It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biologist warn of early stages of Earth's sixth mass extinction event

page: 3
77
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumansEh
a reply to: pl3bscheese

It is in mankinds nature to move into an area, consume all it has to offer with no thought to regeneration, when that area is depleted and we have reproduced to swell our numbers, we spread and multiply.
We are a cancer upon this world.


Indeed, and when certain peoples of the world live in areas with little food or water and not enough to sustain life, what do they do?

They continue to breed faster than rabbits.

Then all of the "do gooders" want to send them aid in the form of food, medicines, water, etc so that they can survive for longer and breed even more.

The net result is that we need to keep sending them more and more, or we "teach a man to fish" and as in an Oxfam documentary the other day they end up over fishing the oceans and putting the future of species of fish at risk, and then of course they end up migrating and spreading their wanton wrecklessness to the rest of the planet.

When mother earth cannot cope with or produce enough for the swollen numbers of humans in an area they have famines and disease as she tries to bring the balance back to what it should be.

When we intervene we make the problem worse, and it's the over sentimentality of certain sections of the human race that are going to kill us all, along with the corporations who rape and pillage and pollute the rest of the earth, all in the name of a quick buck.

Looking at this from a non-human perspective, the Earth and every other living creature on it would be far better off if the Human race itself became extinct.

We'd all be better off if the human race worked in sympatico with nature, and we allowed over-bred factions of our race to perish rather than make the whole barrel of apples rotten in trying to make the existing rotten apples last longer, and in the process taint all of the rest, and the barrel too.

Might sound harsh, but I think that's the reality of the situation and is the difficult choice that needs to be made if we are to prevail.

With regards to sending food and medicine to overpopulated places - they are overpopulated, so as much as it might offend some people they'd be better off being sent condoms and sterilisation kits.

That is the truth and a fact, unpalatable or not.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
It's about LOSING the newest and latest to modularization to durable frames.Planned obscolesence was a BAD idea we need to rebuild industry and quality DURABLE products.
And start getting ready to leave Earth so the rest can grow and so can we.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Basically, humans don't live long enough to see the error of their ways, and live long enough to correct their mistakes, its always left to the next generation, who, in turn, do not live long enough, so the pattern repeats itself, ad nausium.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Basically, humans don't live long enough to see the error of their ways, and live long enough to correct their mistakes, its always left to the next generation, who, in turn, do not live long enough, so the pattern repeats itself, ad nausium.

I think that should be ad extinction.

That will be the end result.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I'll explain my position further.

I'm tired of the "who or what is responsible for climate change" debate because in my opinion the issue has become so politicized, it has has become nearly impossible to have a rational discussion concerning its existence, extent, origins, impact or solutions. Moreover, in my opinion, the debate itself causes material damage to the environment by siphoning away scientific, political and economic focus from more immediate and undisputed issues where it is clear humans are responsible for certain environmental damage threatening us all.

How is it so many will galvanize and march behind the global warming mantra, demanding profound and largely impossible change, but barely voice any demand or concern when it comes to less complex or disputed issues like food & water waste, toxic dumping, or generic pollution?

For example, in this country, we permit toxic waste creation and dumping, only to later dig it up and spread it all around the country to dozens of new sites, with no tracking, oversight or assessment. I authored this thread about the issue, where barely a peep of outrage was mentioned, which is consistent with the rest of the population. Think about how little funding is required to actually track the stuff we are pulling out of the ground. But we don't do this. Why?

Or how about food waste, where 1/3 of all of the food we produce globally is WASTED?

I could go on and on....

What are people thinking???


Climate change has existed long before we came here, and will exist long after we are gone. It's why there have been several mass extinctions before humans were ever a factor. It's also why we find ancient cities at the bottom of seas and buried in the middle of deserts. Climate change is a FACT of life on this planet.

That is not, however, to discount the argument that humans may be significantly responsible for the current cycle. But if everyone is holding out for some immediate strategy that takes humanity back to the stone age, you might as well end it now. It's not realistic or possible.

I'm also not a big fan of the 'humanity haters'...or the notion that we are some sort of 'parasite'. We are a part of the natural ecosystem of the planet. There are plenty of examples in nature where species drive to self-extinction. The difference for us, however, is that we are supposed to have the intelligence to possibly avoid our eventual demise.

But perhaps not.

I guess we may well prove the rule, rather than the exception.

Just my $0.02.


edit on 25-7-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This has been well known in the science community for a number of years now. It is a direct effect of human production, consumption, pollution, and disruption of the natural ecosystems and habitats.


originally posted by: loam





Biologist warn of early stages of Earth's sixth mass extinction event

In a new review of scientific literature and analysis of data published in Science, an international team of scientists cautions that the loss and decline of animals is contributing to what appears to be the early days of the planet's sixth mass biological extinction event.

Since 1500, more than 320 terrestrial vertebrates have become extinct. Populations of the remaining species show a 25 percent average decline in abundance. The situation is similarly dire for invertebrate animal life.

...

Across vertebrates, 16 to 33 percent of all species are estimated to be globally threatened or endangered. Large animals -- described as megafauna and including elephants, rhinoceroses, polar bears and countless other species worldwide -- face the highest rate of decline, a trend that matches previous extinction events.

...

Although these species represent a relatively low percentage of the animals at risk, their loss would have trickle-down effects that could shake the stability of other species and, in some cases, even human health.

...

The scientists also detailed a troubling trend in invertebrate defaunation. Human population has doubled in the past 35 years; in the same period, the number of invertebrate animals -- such as beetles, butterflies, spiders and worms -- has decreased by 45 percent.



Well, that's sobering. Hopefully, we can get our heads out of our collective backsides and begin meaningful changes to ensure our survival.

I'm tired of the climate change debate. Let's just start with the obvious stuff we know we are responsible for and can fix....toxic waste, general pollution, indiscriminate use of pesticides and antibiotics, agricultural mismanagement, food waste, overfishing, poor land management, etc... The targets are nearly endless.

Climate change, you say? There has always been climate change. It was true before we got here, and will be true long after we are gone. Debating that issue, while almost completely ignoring the others, is a huge waste of time.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Dude, with all due respect, there are tons of peer reviewed studies that explain exactly which portion of climate change conforms to NATURAL cycles (solar cycles, etc) and the portion that cannot be accounted for by natural causes or cycles in climate change. This is a really key point. Also, climate change at the global policy level is being debated less and less. IT's really only here in the U.S. and a few other places that people are even "politicizing" or arguing that is happening. Let me tell you right now, our representatives to the UN and other bodies no longer are debating like you, they are only debating what to do about it.

Second, multilateral bodies are most definitely making goals as we speak, literally, to address not only climate change but also sustainable consumption and production (including food waste) and pollution. They are called the Sustainable Development Goals, which will be applicable to all countries from 2015-2030. This is a lot of progress. I submit to you the draft list of SDG's. Review these, they will be incredibly important.

Sustainable Development Goals
sustainabledevelopment.un.org...

Proposed goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

1.1 by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day

1.2 by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

1.3 implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable

1.4 by 2030 ensure that all men and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services including microfinance

1.5 by 2030 build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations, and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters

1.a. ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular LDCs, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions

1.b create sound policy frameworks, at national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies to support accelerated investments in poverty eradication actions

Proposed goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture


2.1 by 2030 end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round

2.2 by 2030 end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving by 2025 the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under five years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and older persons

2.3 by 2030 double the agricultural productivity and the incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets, and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment

2.4 by 2030 ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters, and that progressively improve land and soil quality

2.5 by 2020 maintain genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants, farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at national, regional and international levels, and ensure access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge as internationally agreed



originally posted by: loam
I'll explain my position further.

I'm tired of the "who or what is responsible for climate change" debate, because in my opinion, the issue has become so politicized, it has has become nearly impossible to have a rational discussion concerning its existence, extent, origins, impact or solutions. Moreover, in my opinion, the debate itself causes material damage to the environment by siphoning away scientific, political and economic focus from more immediate and undisputed issues where it is clear humans are responsible for environmental damage threatening us all.

How is it so many will galvanize and march behind the global warming mantra, demanding profound and largely impossible change, but barely voice any demand or concern when it comes to less complex or disputed issues like food & water waste, toxic dumping, or generic pollution?

For example, in this country, we permit toxic waste creation and dumping, only to later dig it up and spread it all around the country to dozens of new sites, with no tracking, oversight or assessment. I authored this thread about the issue, where barely a peep of outrage was mentioned, which is consistent with the rest of the population. Think about how little funding is required to actually track the stuff we are pulling out of the ground. But we don't do this. Why?

Or how about food waste, where 1/3 of all of the food we produce globally is WASTED?

I could go on and on....

What are people thinking???


Climate change has existed long before we came here, and will exist long after we are gone. It's why there have been several mass extinctions before humans were ever a factor. It's also why we find ancient cities at the bottom of seas and buried in the middle of deserts. Climate change is a FACT of life on this planet.

That is not, however, to discount the argument that humans may be significantly responsible for the current cycle. But if everyone is holding out for some immediate strategy that takes humanity back to the stone age, you might as well end it now. It's not realistic or possible.

I'm also not a big fan of the 'humanity haters'...or the notion that we are some sort of 'parasite'. We are a part of the natural ecosystem of the planet. There are plenty of examples in nature where species drive to self-extinction. The difference for us, however, is that we are supposed to have the intelligence to possibly avoid our eventual demise.

But perhaps not.

I guess we may well prove the rule, rather than the exception.

Just my $0.02.


edit on 25-7-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Every extinction event has a cause. From meteors, volcanoes, etc. This time, the cause is....Humans!



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Curious, why do you think the UN has the ability to make this a reality, and why do you think "all countries" will sign up for this? The history of sustainable development is failure. It was first proposed in the 20th century, with goals for the year 2000. They were not met.

There is no good reason to think they will be met this time.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BestinShow
a reply to: loam

From Source:


the number of invertebrate animals -- such as spiders -- has decreased by 45 percent.


I'm sorry, but I have no problem with this.



Because you don't understand the big picture. On a small scale one spider in my greenhouse keeps all the pests off my vegetables. Everything on this planet works in unison, we need to learn to love it as one.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Curious, why do you think the UN has the ability to make this a reality, and why do you think "all countries" will sign up for this? The history of sustainable development is failure. It was first proposed in the 20th century, with goals for the year 2000. They were not met.

There is no good reason to think they will be met this time.


First of all, sustainable development is absolutely necessary, it simply means responsible operation of humanity, balancing environmental, economic, and social concerns. We are at a stage that anything less will have dire consequences for us and nature. That simple.

Second, the Millennium Development Goals were met in some countries and not others. But a lot of progress was made factually. This is what I do for a living.

Third, most countries ARE signing on because they no longer can deny that reality. The 13th Open Working Group concluded last week at the UN to draft the Sustainable Development Goals, which I attended. These goals will come into force in 2015 for each country. A the OWGs there were diplomats and experts from every country. These goals already are happening. Most people just don't know it yet.

See my thread that I just wrote for a little more information.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 25-7-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: FlyersFan

There is enough planet for all the humans on it if we were just smarter about the things we do. We tend to take the fast, easy, selfish, and profitable ways instead, allowing that to rule instead of what is best for the planet and everyone and everything on it.


You do realize that human population will double again and continue from there it is not a question of if there is room now. There is also quality of life, some city types may not mind living elbow to elbow but I sure would be miserable!



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
...they are only debating what to do about it.


My point exactly.

To be clear, I did not say we were not responsible for the current climate change cycle. At the very least, we contribute to it. At worst, we may be fully responsible for it. But what is less clear is what can be reasonably done to change it?

If anything in the science is unsettled, it is this issue.

If you accept the basic premise that the last two centuries of human CO2 emissions have brought about this global change, do we really expect we can return the First-World to a CO2 emissions rate matching the times before the 1700's or preventing the Third-World from emerging into modernity?

I don't think so.

But my biggest point is that we ignore acute and immediately impactful issues cause by humanity, where many of the solutions are easier to implement by comparison. Stop food and water waste. Stop environmental contaminants. Stop land use and natural resource mismanagement. That just might buy us enough time to sort out the rest.

I'm not saying climate change isn't a problem and that we shouldn't also do something about it. But I think the priorities are all wrong in terms of proportion, attention and funding.

It hardly makes sense to spend billions or trillions of dollars in resources to install the sprinkler system, when the house is already on fire.

Does that make sense to you?
edit on 25-7-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Skywatcher2011


...the human race is growing and consuming everything in its path...


It is NOT human persons who are "growing and consuming everything," it's the corporate persons who are gobbling everything in their path.




The corporate persons and everyone who spends part of their week shopping for all the crude we seem to feel we need! Who makes WalMart happen...the shoppers.

edit on 25-7-2014 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3u40r15m
Meanwhile hundred of new species are bening discovered every year..... Genius


Most are discovered because their habitat is dead or dying. The fact that they are found does not change the ones that are disappearing for good.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

I don't think we as humans have a chance as long as religion still exists. Religion tells them to spread like the plague, and they are so ignorant and naive they just do what they are told, religious people that is.

Example: Check out that show 19 kids and counting on The Loser Channel (TLC). 19 and counting, that means at least 20.
Now imagine those kids each have 20 kids. That is 2 people (Original parents) turning into 400 people within 80 years or so. And they say it's because their god is doing it and it's what their god wants etc etc..

As long as religion exists, humanity is in very deep trouble.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

Perhaps if we take the best and brightest, they will well enough relate to one another, and therefore empathize, and not have to worry about a lot of incompetence that currently are the norm.

It really all is highly speculative.

We are not much different than other forms of life, only in that we are the dominant species on this planet, and so our capacities are greater to create, destroy, and consume.


Define "best" and "brightest"?

What happens to those deemed "out side" of those definitions?

My point is take any one person, and they will have a different definition of "best", and a different definition of "bright".

Who chooses these definitions when the category you are placed in is either "best" (inheirate Earth) or "incompetent" (no longer wanted on Earth)?

Do you work for the UN Agenda 21 counsel?

God Bless,



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Skywatcher2011


...the human race is growing and consuming everything in its path...


It is NOT human persons who are "growing and consuming everything," it's the corporate persons who are gobbling everything in their path.







Yes. They are the people I meant to mention in my post above but forgot. It is them...



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Skywatcher2011


...the human race is growing and consuming everything in its path...


It is NOT human persons who are "growing and consuming everything," it's the corporate persons who are gobbling everything in their path.


The corporate persons and everyone who spends part of their week shopping for all the crude we seem to feel we need! Who makes WalMart happen...the shoppers.


"Consumers" have FAR less power than we are led to believe - do you have any idea how many new, unsold products end up in our landfills? Including "food products?"



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Skywatcher2011


...the human race is growing and consuming everything in its path...


It is NOT human persons who are "growing and consuming everything," it's the corporate persons who are gobbling everything in their path.


The corporate persons and everyone who spends part of their week shopping for all the crude we seem to feel we need! Who makes WalMart happen...the shoppers.


"Consumers" have FAR less power than we are led to believe - do you have any idea how many new, unsold products end up in our landfills? Including "food products?"







Just how much garbage can be produced and dumped with zero profit?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join