Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 277 posts

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#91

Post by munificent »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #82
tuatoru wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual people chopping down rainforests for palm oil plantations are formerly impoverished farmers. The people chopping down rainforest and planting oil palms are dispossessed , former farmers. The people making them do it are wealthy and politically well connected who arrange to have their land confiscated.

Deforestation in Brazil was almost stopped when Bolsonaro came into office and has surged since then. For me this is one of the primary reasons why i worry about the future of our civilisation: every nature reserve, every protected animal, every small victory against ecological destruction can so easily be lost again. Those who wish to protect must be on guard every day and win every fight. Those who wish to destroy…

As they say, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

It's worth it.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#92

Post by droopyEyelids »

wozer wrote: post #80
holoduke wrote: post #22

To me (at least in the area I live in) the easiest and quickest win is to plant trees massively. There is so much space available. But somehow people/governments wants to have grass vegetation as a filler between roads, inside parks etc.

Or just stop mowing these areas. Shrubs and then trees will grow there all by themselves.

The thing is, unmanaged natural life is generally not compatible with human flourishing.

Let the land go feral and soon you're looking at an unfathomable amount of ticks fed on unchecked deer who breed faster than anything can handle and infect each other with prions because the alternative is reintroducing wolves to the environment.

And even the plant life is dangerous as unpruned, splintery trees drop branches in every windstorm, the brush periodically catches on fire, thorny or irritating plants proliferate and roots infiltrate and destroy nearby structures.

It can take millennia to develop a stable, beautiful, all-natural environment, and there are sort of 'minimum size requirements' in the range of hundreds to thousands of miles.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#93

Post by newacct583 »

julienb_sea wrote: post #56
AlexandrB wrote: post #5

I think the future is very grim for biodiversity. Even if we stopped destroying habitats tomorrow, many larger animals are already living in small, isolated pockets surrounded by roads, farms, and industry. Meanwhile, plants and smaller animals face intense competition from invasive species - often brought in by accident thanks to the constant flow of goods around the globe. We're probably headed for a pretty homogen…

Fragile species will continue to be in decline. Long term, large species will remain in protected environments like national parks. The idea that humans are incapable of protecting larger species is belied by a visit to Yellowstone. Our living environments create opportunities for well-adapted species to flourish. This will certainly shift the makeup of our planet's biodiversity. You mention all of this in passing, b…

> Our living environments create opportunities for well-adapted species to flourish

That statement is a tautology. "Some" species will flourish in all productive biomes, by definition. But the ecosystems that existed will be highly disrupted. So we're replacing large predator marine species with jellyfish. Beavers with rats, wolves with feral cats, etc... And the plant diversity is quite a bit more impacted.

Your point amounts to "well, all life isn't going extince, so what's your problem?". The problem is that there is moral value in preserving what exists. Some of us like to believe that "causing a mass extinction event due to entirely preventable causes" is, y'know, a bad thing.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#94

Post by refurb »

jeffbee wrote: post #79
refurb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when people think “road” they think something maintained and well used. A forestry or old logging road that hasn’t been used in 50 years doesn’t come to mind.

I can't really know what people think is or isn't a road but these are objectively roads and I think you are understating the extent to which resource extraction activities use these roads today, and the degree to which any road, no matter how much or little used, alters the ecosystem through which it passes.

A road (dirt trail) that hasn't been in use for 100 years is not impacting the ecosystem to any extent at all.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#95

Post by runarberg »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #44
AlexandrB wrote: post #5

I think the future is very grim for biodiversity. Even if we stopped destroying habitats tomorrow, many larger animals are already living in small, isolated pockets surrounded by roads, farms, and industry. Meanwhile, plants and smaller animals face intense competition from invasive species - often brought in by accident thanks to the constant flow of goods around the globe. We're probably headed for a pretty homogen…

The glimmer of hope that I have is that the same sort of market forces that create these problems can be marshaled to solve them. For example, if the wealthiest countries implemented a carbon tax including a border adjustment (accounting for goods from countries with a laxer carbon policy) would give governments a single, simple dial that the could turn to lower carbon emissions. Similarly, we ought to be able to imp…

This comment is currently being downvoted, seemingly only for political reasons. It provides a clearly stated opinion not hostile towards anybody.

I guess the HN crowd is not the once who like to hear that carbon tax might actually be a good solution.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#96

Post by bosswipe »

air7 wrote: post #50
AlexandrB wrote: post #5

I think the future is very grim for biodiversity. Even if we stopped destroying habitats tomorrow, many larger animals are already living in small, isolated pockets surrounded by roads, farms, and industry. Meanwhile, plants and smaller animals face intense competition from invasive species - often brought in by accident thanks to the constant flow of goods around the globe. We're probably headed for a pretty homogen…

That might be over pessimistic as "95% Of The World's Population Lives On 10% Of The Land" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217192745.h...

We don't live on land that looks like this but it's destroying biodiversity anyway https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/general-view-t...

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#97

Post by aspaceman »

refurb wrote: post #64
jeffbee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, clearly. In what way is a forest road not a road? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7775746,-122.9327754,2401a,3...

I think when people think “road” they think something maintained and well used. A forestry or old logging road that hasn’t been used in 50 years doesn’t come to mind.

The point is that humans have touched it. There’s a perception there’s large segments of the American West and Midwest that haven’t been touched. Which is what they’re describing. Almost every place, at one point or another was close to the road. When we’ve only had cars for the last 100 or so, that’s quite a statement.

You’re splitting hairs.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#98

Post by andai »

hh3k0 wrote: post #53
air7 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be over pessimistic as "95% Of The World's Population Lives On 10% Of The Land" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217192745.h...

The important part of that statement is "lives". According to the IPCC, humans have transformed _more than 70%_ of all ice-free land if you take stuff like agriculture into account. Edit: It'd seem that I've had remembered outdated figures.

What's the latest stat?

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#99

Post by samatman »

giantg2 wrote: post #89
samatman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the direction things are heading. It's (past) time to start collecting genomes and marrow samples from as many critically endangered species as possible. Unextinction is a difficult problem, but without the necessary material, it's impossible. Sure, that's going to favor charismatic megafauna. But we like those, it's right in the name. And it's no substitute for building wildlife corridors, managing park lands…

It doesn't really matter if we collect the genetic material if we aren't reversing the actions that caused it to become extinct. For example, arable land is shrinking and population growth as well as an increase in consumption will not leave much (if any) suitable space for some types of wildlife.

Which is why I specifically said that those actions are important also.

But it does matter regardless, because rewilding in the future is distinctly possible. If we're able to rebuild an acceptable habitat, and we have the genetic information on hand, we can conceivably unextinct a species and reintroduce it. Without the genetic material, this is impossible.

It's similar to the logic of cryostorage, although I would estimate the odds of it working for wild species to be much higher than those for frozen humans, let alone their brains.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#100

Post by roenxi »

I live in a city. We've exterminated every animal except cats and dogs, which we've modified with a multi-millennium breeding program to suit our desires. Pretty much every surface is covered in concrete, all the plants are curated by humans. As far as the eye can see is a totally artificial biosphere.

This is where pretty much all the humans live. Most of the people who get worried about wildlife decline live here too. I get why there are some people who care, but I don't get why they expect the median human to care or why it becomes an important political issue. People are voting with their feet - exterminating the competition is an outcome of human civilisation.

Post reply on HN