more than a generation. The problem lies in that we are not being sustainable with this. We are depleting resources whilst polluting and rapidly changing our environment. For the moment, we only h…
With ‘enough’ technological progress, anything is possible since that’s the definition of enough.
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The human population doubling again? Or maintaining the current population? Both
Oh jeez. I thought we moved on from the Population Bomb hysteria.
It’s neither hysteria nor something you can “move on” from. Please either provide facts or other evidence for your opinion or don’t comment. There is no basis for the suggestion that we can sustain a growing population on this planet, even with technology and science continuing to progress.
Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds
#60Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be f…
What’s not sustainable? The human population doubling again? Or maintaining the current population? Clearly we have to address climate change but it’s not a growing population that is unsustainable, if anything the progress over the past 50 years has indicated the exact opposite.
The earth definitely has a carrying capacity. Our ability to push our food production further doesn’t change this fact. I’ve seen around 10 billion people floated as a food production limit in several places.
Crossing this with climate change, particularly our love of beef and pork, is not easy to disentangle.
We may also never hit that carrying capacity if something else other than food supply limits our population growth—war, disease, artificial barriers to food (wealth inequality).