• Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF
    62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46112718]When you over-develop something, then something else is left under-developed.. Right? To me, it's an impossible equation.. unless rich people are willing to live with less luxury.. Or something.[/QUOTE] Which area of the world are we talking about? If it's Africa for example, there are plenty of places that are excellent spots to develop agriculture in. Most of the countries in Africa have very consistent and helpful growth.
[QUOTE=usaokay;46112531]The Rock kicked all of their candy asses in Wrestlemania XX.[/QUOTE] Bunch of Jabronies didn't know their roles.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;46112735]Which area of the world are we talking about? If it's Africa for example, there are plenty of places that are excellent spots to develop agriculture in. Most of the countries in Africa have very consistent and helpful growth.[/QUOTE] I see.. It's going to be a challenge though. To upkeep a healthy (and diverse?) animal populations, while at the same time keeping all humans fed. And knowing people, they will hunger for more. :v:
[QUOTE=Killuah;46111676][img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/land_mammals.png[/img][/QUOTE] It seems our land mammals represent Google Chrome's icon
[img]http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140402173941/simpsons/images/6/65/200px-Troy_McClure.png[/img] You might remember me from such films as "Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory"
The eastern world's destroying the ecosystem of the ocean. And the western world's consumption of cattle isn't a very sustainable practice. It's absolutely hell on our water table, but people tend to become offended when this is pointed out because obviously you're just a stupid hippy. Half may be an exaggeration, but there are definitely areas that need improving.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;46112735]Which area of the world are we talking about? If it's Africa for example, there are plenty of places that are excellent spots to develop agriculture in. Most of the countries in Africa have very consistent and helpful growth.[/QUOTE] More to it than just "build more farms" The soviets tried to build more farms and ended up kick starting desertification and ruining eco systems. The areas they tried in, once ecosystems where shepards did their thing are now sandy and near lifeless. Then there is the issue with biodiversity. More crops means more chance of a bacteria or fungus evolving to wreak havok, low biodiversity (everyone eating wheat) will mean if that fungus spreads all the farms using that crop will get ruined, its not like we can rely on anti-biotics for too long either. Also pollution, pesticides have collateral damage, from killing a few bugs, to stopping birds from being able to reproduce, to chemicals in our blood, to water stratification and anoxia (again the soviet union were good at this, killing off major marine ecosystems). We need fertilisers and pesticides to sustain high yields but this is a luxury we can't keep forever if we wish to keep the environment healthy. Then there's the human issue. Companies make a fortune by selling their goods. Why would a bunch of big farming companies in the US want to let farms pop up elsewhere when low supply high demand gives them profits. In 2012 India wasted 21 million tonnes of wheat. In South america tonnes of bananas are left to rot as the supply is too much for the demand in that area, or the buyers aren't offering enough for them. I like your optimism, that we can solve this by just growing more and more to meet ever increasing demand but I see this as a bubble which is growing. [editline]30th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;46112910]The eastern world's destroying the ecosystem of the ocean. And the western world's consumption of cattle isn't a very sustainable practice. It's absolutely hell on our water table, but people tend to become offended when this is pointed out because obviously you're just a stupid hippy. Half may be an exaggeration, but there are definitely areas that need improving.[/QUOTE] The west is destroying the ocean as well. The Pacific gyre isn't just china and japan. Also there are areas near Oregon where the oxygen level in the sea is too low to support life, because of pollution.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;46111815]I'm not sure if hunting them is what's really killing them off. It's only really in third world countries that people hunt for food. Most civilized nations get their food from more or less stable agriculture and livestock. I take it it's environmental damage that's actually killing off the animals. Kinda like when some greedy megacorp cuts down an acre of the Amazon forest so they can drill for oil.[/QUOTE] Or a cheap-ass uses agent orange to take down a forest because cutting is too expensive.
well maybe if they didn't do this so much, then the world would be a better place: [img]http://stillrealtous.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/stunner3.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46112915]The west is destroying the ocean as well. The Pacific gyre isn't just china and japan. Also there are areas near Oregon where the oxygen level in the sea is too low to support life, because of pollution.[/QUOTE] To expand on this: as our water table drops, the volume of water flowing through rivers also drops. And the fertilizers we dose on crops wash into these rivers as well, which cause algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico. The laws of conversion mean we put far more energy into livestock than we get out. Humans tend to eat more protein than they actually need, and much food already goes to waste in first world nations.
I still love the comparison of humans to cancer. We were part of an ecosystem that kept the world stable and alive, then we decide to go "fuck it" and spread like wildfire, which may kill the world in the process. It's not a perfect analogy by far, but a fun one to think about.
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;46113020]To expand on this: as our water table drops, the volume of water flowing through rivers also drops. And the fertilizers we dose on crops wash into these rivers as well, which cause algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico. The laws of conversion mean we put far more energy into livestock than we get out. Humans tend to eat more protein than they actually need, and much food already goes to waste in first world nations.[/QUOTE] This would be my reason for being a vegetarian if only meat wasn't so damn tasty.
[QUOTE=DeEz;46111818]adapt or be removed[/QUOTE] Kinda hard to adapt as a species over the space of a few hundred years.
[QUOTE=laserpanda;46111858]The cattle percentage looks so much bigger when you make it a concave shape for no reason. Also he seems to have just picked the unlabeled ones at random. Normally I like XKCD, but that's a really shitty graph.[/QUOTE] surface area isn't that hard to understand and the graph is set up as a circle with humans as the dense core. the curves are wonky, yes, but the emphasis is on human influence in the overall balance of things, not "hey here's some numbers you fat nerd" I understand many gripes people have with XKCD, but it's weird to see someone mad that he's [i]not representing data hard enough[/i]
As usual, lots of complaining, no proposed solution.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;46111793]If you want to not be extinct, be useful[/QUOTE] You sound like Karl Pilkington.
I haven't killed any wild animals, so the rest of you wild animal killing humans are the problem.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;46113911]As usual, lots of complaining, no proposed solution.[/QUOTE] Stop destroying environments, more efficient use of land we have already ruin, global operations for cleaning the oceans or at least to curb the rubbish going into the oceans. IT won't happen though. Ownership of land and resources comes before sustainability in most peoples minds, especially when international rivalries rears its ugly head.
Well, we better start lookin' for 'em.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46112708]I don't know about that.. When someone lives over their needs, then someone else is going to live below their needs.[/QUOTE] Did you know that the majority of developed countries have food surpluses? You did? Well, I bet this will surprise you... So do many less developed countries. You know, the ones where people are dying of starvation and malnutrition. Take India for example. Thanks to government subsidies, India has a vast surplus every year of rice and wheat. And what does India do? Hand out grain for free to the poor? Use some of that grain for livestock to allow access to cheap meat? Change the subsides to encourage growing vegetables and other crops? No. India lets hundreds of thousands or even millions of tons of grain rot away each year because doing anything about it (even just better distribution) would cost more money than they currently spend on the subsidies. Meanwhile malnourishment is rampant among the poor in India and thousands of people are starving to death each year. We produce far more food than is needed to meet the basic needs of everyone in the world, so if you want to do something useful stop going "Waa-Waa-Waa, you should be feeling guilty for eating well while people starve in other countries" and try to work out a way of getting some of that wasted surplus food to people who could really use it.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;46111793]If you want to not be extinct, be useful[/QUOTE] Humans are not useful. We live to serve our own selfish needs. So humans should be extinct by this logic.
[QUOTE=lifehole;46113022]I still love the comparison of humans to cancer. We were part of an ecosystem that kept the world stable and alive, then we decide to go "fuck it" and spread like wildfire, which may kill the world in the process. It's not a perfect analogy by far, but a fun one to think about.[/QUOTE] BRB, killing myself to stop the cancer.
[QUOTE=DeEz;46111818]adapt or be removed[/QUOTE] Yes It's so easy to adapt to poisonous chemicals, right?
[QUOTE=Ziron;46117554]BRB, killing myself to stop the cancer.[/QUOTE] To be honest, killing yourself is the best way to reduce your future C02 emissions!
[QUOTE=Aide;46117350][QUOTE=Sprockethead;46111793]If you want to not be extinct, be useful*[/QUOTE]Humans are not useful. We live to serve our own selfish needs. So humans should be extinct by this logic.[/QUOTE] *useful to humans Hey, its true...
[QUOTE=Xonax;46111553]No clue, oh and brb, having burgers for dinner.[/QUOTE] i thought it was funny
[QUOTE=lifehole;46113022]I still love the comparison of humans to cancer. We were part of an ecosystem that kept the world stable and alive, then we decide to go "fuck it" and spread like wildfire, which may kill the world in the process. It's not a perfect analogy by far, but a fun one to think about.[/QUOTE] Or we could be what lets the ecology of earth spread throughout the galaxy, we just need to mature a little as a species, is all.
I get this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it really irritates me how people come up with overly emotional viewpoints that don't solve anything or even worse drive people away from paying attention to the problem. Let's get this straight and honest, we want to "save the environment" because we kind of need it and we have problems when it doesn't function as expected. The universe doesn't give a damn if humans kill off everything else. The universe doesn't care about right and wrong. The universe doesn't give a damn about some living thing's magical "right to exist". Those are concepts that that we humans invented and that we humans care about. The whole "humans are cancer" bullshit is meaningless as heck and even worse ends up being counter-productive by pissing people off. Yes you should be concerned and yes we should be trying to solve the problem, but don't over-sensationalize and lose the plot, it's not helping.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46111549]Where'd they go?[/QUOTE] WCW, obviously.
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;46113916]You sound like Karl Pilkington.[/QUOTE] Wha' a' mean is, wot's it doin'?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.