A Conversation for Ask h2g2

Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 1

quotes

Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF. It is that simple?



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 2

bobstafford

Sadly it appears that animal species are dissapering to make room for man. There is only one thing that can be done find a way to globally control the birth rate people are the problem.

The billions wasted on fertility treatment boosting human numbers when infertility could be natures way of telling us we have exceeded the capacity of the planet. Is it possible that the diseases like Ebola are also a hint to man to do something or nature will.

The results of this overpopulation could lead to no water or food for many leading to the possibility of war for resources.

We need to find a way to sort this out or Armageddon will be man made fortunate nobody alive today will live to see the end result WE HOPE


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 3

Maria

"Sadly it appears that animal species are dissapering to make room for man. There is only one thing that can be done find a way to globally control the birth rate people are the problem.


they disappear to make room to greed. That´s what must be controlled.

there are enough resources for everybody.


"Is it possible that the diseases like Ebola are also a hint to man to do something or nature will."

Why don´t you read any report of Doctors without frontiers on that issue? You will see things diffently. Your words sound... uncaring and ignorant. It seems that those people are culled by Mother Nature or God for shagging so much?


"The results of this overpopulation could lead to no water or food for many leading to the possibility of war for resources.

Again , it´s not overpopulation, it´s the unbriddled and wild capitalism what must be controlled. It´s Goldman Sachs and similar who speculate with the price of food, it´s africans who died for that, africans are also who suffer the consecuences of climate change.

And they, are who less resources consume. Compare any european family of four members with one of africa of eight, in a rural area? who is consuming more, who are even wasting resources?



"


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 4

bobstafford

There are enough resources for everybody.
That seems very unlikely.
You give an example of the european family of four members. Do you think that they would not change their life style to give the african family of eight the luxury of consuming more, and wasting resources. Not a chance that is against human nature.
Also the assumption african family would not consume and be as wasteful as the european family is erroneous. They would if they could.

The failure to see the problems caused by overpopulation short sighted, unbridled and wild capitalism is impossible to control it is the root of what makes our world work, The political system and government is simply the flowering of this tree so politicians can not control capitalists.

Remember food is simply a commodity that is sold to the highest bidder, european farmers sell to european consumers as in all capitalist countries.

uncaring and ignorant, not at all fatalistic and informed by human behaviour.


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 5

Baron Grim

There isn't just one simple cause. Some of the issues are indeed human overpopulation and unsustainable depletion of resources. There is also global warming, drought, habitat loss to forestry and much more to domesticated animals. Much overlooked is the devastation caused by introduced species of plants, insects and animals.

There is plenty of blame to spread around but it does all point directly at the effects of our species.


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 6

~ jwf ~ scribblo ergo sum

The numbers I heard were 40% in 50 years.

In addition to reported declines in numbers I can
anecdotally report of several changes that include
here-to-fore un-natural animal behaviors. Lions are
lying down with lambs. The cow jumped over the moon.
You no doubt have several vague memories of examples
you've seen on the Utoobs. Short term memory loss is
likely connected to denial.

smiley - zen
~jwf~


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 7

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

Maybe that's just a crock -- in denial, of course!



But seriously, the limits of Nature's ability to put enough atmospheric nitrogen into soil for human agriculture are such that our population would have had to level off at around 4 billion. Obviously the population went beyond that, because scientists found ways of coaxing nitrogen out of the atmosphere and into fertilizers. To be honest, I prefer to do it the old-fashioned way with bean crops and their symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria, followed by crop rotation to let other kinds of crops benefit from the bean-enriched soil. But then, I'm a hobbyist gardener who doesn't have to live entirely on what I can grow.


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 8

Baron Grim

In the article above, they postulate that our current consumption is the equivalent of the resources of 1.5 earths.


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 9

Rod

>>they postulate that our current consumption is the equivalent of the resources of 1.5 earths<<

Postulate is a weasel word. Presumably the above means 'unaided' resources ?

How long has it taken to reach that state? Since 1800?/1900?/1950?

People are dying of hunger - Has anyone postulated the increase (in percentage of population)?

- - - -

The above is not a denial.
Something ought to be done, if only to preserve my value as a sentient being (from being too far diluted).


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 10

Baron Grim

I used the word "postulate". I don't know why it's weaselly. But, oh well. I guess I'm a weasel.


Here's the actual text from the article, un-weaseled.


>>>>>
The report concludes that today’s average global rate of consumption would need 1.5 planet Earths to sustain it. But four planets would be required to sustain US levels of consumption, or 2.5 Earths to match UK consumption levels.
<<<<<


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 11

MMF - Keeper of Mustelids, with added P.M.A., is now in a relationship.

>>they disappear to make room to greed. That´s what must be controlled.

there are enough resources for everybody.<<

That is not quite true.

History needs to be added to the equation.

The expansion of European empires, (And not just Britain's) exposed poorer nations to industrialisation. That put pressure on their societies to rise up to first world living but failed. However, the stagnation of their societies meant that they continued to use Victorian society's industry to survive. However, companies exploited this as cheap labour, and introduced cash crops as a means of earning fast bucks without explaining it was very short term.

Shades of the American dustbowl? My Farm is in Illinois, my soil is in Missouri.

It is all relative.

90% of the British forest was lost in the 1800's to build our vessels that created the Empire, so can we truly criticise other nations?

However, if it hadn't been for the industrial revolution and, I dare say, slavery, those nations would not be in the position they are now.

Controversial, I agree, but look at the Countries that were annexed by other Nations, and how many have arched a stable status?

And forgive me, this is not jingoism, Patriotism or otherwise, but just following History programmes etc, as it was a subject I was forbidden from studying due to very low grades (2%)

MMF

smiley - musicalnote


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 12

MMF - Keeper of Mustelids, with added P.M.A., is now in a relationship.

The Naval thing should be 1600's, during the Stuart/Tudor era.

Apologies for the typo.

MMF

smiley - musicalnote


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 13

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

Fossil fuels allowed the development of mechanical transportation rather than reliance on horses and oxen. This led to declining need for pasture land [to grow hay] and farm land [to grow oats for the horses], so places that had the right climate for forests saw regrowth. In the next stage, I hope that wind power, solar power, tidal power, and geothermal power will replace as much of the fossil fuels as possible. Or, bicycle technology will become several magnitudes more proficient. Or all of the above.

But with or without the new technologies, the future looks kind of scary smiley - headhurts.


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 14

Rod

Baron, I used the term weasel word 'cos, rechecking 'postulate' gave
>a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief<

it didn't seem to sit well there, but I've reread and withdraw my comment (and apologise)

Rod



Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 15

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

There's also postulant, a religious term which could be mistaken for postulate if one reads too fast.


Has Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years?

Post 16

Baron Grim

Here's a follow-up to the original story, specifically about the statistical weighting used in the analysis.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29458930


Key: Complain about this post