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.

 

NEWS: U.N. Study: Earth's Health Deteriorating

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
A U.N.-sponsored study of the Earth's health warned on Wednesday that growing populations and expanding economic activity have hurt the Earth's ecosystems. This negative activity has been going on over the past half century. This trend also threatens international efforts to combat poverty and disease.
 



www.livescience.com
LONDON (AP) -- Growing populations and expanding economic activity have strained the planet's ecosystems over the past half century, a trend that threatens international efforts to combat poverty and disease, a U.N.-sponsored study of the Earth's health warned on Wednesday.

The four-year, $24 million study -- the largest-ever to show how people are changing their environment -- found that humans had depleted 60 percent of the world's grasslands, forests, farmlands, rivers and lakes.

Unless nations adopt more eco-friendly policies, increased human demands for food, clean water and fuels could speed the disappearance of forests, fish and fresh water reserves and lead to more frequent disease outbreaks over the next 50 years, it said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I knew that humans were destroying our planet but I didn't know it was this bad. The study found that humans had depleted 60 percent of the Earth's grasslands, forests, farmlands, rivers and lakes. I am not a "tree hugger" but even I think that this should be changed.

Earth is our home and we should keep it healthy for ourselves and our kids.


Related News Links:
www.abcnews.com
www.news.yahoo.com
www.technewsworld.com

[edit on 30-3-2005 by they see ALL]




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
does anyone think that we (the human race as a whole) will be able to change their ways and help the earth in a positive way???





posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
ya know, maybe if we would quit spending so much studying those things which we already know about, we'd have the money to do something about them???



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

The four-year, $24 million study -- the largest-ever to show how people are changing their environment -- found that humans had depleted 60 percent of the world's grasslands, forests, farmlands, rivers and lakes.


Haha what a joke.... $24 million study lol.. Oh come on now, 20 years ago most people with common sense knew humans will cause earth changes in the future would happen. I even seen it coming when I was in the 5th grade lol.

Its all about politics and politics don't give a hoot about the earth.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
just couple the normal course of events that human nature takes on the response of such news and the results could be very distrubing if not terminal.......

Basic human nature is that we spend much of our time and efforts of refuting or denying the claims of events that threaten the center of our existance usually until it is too late to do something about it or if we do get around to taking action we spend a lot of time trying to fix what could have been prevented.......

The real problem is our overall population and the level of consumption it represents........If the world's population was to all suddenly have the same standard of living as the US then we would need the equivalent of 3 to 4 Earths to supply that demand................

Closing in on 7 to 8 billion people worldwide we cannot sustain quality levels of life with than many people....................How do you convince people to slow popluation growth down so that we end up with a sustanible world pop around 1 billion total..............which is a manageable size of world population that could see everyone have the chance at a resonable quality of life?

I don't see it possible..........political and religious ideologies that continue to encourage procreation are values some are willing to die for before they could be convinced of limiting their contribution to popluation otherwise..........

When you look at the Earth as a whole, humans have the same effect on its biosphere as cancer cells do in a living tissue..........They spread and take over until there is nothing left of the living tissue.........then the tissue and the cancer both die once the cancer cells have sucked everything dry...........

I think the late Carl Sagan said it so wisely......

".......As humans we aren't doing a very good job in living with each other and taking care of this planet during the adolence of our technological society......"

So as third world countries strive to come up to the standards of the US and begin the consumption levels with billions of people instead of the couple 100 million we have here in the US.........then that's when world wars over resources such as oil will threaten the integrity of the Earth's biosphere capablities of maintaining life let alone our civilizations surviving those conflicts.........

I don't see much hope here folks because humans on a large scale show little in wanting to cooperate for the benefit of all mankind and the Earth we inhabit..............history bears this out and it looks like we are headed for another dark ages........or the end of our species or civilization as we know it.............



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
when the study chooses to use terms like "depleted" as opposed to "utilized", then it's being spun for someone's agenda.

Humanity is affecting the planet, just as a cloud passing in front of the sun affects the temperature. Whether the changes are positive or negative, depends on your perspective. If you're anti-human, anything that puts a single squirrel out of his tree is bad. If you're pro-exploitiation, anything that prevents a dollar from being made is bad. I guess it depends on who funds, and writes, the reports.

But, honestly. give me half that $12 million, and I'll tell you that increasing human population will change the face of the planet. I can even predict that there will be a point when available, usable resources will not meed the demand needed for survival.

It's numbers, and mouths to feed. An issue that only the most unfair and biased person can blame on the US, Europe, or Japan. We're not even close to being the source of massive overpopulation. In fact, most industrialiuzed nations are seeing *decreases* in their populations, only offset by immigration (legal and not).



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
does anyone think that we (the human race as a whole) will be able to change their ways and help the earth in a positive way???

Isn't the idea that the earth needs our help an anthrocentric fallacy?

Our relationship to the earth is similar to our relationship with the friendly bacteria living in our intestines.

We need it for optimal functioning, but can do without (for a while anyway). Also, it can be replenished, and bacteria that "goes bad" can be simply purged.

Could it be that we're unwittingly making room for the next batch?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Wow, great that they finally figured that out, since every independant scientist has been saying it for at least 20 yrs...

dumb de dumb de DOI DOI...



will it change anything? yeah... all these rich logging companies might realize that the tree huggers might be insane, but they were RIGHT...

Open your eyes people... and start at home... dispose of chemicals properly (laundry, cleaning, and solvent containers, batteries, pest sprays, ect...

then boycott companies that cause the most harm...
Dow, for one...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It seems that some of us have made an opinion with out reading the news article.

humans had depleted 60 percent of the world's grasslands, forests, farmlands, rivers and lakes.

This means that the world is dieing. We are destroying entire ecosystems. ALL life depends on these ecosystems.


The study was compiled by 1,360 scientists from 95 nations who pored over 16,000 satellite photos from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and analyzed reams of statistics and scientific journals.

How is it 1,360 international scientists are organized to spin someone's agenda?
They have an agenda, yes, to preserve life.
Those who oppose these facts have their own agenda also, to make obscene amounts of money and continue to control the world.
Who's agenda sounds more sinister?
This report is so important since the big polluters of the world deny that anything bad is happening.

We all can't just stick out heads in the sand and say "who cares we are all going to die anyway".
There are many things that can be done. The first step lies on the individual. We as individuals must make better decisions in our daily lives that will aid in helping our environment. The second step is for individuals to deny the ignorance that big oil companies spread. After that we must take action. We must make our leaders aware that we care about these things and demand change. Remember our governments are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
i see this as yet another piece of the propaganda that is trying to point to the belief that the world is overpopulated and a reduction is in order. i wish i could recall the sites i have been to that point to this plot there are quite a few of them out there. alas my strong point is in recalling ideas not precise spots where the info is kept.

there is also those who try to point out that earth is liveing thing as opposed to a thing that supports life upon it. to them mother earth is not just a saying but litteral truth.to these people the earth can only support a certain amount of human life upon it (if i can remember correctly that number is suppost to be 4 billion humans). also that we are already over that number. they will point to studdies such as this as well as the claim that the severer weather systoms we are haveing are caused not just by our missmanagement but because there is an overpopulation of the earth. that this is "mother earth" just trying to remove the overpopulation by force, since we will not do it by ourselves

certainly we need to try to cause less harm to the enviroment. come up with technology that creates less polution. but watch out for claims that we need to reduce our populatin to be able to survive. try to read between the lines in studdies. reading between the lines on this one i can see the unspoken pointing to an over population issue.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
when the study chooses to use terms like "depleted" as opposed to "utilized", then it's being spun for someone's agenda.


I hate to kick your idea into the ground, but "utilized" is very different from "depleted" and in this case the term "depleted" is the right term to use, and NOT utilized. The nature we destroyed is not there anymore and is not coming back...


Humanity is affecting the planet, just as a cloud passing in front of the sun affects the temperature. Whether the changes are positive or negative, depends on your perspective.


I think if you would really read the full report of the UN, you would understand what they mean, and why this is not a matter of perspective.


If you're anti-human, anything that puts a single squirrel out of his tree is bad. If you're pro-exploitiation, anything that prevents a dollar from being made is bad. I guess it depends on who funds, and writes, the reports.


Once again, I don't think you understand what the UN means. This is not a subjective report that you could also interpret "positive", it's a pretty serious warning that should not be ignored or waved away with reasoning like your own.


But, honestly. give me half that $12 million, and I'll tell you that increasing human population will change the face of the planet. I can even predict that there will be a point when available, usable resources will not meed the demand needed for survival.


Fortunately the report made by the UN is somewhat more usefull than your own foresight.


It's numbers, and mouths to feed. An issue that only the most unfair and biased person can blame on the US, Europe, or Japan. We're not even close to being the source of massive overpopulation. In fact, most industrialiuzed nations are seeing *decreases* in their populations, only offset by immigration (legal and not).


I think it is pretty clear that the UN is not blaming anyone. This warning goes for everyone, everywhere.
It amazes me to see the stubborn, careless way some people respond. This is serious news, hundreds of scientists spend years and years to find out just how bad humanity is damaging the earth, and to be honest I was pretty shocked by this report.

"Give me 12 million and I'll say that humanity is damaging the earth", what a completely ignorant and unrespectfull thing to reply to this report. It's careless people like that, that will never learn why change is needed in order for this earth to remain a good place to live on.


[edit on 30-3-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
i see this as yet another piece of the propaganda that is trying to point to the belief that the world is overpopulated and a reduction is in order. i wish i could recall the sites i have been to that point to this plot there are quite a few of them out there. alas my strong point is in recalling ideas not precise spots where the info is kept.

there is also those who try to point out that earth is liveing thing as opposed to a thing that supports life upon it. to them mother earth is not just a saying but litteral truth.to these people the earth can only support a certain amount of human life upon it (if i can remember correctly that number is suppost to be 4 billion humans). also that we are already over that number. they will point to studdies such as this as well as the claim that the severer weather systoms we are haveing are caused not just by our missmanagement but because there is an overpopulation of the earth. that this is "mother earth" just trying to remove the overpopulation by force, since we will not do it by ourselves

certainly we need to try to cause less harm to the enviroment. come up with technology that creates less polution. but watch out for claims that we need to reduce our populatin to be able to survive. try to read between the lines in studdies. reading between the lines on this one i can see the unspoken pointing to an over population issue.


This, my friend, is by no means propaganda. If you have any idea about what those reports are talking about, you would have a completely different view. 60% of those resources ARE gone, period. And are continuing to decay. The only propaganda at work is people who say otherwise. There is no money in conservation. There is no money in enviromentally friendly ways of living. If something isn't done NOW, our childeren and grandchilderen will suffer and will have only us to blame. People have been screaming to save the planet for years, and have been labeled as radical tree hugging hippies. One only needs to look out their own window to see what is going on. Or look at satelite photos of south america and parts of africa. If you look at photos from just 20 years ago and compare them to today, much of the forest areas have disappeared. The ocean has a level of algae that provides something like 70% of the air we breath. Our shipping activities, navy and all the crap we dump in the ocean is wiping them out. What will we do for clean air and water when the earth cannot produce them naturally anymore? Or are you going to just brush this off as propaganda? I dont want to argue this point with people anymore, this is my planet too and I want it kept healthy....



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
i don't disagree that we have been very bad to the enviroment and need to improve.

i can't answer for a lot of the world but i do know that all i have to do is drive for a few hours and i can get lost in the huge wilderness. sure we have logging that ignores the rules about selective cutting and replanting. but the government needs to enforce the laws. not the lunitic fringe that spike trees to try to kill loggers that are only trying to do honest work. unfortunatly it is the fault of these types of people that force the protection of workers instead of enforceing enviromental standards.also theses same people destroy any effort to try to deal with things though legal aproaches. because of the nuts the the whole effort is rendered useless. i was once trying to help a spacific area but the nuts destroyed any hope of working with the authoritys to change things. because of things like spiked trees it blew the creadibility of those trying to right the problem within the law. if the nutters had stayed home we might have had a good effect. because attempted murder automaticaly becomes far more important than the wilds, thus changeing what the authorities had to prioritize on.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Pro-exploitation and anti-human stances are rather unhealthy extremes.

Anyway, one way to think about this issue is that the ecosystem our bodies can survive in is the ecosystem that we're living in right now. We have evolved to survive ecosystem, not any other, and so destroying it will eventually lead to our own destruction. Destroying the environment is suicidal for all of humanity.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
i don't disagree that we have been very bad to the enviroment and need to improve.

i can't answer for a lot of the world but i do know that all i have to do is drive for a few hours and i can get lost in the huge wilderness. sure we have logging that ignores the rules about selective cutting and replanting. but the government needs to enforce the laws. not the lunitic fringe that spike trees to try to kill loggers that are only trying to do honest work. unfortunatly it is the fault of these types of people that force the protection of workers instead of enforceing enviromental standards.also theses same people destroy any effort to try to deal with things though legal aproaches. because of the nuts the the whole effort is rendered useless. i was once trying to help a spacific area but the nuts destroyed any hope of working with the authoritys to change things. because of things like spiked trees it blew the creadibility of those trying to right the problem within the law. if the nutters had stayed home we might have had a good effect. because attempted murder automaticaly becomes far more important than the wilds, thus changeing what the authorities had to prioritize on.


Totally agreed. Any extremest activity serves only to undermine the very cause they are fighting for. I live in Oregon. I too need only to drive a short distance to find a huge wilderness, but this is only on a local level. We have many laws that protect our national forests and wildlife areas (many of those laws have been overturn in the last 5 years though). Globally, those vast areas of wilderness are turning into desert. What was once thousands upon thousands of square miles of rain forest is now far far less than that. One must also look at the rate of consumption. 40% of what we had seems huge on a human scale, but on a planetary one it is very scary. The planet operates as a whole. If you want an analogy, it is like saying that just because you have cancer of the brain it doesnt matter because the rest of the body is healthy. The body cannot live without the brain. The earth cannot live without its balance. We are destroying that balance faster and faster every day.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If you look at the bigger picture of the world, all the damage we do will only kill off ourselves and many large animals, but to say all life on earth will die out, unless there is a major nuclear disaster or other unforseen human made cataclsym, we have a better chance of taking ourselves and most of the life on the planet with us.

But at some level life will survive, evolve. It took only 65 million years to go from dinosaurs to us.(indirectly)

Even if only the smallest algae and cockroach survive, given enough time evolution will right the balance. We just wont be around to see it.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by jacquescas]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Seem like there are two choices to save the planet from the indifference of humanity:

Initiate mass population reduction or expand global space program?




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
We have a choice. Everyday we all have to make a choice.
People are just not getting it. We must Stop acting like nothing is going on and take responsibility
This is the only way we can keep the world population at this level and still not drain it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacquescas
If you look at the bigger picture of the world, all the damage we do will only kill off ourselves and many large animals, but to say all life on earth will die out, unless there is a major nuclear disaster or other unforseen human made cataclsym, we have a better chance of taking ourselves and most of the life on the planet with us.

But at some level life will survive, evolve. It took only 65 million years to go from dinosaurs to us.(indirectly)

Even if only the smallest algae and cockroach survive, given enough time evolution will right the balance. We just wont be around to see it.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by jacquescas]


Don't forget sharks, crocs and mosquitos. They survived through what happened 65 millions years ago.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
We have a choice. Everyday we all have to make a choice.
People are just not getting it. We must Stop acting like nothing is going on and take responsibility
This is the only way we can keep the world population at this level and still not drain it.


Unfortunately there are a large numbers of people around the world who doesn't share your concerns or mine, even. People in general are very much selfish or self-centered. People who don't give a (expletive f-word) about the whole human race but themselves.


Look at my avatar image. I've met and discussed, casually, with some people about the possibility of an all-out nuclear war in the future and you would not believe my observational reactions from them: indifference (shrugging, acting like it is going to happen but don't care for it, rarely show serious concerns). That's how I'd come to the conclusion about the mass of humanity being self-centered and indifferent to that possibility.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join