Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

sonic_tower t1_iscd3vp wrote

Nice.

But actually horrible. 50 years on an ecological time scale is nothing. It isn't that a great collapse is coming soon. It is happening now. It's like we are on an airplane about to crash into the ground, except we have already crashed and in a snapshot, two thirds of the plane have made contact.

87

Gemini884 t1_isd4wg8 wrote

“In the last 50 years, Earth has lost 68% of wildlife, all thanks to us humans” (India Times)
“Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds” (The Guardian)
“We’ve lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years” (World Economic Forum)
These are just three of many headlines covering the Living Planet Index. But they are all wrong. They are based on a misunderstanding of what the Living Planet Index shows.

https://ourworldindata.org/living-planet-index-decline - explainer article from ourworldindata

"Recent analyses have reported catastrophic global declines in vertebrate populations. However, the distillation of many trends into a global mean index obscures the variation that can inform conservation measures and can be sensitive to analytical decisions. For example, previous analyses have estimated a mean vertebrate decline of more than 50% since 1970 (Living Planet Index).Here we show, however, that this estimate is driven by less than 3% of vertebrate populations; if these extremely declining populations are excluded, the global trend switches to an increase. The sensitivity of global mean trends to outliers suggests that more informative indices are needed. We propose an alternative approach, which identifies clusters of extreme decline (or increase) that differ statistically from the majority of population trends.We show that, of taxonomic–geographic systems in the Living Planet Index, 16 systems contain clusters of extreme decline (comprising around 1% of populations; these extreme declines occur disproportionately in larger animals) and 7 contain extreme increases (around 0.4% of populations). The remaining 98.6% of populations across all systems showed no mean global trend."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2920-6

11

weakhamstrings t1_isf4eu9 wrote

These are great sources here and cool to read, thanks for sharing.

However, this comment only makes sense because the headline isn't specific enough. With regards to what most folks think of when we say "animals" (other than farm animals), the studies you linked aren't really reflective of that.

We are talking "mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians" here and the original article (linked at the beginning of OP's article) also specifies the losses by region which is also exceptionally important

2

deokkent t1_iscl3a4 wrote

It has a name - anthropocene mass extinction event. There is also Holocene mass extinction event.

It's been ongoing for a while since our population ballooned up. Some argue it began roughly ~10 000 years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

8

llcmac t1_iscf6xo wrote

USAs brand of Capitalism won't allow it here. If wealth can't be extracted from it, no support will be given. If mid-terms go more red/corporate blue, climate/wildlife agencies will be defunded and gutted.

Only when enough people get angry, will change happen.

Get angry.

29

tunaburn t1_iscfw6j wrote

This country doesn't care about anything until it's too late to do anything about it.

14

Able-Fun2874 t1_iscmpbh wrote

It's a humanity issue. Not enough people to affect the systemic changes needed. And that folks is what we call a "great filter".

2

kashmir1974 t1_isetij1 wrote

You gonna discount the 4+ billion people outside the US and Europe dumping every conceivable item and chemical into rivers and oceans with 0 government oversight?

The US could literally vanish tomorrow, a bare plain where it once was, and this shit would still be rolling forward.

4

llcmac t1_isez3sf wrote

I agree the whole world is going to shit. Even countries more for the people still have bad roots in capitalism. I write in reference to the US because it's the only one I can keep ahead of the propaganda at the moment, and a lot of people get pissed when Americans make generalizations for the whole world.

3

TheDevilOnFire t1_isd4svk wrote

Actually I taught Sexuality at a major University and since the 1960s the average mammal (which includes male humans) the sperm count is declining by an average rate of 2% each year. By the year 2050 the average male mammal will be sterile. (Females also are increasingly sterile btw) If you don't believe me, look it up. I taught this 10 years ago. Nobody listened then, and few will listen now.

21

GladAd7127 t1_isdrgxm wrote

What is the cause? Plastic, chemicals, pesticides? In which country were the studies conducted?

8

TheDevilOnFire t1_isds0ey wrote

It was found across the world. Early on pesticides was blamed but that's been changed. I don't think it is any one thing, it's likely everything you've mentioned and more, but no smoking gun. Humans are fairly okay even after 2050 as a single male can have 350,000,000 million sperm in one orgasm, which could repopulate the entire United States. But how do you save wild animals? I wish I knew.

13

NeedMoreKowbell t1_isfstpq wrote

You’re under an ignorant assumption that each sperm is equally effective and that as long as a man can produce 1 sperm he can pregnate someone. Please read up on the topic and don’t spread feel good lies.

−2

TheDevilOnFire t1_isg5b9r wrote

Actually I'm not. To be considered "sterile" a man needs around 20,000,000 viable sperm. That means the sperm has good motility, mobility, and morphology. The abilities to move, survive, and penetrate the egg. In vitro fertilization technology allows for the insertion of one viable sperm to be directly inserted into an egg.

I'm not saying that we SHOULD insert only one man's sperm unto an egg. I'm saying we have the technology to keep our species propagating. Animals (Mammals) that are wild, well how do we keep each species that has its male fertility move below that threshold of whatever the species viable sperm count, from not going extinct or have a natural habitat collapse?

I hope that clarifies for. I did not mean to literally insert one man's sperm. Just that the average man by around 2050 will fall below that threshold. But we can mitigate our issue. Other animals, not so much

2

TheDevilOnFire t1_isg8stu wrote

But rereading your reply, actually yes, if a man can produce even one viable sperm, again yes, it can be inserted into an egg and become a viable embryo. See, you can learn something new everyday;)

1

TheSalmonLizard t1_isf5w31 wrote

The principal cause of the decline is the loss of habitats. Yes we must look at other issues but must first put efforts on the conservation of ecosystems.

3

Manofalltrade t1_isfdpjl wrote

And the biggest driver of habitat loss is CO2 emissions. No even counting what it’s doing directly to the ocean, warming is making a lot of habitat that looks ok untenable for many species. Humans don’t realize this because even without clothing and air conditioning we are comfortable in a wide range of temperature.

1

juyfdsa t1_isdm9cu wrote

What really matters is really really green lawns. Oh and getting rid of nests out of trees in our yards. Oh and no insects anywhere near my home. Okay, now I can listen about animal populations.

18

gillika t1_isdzn8v wrote

My neighbors cats get all the nests, no matter how much we try to protect them

3

juyfdsa t1_ise0t3c wrote

Oh, I think you were supposed to mention that your neighbor's cat is a rescue for fake internet points. That's what everyone else does anyway...

2

Manofalltrade t1_isfe2ia wrote

We rescued this kitten from its mother when it was 12 weeks old…

2

juyfdsa t1_isfjv5f wrote

Still counts. As long as you say "rescue" the upvotes will increase

2

mhornberger t1_isfp7tr wrote

People love nature but don't want to give up low-density living, or stop eating beef. Though the latter is the larger issue by far, since we use 50x more land for agriculture than we do for all cities and towns. And 3/4 of agricultural land we use is to pasture animals we eat or grow food to feed them. So agricultural sprawl is a large part of the loss of biodiversity. Eating plants is much more land-efficient (and water-efficient), but people ain't giving up their beef burgers and steaks for anything.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

2

Big_Forever5759 t1_isd1rty wrote

People concern w climate change like it’s the only thing humans are doing. The industrial fishing catches are insane. The garbage humans create is insane, and it goes to oceans and nature. The amount of deforestation is huge. Polluted rivers. The list goes on.

9

Seekerinside t1_iscfsxd wrote

Can’t stop it Without getting rid of high ways, And taking over countries that are deforesting. Stopping development isn’t going to happen, so we will live in a world with very little wild animals. The irony is that they will be in places protected by ethical hunters who hire biologists to manage the populations and protect the land.

8

FrmrPresJamesTaylor t1_isclc9r wrote

The cockroaches are just biding their time until it’s just us and them left

8

K_Pizowned t1_isdstkw wrote

The spoiler is the people with ownership over the resources that would be needed to fix this issue do not feel obligated to face the issue and in fact think everyone else should front the bill for the fallout of their mass-scale exploitation. We're just going to sleep walk in to extinction. Embrace of the Anthropocene.

3

mossadnik OP t1_isc808o wrote

Submission Statement:

>Global animal populations are declining, and we've got limited time to try to fix it.

>That's the upshot of a new report from the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London, which analyzed years of data on thousands of wildlife populations across the world and found a downward trend in the Earth's biodiversity.

>According to the Living Planet Index, a metric that's been in existence for five decades, animal populations across the world shrunk by an average of 69% between 1970 and 2018.

>Not all animal populations dwindled, and some parts of the world saw more drastic changes than others. But experts say the steep loss of biodiversity is a stark and worrying sign of what's to come for the natural world.

>According to the report's authors, the main cause of biodiversity loss is land-use changes driven by human activity, such as infrastructure development, energy production and deforestation.

>But the report suggests that climate change — which is already unleashing wide-ranging effects on plant and animal species globally — could become the leading cause of biodiversity loss if rising temperatures aren't limited to 1.5°C.

2

StateOHockey t1_iseh868 wrote

Is there ANYTHING left for anyone under 50 to look forward to? Anything at all?

2

cornerblockakl t1_isfpqzs wrote

Good grief. Not much will change. Stop believing all the imminent doom and gloom. I’m old and “they” have been saying “the end is near” since I was a kid.

−2

StateOHockey t1_isfwxsu wrote

Forgive me for not accepting advice from the generation that could have done something about it but didn't.

3

cornerblockakl t1_isg8s72 wrote

You go girl. The reason you are reading and replying to this is because of boomers. You’re welcome.

−1

barneysfarm t1_isft3jd wrote

You seem very out of touch with reality.

2

cornerblockakl t1_isg8n1e wrote

Well, if you’re lucky and live long enough, you will find out. But I doubt you have the will or self awareness to do either. Lol

0

hbn14 t1_iseip9w wrote

People rather not change their habits of eating animal products than take care of animal population / natural habits. We can claim big corps all we want, but we still have a responsibility as customers.

2

[deleted] t1_isf7ycj wrote

I like how it used to be “we can’t hit 1.5c!!!” Now it’s “if we don’t go beyond 1.5c!!” It’s going to hit 2-3 by 2035. We are fucked. Imagine a heat dome 3x worse for 3x as long. Forests will combust like an ant under a magnifying glass. It already happened in June 2021 in the NW of the country, many evergreens had been completely browned and dried out on the sides most sun facing. Everywhere is dry and crunchy now. 6 months till summer starts again, record low rainfalls in most countries, Now extend the cycle for 10 years with increasing heat ontop… there is no solution. It will take a lifetime or more to get rid of the industrial level of use we employ now.

2

Flopsyjackson t1_isg5pgf wrote

Most environmental attention is focused on carbon emissions (which is important), but habitat destruction is getting way overlooked. We not only need conservation, but restoration ecology. A world without biodiversity becomes very unhealthy.

2

FuturologyBot t1_iscd46y wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/mossadnik:

Submission Statement:

>Global animal populations are declining, and we've got limited time to try to fix it.

>That's the upshot of a new report from the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London, which analyzed years of data on thousands of wildlife populations across the world and found a downward trend in the Earth's biodiversity.

>According to the Living Planet Index, a metric that's been in existence for five decades, animal populations across the world shrunk by an average of 69% between 1970 and 2018.

>Not all animal populations dwindled, and some parts of the world saw more drastic changes than others. But experts say the steep loss of biodiversity is a stark and worrying sign of what's to come for the natural world.

>According to the report's authors, the main cause of biodiversity loss is land-use changes driven by human activity, such as infrastructure development, energy production and deforestation.

>But the report suggests that climate change — which is already unleashing wide-ranging effects on plant and animal species globally — could become the leading cause of biodiversity loss if rising temperatures aren't limited to 1.5°C.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y459ht/animal_populations_have_shrunk_an_average_of_69/isc808o/

1

Pathfinder6 t1_iscopu9 wrote

Well, the whitetail deer in Northern Virginia would like to tell you they definitely are not declining. The hoofrats are everywhere.

1

snapflipper t1_isctnu5 wrote

Likely nothing is gonna happen and things gonna keep messing up like this. I hardly see progression in issues which are already decades old. No political party, institutions stress enough of conservation. Destroying nature has a place in separate hell. Were all together in this.

1

cornerblockakl t1_isdx3vv wrote

I’d like to see a detailed chart of the decline and limited time.

1

PumpkinSpiceNeuroses t1_ise2shf wrote

What don’t we constantly get warnings for saying we have a limited time to fix. And nothing changes.

1

EnvironmentOptimal98 t1_isgjkqf wrote

See, this is what we should focus our environmental thoughts on. CO2 has its consequences, but this is a much more pressing issue

1

Illustrious-Soup4080 t1_iscvbcx wrote

Meh who cares , saving the planets over rated let’s end it

−8

Kartik-Kun-500 t1_isdyjng wrote

It's underrated tbh. No political institutions ever tried to solve any issue related to it, on a larger scale, in actuality.

1

[deleted] t1_iscdrqn wrote

Well the abortion rate is going up so this may even out.

−12

StateOHockey t1_isehod2 wrote

Are you actually mentally deficient, or do you just act like it on the internet?

3

LordTonka t1_ischc4s wrote

It is because the world only has so many souls to fulfill the life on earth. With everything coming back as a human, there are not any souls left for other creatures. We need to take care of human overpopulation first.

−14