Humans Wiped Out 2/3 of Wildlife in 50 Years

[ButchPlz]

The earth has a carry capacity, how can you think otherwise?

I literally do not think otherwise. I have asked a specific question on what we're running out of.

And how do you know what that capacity is? If we don't hit that capacity for a thousand years, do we need to slam breaks on things or let natural innovation continue? What if it's ten thousand years? A million years? Those fundamental questions are almost never answered. Don't be asinine.

 

[0nelilreb]

Those on here don't give a sh*t. They hold the view that God gave us the earth not as stewards, but as a ho we can do anything we want to with. MAGA!

Are you sending this post from your laptop while your chained to the dozers to keep them from pushing over the trees or from the barge you are floating around on and picking up plastic/ trash from the waters around NYC ?

 

[hog88]

I literally do not think otherwise. I have asked a specific question on what we're running out of. And how do you know what that capacity is? Don't be asinine.

I have no idea what the capacity is and we probably won't know until it's too late.

 

[ButchPlz]

I have no idea what the capacity is and we probably won't know until it's too late.

That is 100% conjecture.

Again, what are we running out of that makes you think that it'll be "too late"? What failures in innovation and sustainability do we have that make you think we are careening towards "too late"?

 

[Ashevolle]

I literally do not think otherwise. I have asked a specific question on what we're running out of.

And how do you know what that capacity is? If we don't hit that capacity for a thousand years, do we need to slam breaks on things or let natural innovation continue? What if it's ten thousand years? A million years? Those fundamental questions are almost never answered. Don't be asinine.

Well, wildlife for one....

 

[rjd970]

It is absolutely conjecture, because you're assuming the scarce resources are at a point where we're closing in on using them all. I don't disagree with conservation and reducing waste. But broad brush claims about how we're closing in on depleting resources are fearmongering ********.

It's why I asked for specifics and science. What resources are we running out of? What are we close to out of? If the US population doubles is it a capacity problem in raw materials? Or is it production and transportation of resources that are there? That matters. It's not a simple "math problem", don't be lazy.

Again - what? Whether we are 1% on our way to using them all or we are 99% on our way - the point still remains the sources are finite. At some point users will exceed supply. I'm not arguing how close we are, I'm simply arguing that with a finite supply and growing user we will reach a point where the planet won't sustain us.

Are you saying the resources of the planet are not finite and can continue to grow with our population? If not, then yes, this is a math problem, and it is not conjecture.

 

[hog88]

That is 100% conjecture.

Again, what are we running out of that makes you think that it'll be "too late"? What failures in innovation and sustainability do we have that make you think we are careening towards "too late"?

It might be 500 years or 1000 years from now but it will get there if we keep breeding and increasing the population. There is only so much arable land, minerals and fresh water to go around. Granted technology will/has extended available resources but it will reach a tipping point one day.

 

[ButchPlz]

Again - what? Whether we are 1% on our way to using them all or we are 99% on our way - the point still remains the sources are finite. At some point users will exceed supply. I'm not arguing how close we are, I'm simply arguing that with a finite supply and growing user we will reach a point where the planet won't sustain us.

Are you saying the resources of the planet are not finite and can continue to grow with our population? If not, then yes, this is a math problem, and it is not conjecture.

What resources have we used 99% of? If you can't answer that after making that assertion, you don't belong in the discussion.

I'm not saying things are infinite. If you read my posts, I'm implying that we are much further along in real sustainable energy and growth and food production than fearmongering people would say, and that the fearmongering hampers creating a sustainable future- see resistance to nuclear energy, GMOs, etc. purely based on fear. On the other end, yelling about how "humans have wiped out X amount of wildlife" when that kind of cycle has happened on and off all throughout planetary history is intended to create panic and overreaction.

Sad? Yes. But humans are also making huge efforts to conserve and protect wildlife and do things right more than these kinds of threads would imply.

Largely, I'm sick of people without solutions or knowledge chiming in on belittling "humanity" because it makes them feel good.

 

[ButchPlz]

It might be 500 years or 1000 years from now but it will get there if we keep breeding and increasing the population. There is only so much arable land, minerals and fresh water to go around. Granted technology will/has extended available resources but it will reach a tipping point one day.

The last sentence is again conjecture, because you don't know what technology there is today and you don't know what technology will come tomorrow.

If the number of people required to teach the "tipping point" is 1 trillion people, do you think we'll actually hit that tipping point? This stuff is fundamental to any discussion and again, nobody can answer it.

 

[golfballs]

For context, nature has wiped out >99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet.

99.99%

 

[hog88]

The last sentence is again conjecture, because you don't know what technology there is today and you don't know what technology will come tomorrow.

If the number of people required to teach the "tipping point" is 1 trillion people, do you think we'll actually hit that tipping point? This stuff is fundamental to any discussion and again, nobody can answer it.

True it is conjecture on my part and I don't know the number that will eventually tip the scales I just think technology can only take us so far before the system starts to fail.

 

[utvolpj]

Largely, I'm sick of people without solutions or knowledge chiming in on belittling "humanity" because it makes them feel good.

Yet it's very clear you've read nothing on the subject and don't intend to. There have been even more stories come out about worldwide food insecurity/scarcity with covid. They've been linked in that thread. A Google search to understand what's actually being discussed might help the discussion move along

 

[OHvol40]

It is absolutely conjecture, because you're assuming the scarce resources are at a point where we're closing in on using them all. I don't disagree with conservation and reducing waste. But broad brush claims about how we're closing in on depleting resources are fearmongering ********.

It's why I asked for specifics and science. What resources are we running out of? What are we close to out of? If the US population doubles is it a capacity problem in raw materials? Or is it production and transportation of resources that are there? That matters. It's not a simple "math problem", don't be lazy.

Carrying capacity for humans isn’t a fixed number like it is for most species. Humans and their needs vary greatly by population and the advancement of technologIes to change carrying capacity is something that’s difficult to quantify. Most scientists have put the range between 4 and 16 billion with a median of around 10 billion.

 

[utvolpj]

The last sentence is again conjecture, because you don't know what technology there is today and you don't know what technology will come tomorrow.

If the number of people required to teach the "tipping point" is 1 trillion people, do you think we'll actually hit that tipping point? This stuff is fundamental to any discussion and again, nobody can answer it.

Most say a carrying capacity of 10-11bil based on current tech and needs. We will hit the 10bil mark around 2050

 

[Ashevolle]

The last sentence is again conjecture, because you don't know what technology there is today and you don't know what technology will come tomorrow.

If the number of people required to teach the "tipping point" is 1 trillion people, do you think we'll actually hit that tipping point? This stuff is fundamental to any discussion and again, nobody can answer it.

So do you need 100% proof before it's worth acting on any perceived problem? If you're spending through your savings at an alarming rate, do you just continue to spend like crazy because you don't know what will happen in the future? Hell you could have a parent die or get a better job offer. Seems foolish to me to make that the burden before action.

 

[Wireless1]

Humans Wiped Out Two-Thirds of the World’s Wildlife in 50 Years | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

Existential crisis anyone?

Since 94% reduction in Latin America, you think communism/socialism might play any part?
Based on what is finally coming out about the Sierra Club's practices and the negative impact (fires) on the western forests, have we been listening to the wrong side for actual wildlife protection?

 

[ButchPlz]

Yet it's very clear you've read nothing on the subject and don't intend to. There have been even more stories come out about worldwide food insecurity/scarcity with covid. They've been linked in that thread. A Google search to understand what's actually being discussed might help the discussion move along

Is food scarcity in a given area an example of a production/resource/capacity shortage or examples of, say, transportation issues? Again, that matters.

 

[hog88]

So do you need 100% proof before it's worth acting on any perceived problem? If you're spending through your savings at an alarming rate, do you just continue to spend like crazy because you don't know what will happen in the future? Hell you could have a parent die or get a better job offer. Seems foolish to me to make that the burden before action.

The only real solution is a reduction in human population.

 

[utvolpj]

Is food scarcity in a given area an example of a production/resource/capacity shortage or examples of, say, transportation issues? Again, that matters.

Well it's happening all over the us so you tell me. How strong is our infrastructure if a simple disruption had this effect?

 

[RollinVol]

I have some on my camera that won’t be there next year

 

[Rickyvol77]

Humans Wiped Out Two-Thirds of the World’s Wildlife in 50 Years | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

Existential crisis anyone?

only one thing to do

 

[UT_Dutchman]

Well, wildlife for one....

Well thats not entirely true at all.

Although American black bears suffered habitat loss following European settlement, they currently occupy much of the available habitat and their numbers are stable or have increased across the species range over the last 20 years. ... All populations across the country are stable, or increasing.

 

[ButchPlz]

Carrying capacity for humans isn’t a fixed number like it is for most species. Humans and their needs vary greatly by population and the advancement of technologIes to change carrying capacity is something that’s difficult to quantify. Most scientists have put the range between 4 and 16 billion with a median of around 10 billion.

It is very difficult to quantify and that is my point.

I have more faith in humanity than many people in this thread. I've already seen major advancements in things like farming that have increased production capacities massively, even here in the US. I've watched people in my family and coworkers take some of those production lessons to places with real challenges and create sustainable farms in the remotest and worst-off of places. I've seen more and more energy here moving away from coal into sustainable alternatives. I've seen positivity when the people screaming the most are left behind to scream at nothing. I've not once said that I think there's no issue- I just think we're not as close to this environmental destruction or "capacity ceiling" as people think, because just as fast as our population increases our technology hugely improves, and not just here.

In the end I do not think we're as close to total failure as people say and my biggest fear is that this will continue to be an excuse to shutter innovation in green energy, green building, sustainable ag, etc.

 

[ButchPlz]

Well it's happening all over the us so you tell me. How strong is our infrastructure if a simple disruption had this effect?

Did we run out of food, or did we run out of certain luxury foods that people wanted to buy?

It should tell you something about America's capacity when nearly everyone still had food on the table despite a transportation and processing capacity challenge in very specific industries. This is my point. On top of it all, we never had an issue with number of pigs, cows, and other livestock.

 

[ButchPlz]

So do you need 100% proof before it's worth acting on any perceived problem? If you're spending through your savings at an alarming rate, do you just continue to spend like crazy because you don't know what will happen in the future? Hell you could have a parent die or get a better job offer. Seems foolish to me to make that the burden before action.

No, I don't need 100% proof and I have never made that claim. I asked a question for things that are barely 50% proof and so far you've not really tried to answer them, among others. It's precisely the knee-jerk, fearmongering BS I keep mentioning.