Humans Wiped Out 2/3 of Wildlife in 50 Years

#51
#51
as a counter, improvements in agriculture have allowed significant gains in production while using considerably less resources. Just one example of how the capacity required for "x" population is not a set number.

past "population bomb" arguments have proven false. doesn't mean it isn't an issue but many of the analyses are based on static load assumptions.
 
#52
#52
However, as Rott notes, the report indicates that the ever-growing population of humans has led to an “ecological imbalance,” where society requires more resources to survive than can be produced. According to their models, the researchers conclude: “The human enterprise currently demands 1.56 times more than the amount that Earth can regenerate.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like we need more viruses but let's not screw around with ones that only kill a fraction of a percent. Let's go big on the next one.
 
#53
#53
Ashevolle said:
Well, wildlife for one....
Click to expand...

Nationally, the white-tailed deer population has increased from about 500,000 in the early 1900s to 25 million to 30 million today, according to various researchers. In pre-European settlement times, deer population density was 10 to 15 deer per square mile.

The shift in the white-tailed deer population can be attributed to many factors. In the 1920s the species was actually nearing extinction due to overhunting before government protection programs and national parks sought to save it. You could say that they succeeded.
 
#54
#54
ButchPlz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree entirely, but as some on here have hinted, the nature of humans is to procrastinate and it may be too late to act when we realize we’re approaching or have reached that ceiling.
 
#55
#55
ButchPlz said:
Did we run out of food, or did we run out of certain luxury foods that people wanted to buy?
Click to expand...

Food insecurity is up in the US. Its supply was absolutely affected
ButchPlz said:
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.
Click to expand...

The outbounds still ran for a while but the inbounds were slowing big time. Warehouses were getting very low on stores in a short about of time because most suppliers keep their days in inventory so low now. The issue was not really around the mechanics of distribution it was around product. Well, no more so than it is now with a shortage of drivers

Great to have animals when the processing plants are closed. What % could butcher an animal with any effectiveness?
 
#56
#56
Wireless1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well latin america is like 90+% capitalist so it would seem that any causal link would suggest capitalism was to blame. I think this is a human problem more than a political one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#59
#59
The WWF isn’t an unbiased actor in this so, naturally I’ll take it w a grain of salt.

Further, without reading all the techs I have some questions... says they monitor 2,000 species. Out of how many? ~9M (we think)? Sampling bias could be huge. Also, what significance is there in one species vs another when it comes to meaningful biodiversity? Is that a factor at all? If so, how is that accounted for. And the 4,000 metrics they track. That is a lot. With that many, the chances of error go up, and when scaled from 2k species to an entire global population, the error could also be huge. The margin for error could be so big, I question the significance. And how is it determined what is man-caused vs nature driven? That’s an entire other set of assumptions being made. But assuming all this checks out, what exactly is the action point for some general “biodiversity” index? It’s being built based on extremely granular data inputs, but we’re supposed to come at the “problem” with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel? And who is responsible? Should the US put sanctions on a country who allow commit enviro-crimes? If so, why were the enviro-police the same ones who decried Trumps China tariffs?
 
#61
#61
hog88 said:
The earth has a carry capacity, how can you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

Which will never be reached. Do you really think we will ever run out of resources? lol. My step dads said back in the 70’s they said the world would run out of oil in 20 years. The belief that Earth has finite resources is based on nothing but conjecture.
 
#63
#63
After digging a little deeper, mosquitos are one of the monitored species. The reduction from 100,000,000,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000,000,000 as part of the attempt to eradicate diseases accounts for much of the reduction. My first pass was without blue font, but I was afraid someone might not notice the tongue in my cheek.
 
#65
#65
volinbham said:
as a counter, improvements in agriculture have allowed significant gains in production while using considerably less resources. Just one example of how the capacity required for "x" population is not a set number.

past "population bomb" arguments have proven false. doesn't mean it isn't an issue but many of the analyses are based on static load assumptions.
Click to expand...
And ironically has done so through decreasing biodiversity. No longer need 30 different breeds of chicken, each to withstand particular climates, when now chicken houses are all the same no matter where they’re located, so can instead raise the single chicken breed which is favorable to production and consumer preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#66
#66
BigOrangeTrain said:
Which will never be reached. Do you really think we will ever run out of resources? lol. My step dads said back in the 70’s they said the world would run out of oil in 20 years. The belief that Earth has finite resources is based on nothing but conjecture.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot more that we don’t know. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act based on what knowledge we do have, but we should act keeping in mind what we don’t. Do we willingly push more people into poverty just to “save the planet” when we don’t know that it will, or that we can save it, or that it even needs “saving”?
 
#68
#68
Pepe_Silvia said:
Im good as long as we have cows, chickens, and pigs.
Click to expand...
Yep. And just so that Ashe knows the difference those are DOMESTICATED animals.

I have to tell you though I’m shocked to learn that as the human species has thrived and spread like cockroaches across the face of the earth and competed for the same ranges as wildlife that wildlife has in general been in decline. Nobody could have seen that coming.

But the good news is the domesticated animal food supply can also spread out too now woohoo! Back to I love animals they taste great.
 
#69
#69
evillawyer said:
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!
Click to expand...

Completely untrue. Most all of my friends are outdoorsmen - hunt, fish, hike, camp, etc. and are involved in big conservation campaigns such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasant Forever, Quail habitat revitalization programs, marshland conservation efforts, etc. We absolutely see ourselves as stewards of the earth. Many in the group already drive full electric or hybrid vehicles. Had many discussions about how much more recycling we take out every week as opposed to just regular garbage. You are way off IMO.
 
#70
#70
NorthDallas40 said:
Yep. And just so that Ashe knows the difference those are DOMESTICATED animals.

I have to tell you though I’m shocked to learn that as the human species has thrived and spread like cockroaches across the face of the earth and competed for the same ranges as wildlife that wildlife has in general been in decline. Nobody could have seen that coming.

But the good news is the domesticated animal food supply can also spread out too now woohoo! Back to I love animals they taste great.
Click to expand...

Given that humans are a part of nature, then any extinction we cause is natural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange and NorthDallas40
#71
#71
It's an issue and discussions/options need to be weighed, which I'm sure has and already is taking place.

I mean a perfect example would be Easter Island and what we can see happened from the archeological record there. When resources reach critical mass it's too late, people start to do some really desperate things.
 
#73
#73
Pepe_Silvia said:
Given that humans are a part of nature, then any extinction we cause is natural.
Click to expand...
Yep. Finite resources. Competing species. Mother Nature loves her some zero sum outcomes.

I’ve got no problem with actively managing our natural resources and working to minimize their decline. But as the human species continues to spread out the rest of the species will continue to decline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia
#74
#74
NorthDallas40 said:
Yep. Finite resources. Competing species. Mother Nature loves her some zero sum outcomes.

I’ve got no problem with actively managing our natural resources and working to minimize their decline. But as the human species continues to spread out the rest of the species will continue to decline.
Click to expand...

We're too dominant for our own good. We'll expand until we cause our own extinction or a substantial reduction of our population. Or we'll colonize space.
 
Last edited:
#75
#75
Vol737 said:
Completely untrue. Most all of my friends are outdoorsmen - hunt, fish, hike, camp, etc. and are involved in big conservation campaigns such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasant Forever, Quail habitat revitalization programs, marshland conservation efforts, etc. We absolutely see ourselves as stewards of the earth. Many in the group already drive full electric or hybrid vehicles. Had many discussions about how much more recycling we take out every week as opposed to just regular garbage. You are way off IMO.
Click to expand...
Yep. What sister evil will never acknowledge is the single biggest collective advocate for proactive management of our natural habitats is the Gun toting heathen sportsmen who enjoy it and work to protect it and provide monetary support to do so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top