Worlds wildlife 'falls by 58% in 40 years

[seeder]

Quote

 

World wildlife 'falls by 58% in 40 years'

Global wildlife populations have fallen by 58% since 1970, a report says.

The Living Planet assessment, by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and WWF, suggests that if the trend continues that decline could reach two-thirds among vertebrates by 2020.

The figures suggest that animals living in lakes, rivers and wetlands are suffering the biggest losses.

Human activity, including habitat loss, wildlife trade, pollution and climate change contributed to the declines.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37775622

 

 

[MissJatti]

And all the while, we are finding new animals and species 

[seeder]

44 minutes ago, MissJatti said:

And all the while, we are finding new animals and species 

 

No we're not. We find a couple of simply undiscovered species...sometimes....and you make it sound like there is so much more to find? We may find a new spider...or ant.... but that dont change the fact we are losing HUGE amounts of the well known animals....like whales, monkeys, apes, elephants, tigers, lions,

It seems the only ones we care about are those we farm to eat, like sheep, cows, goats, chickens.. some fish, like Cod, Salmon..or whales for Japan etc

 

[MissJatti]

2 hours ago, seeder said:

 

No we're not. We find a couple of simply undiscovered species...sometimes....and you make it sound like there is so much more to find? We may find a new spider...or ant.... but that dont change the fact we are losing HUGE amounts of the well known animals....like whales, monkeys, apes, elephants, tigers, lions,

It seems the only ones we care about are those we farm to eat, like sheep, cows, goats, chickens.. some fish, like Cod, Salmon..or whales for Japan etc

 

How can you say that when, It's estimated that approximately 7.1% of territorial earth is to be discovered still and over 43.4% or more of the aquatic earth is still not discovered.
So we are almost half way there.

I know more and more animals are becoming endangered species, but not extinct. 

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, MissJatti said:

How can you say that when, It's estimated that approximately 7.1% of territorial earth is to be discovered still and over 43.4% or more of the aquatic earth is still not discovered.
So we are almost half way there.

I know more and more animals are becoming endangered species, but not extinct. 

We are probably losing species before they're even discovered.  But try these:

Northern white rhino:  only three confirmed individuals still surviving.  You and I will probably live to see them extinct.

Golden toad:  Last reported alive in 1996.

Zanzibar leopard:  Last reported alive in 1996.

Black-faced honey-creeper:  Last reported alive in 2004.

Madeiran large white butterfly:  Last reported alive in 2007.

Tecopa pupfish:  Last reported alive in 1982.

Pyrenean ibex:  Last reported alive in 2000.

West African black rhino:  Last reported alive in 2006.

Javan tiger:  Last reported alive in 1979.

Spix's macaw:  Last reported alive in 2004.

Round Island burrowing boa:  Last reported alive in 1975.

Dutch Alcan blue butterfly:  Last reported alive in 1979.

All these were part of a functioning ecosystem, an ecosystem that keeps us alive.  That ecosystem is like a plane in flight and each species is a part, corresponding to a rivet or a propeller.  If we keep knocking out parts, eventually we're going to knock out the wrong one and bring the whole thing down.  We might do it by habitat loss, over-hunting, disease, poisoning of the landscape, etc.  The most-likely cause of our own extinction given business-as-usual, is global warming in about 300 years or so.

Doug

[GlitterRose]

3 hours ago, MissJatti said:

How can you say that when, It's estimated that approximately 7.1% of territorial earth is to be discovered still and over 43.4% or more of the aquatic earth is still not discovered.
So we are almost half way there.

I know more and more animals are becoming endangered species, but not extinct. 

And hopefully, we don't kill them off before we have the chance to discover them.

[GlitterRose]

More to come, unfortunately.

There's such a thing as carrying capacity, folks. And nature has a way of sorting things out if we're not going to.

[MissJatti]

6 hours ago, seeder said:

 

No we're not. We find a couple of simply undiscovered species

 

Thats where you are wrong...

Check out the links below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html

http://listverse.com/2016/02/12/10-recently-discovered-animals-with-amazing-features/

[LV-426]

4 hours ago, MissJatti said:

How can you say that when, It's estimated that approximately 7.1% of territorial earth is to be discovered still and over 43.4% or more of the aquatic earth is still not discovered.
So we are almost half way there.

I know more and more animals are becoming endangered species, but not extinct. 

All "undiscovered" says is that mankind hasn't had the opportunity to exploit it yet.

For all our great endeavors, we still don't seem to grasp the concept of "harmony with our environment." Hell, we've only been in space for a relatively short time, and already Earth's orbit is littered with junk.

[stevewinn]

whatever we call it, its a bloody disaster that so many creatures are dying out and apparently because of us, such a shame.

[Nzo]

Lets not be naive. Man is a parasite the best of the best parasites. I think Agent Smith in the Matrix(I love that series, why oh why can't the Wachowski 'its' make more movies like that) puts it best when he is talking to Morpheus. 

'  I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure. '

 

This is just more evidence showing exactly what we are, well most of us... some of us understand and try to make changes in our lives to live more symbiotically and much much less parasitically. The more people breed the worse it will get the faster the extinctions will happen.

[XenoFish]

We need a good plague to thin out the humanity.

Mother nature'll get tired of our crap and do something. That or we will. Perhaps this WW3 everyone's talking about?

[pbarosso]

58%. big deal. its either them or us. bleeding heart gYnas.

[seeder]

17 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

58%. big deal. its either them or us. bleeding heart gYnas.

 

Clearly the answer of someone totally uninformed...

[LV-426]

1 hour ago, seeder said:

 

Clearly the answer of someone totally uninformed...

Not sure it's "uninformed"... "loony" is probably more apt, whether it's his posts on banning the poor from voting, executing people with drug issues, or this latest topic... yep, I'm going with "loony"

[danielost]

looks like the bible called it again.

[Noxasa]

I don't think there's anything to do to stop this evolutionary result.  Human beings are bound to the same evolutionary forces that have always existed for all life.  Species will continue to go extinct as mankind expands it's domination over the planet and beyond.  Some species that can live in harmony, and even benefit from mankind's success, will survive.  Those that can't, will die off.  

It's the natural order of life and no amount of high-minded environmental ideals will stop it because when it comes down to it, almost all people, even environmentalists, will not suffer real hardships for concepts of environmental theory.  Just look at Al Gore or Matt Damon (to name two of thousands of hypocrites) with huge mansions and large private jets that take them all over the world spewing many times, in one trip, the average yearly carbon footprint of a typical first world person.  Not even the supposed environmental "heroes" make decisions to suffer their lifestyle so that they pollute below average levels.  What chance does the typical person have to make the choice to suffer for environmental ideals?  None!!!  Even though these "heroes" keep expecting everyone else to decide to suffer for those ideals.

Extremely few human beings are capable of sacrificing their comforts for intangible high minded environmental ideals.  It's just the way it is and it will never change.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Noxasa

[Parsec]

On 27/10/2016 at 8:51 AM, MissJatti said:

And all the while, we are finding new animals and species 

So what? 

Does that balance things in your eyes? 

Or makes it more tolerable? 

 

Do you understand that animals don't die "just because", but, unless over-hunted, because their environment changes? 

And their environment is the same as the still undiscovered species' one. 

They share the same environment, sometimes even the same habitat. 

So, if a known species dies, it's probable an unknown one will follow (or already preceded, who knows). 

The difference is we won't know because for us they never existed. 

 

Considering man is the main responsible (you can even leave Global Warming out, just think about pollution, deforestation, river drainage/channeling), it would be a good thing to address this issue and think about feasible solutions. 

[MissJatti]

37 minutes ago, Parsec said:

So what? 

Does that balance things in your eyes? 

Or makes it more tolerable? 

 

Do you understand that animals don't die "just because", but, unless over-hunted, because their environment changes? 

And their environment is the same as the still undiscovered species' one. 

They share the same environment, sometimes even the same habitat. 

So, if a known species dies, it's probable an unknown one will follow (or already preceded, who knows). 

The difference is we won't know because for us they never existed. 

 

Considering man is the main responsible (you can even leave Global Warming out, just think about pollution, deforestation, river drainage/channeling), it would be a good thing to address this issue and think about feasible solutions. 

I don't know who the hell you are, but I don't like your attitude in your reply.

The tittle on the OP says... '' Worlds wildlife 'falls by 58% in 40 years.''

58% is the percentage I do not believe.

My debate here is, how can anyone tell that the worlds wildlife falls by 58% in 40 years, when no-one in the universe knows every single creature on this planet, let alone explored everywhere, especially under the ocean. Now wildlife contains of, Mammals, Insects, Fish, Birds, Amphibians, Reptilians, to name a few.. Then we have plants fungus's, corals........ It a long list.

Have you ever counted how many flies are in the world?

So go back read the link in the OP, before posting reply's 

Also I know what humans have done, and are doing to Earths Wildlife, which is gruesome. But there are pockets around the world that does, rescue, rehabilitate, release stuff. So don't give me none of that.

Edited October 29, 2016 by MissJatti

[White Unicorn]

1 hour ago, MissJatti said:

I don't know who the hell you are, but I don't like your attitude in your reply.

The tittle on the OP says... '' Worlds wildlife 'falls by 58% in 40 years.''

58% is the percentage I do not believe.

My debate here is, how can anyone tell that the worlds wildlife falls by 58% in 40 years, when no-one in the universe knows every single creature on this planet, let alone explored everywhere, especially under the ocean. Now wildlife contains of, Mammals, Insects, Fish, Birds, Amphibians, Reptilians, to name a few.. Then we have plants fungus's, corals........ It a long list.

Have you ever counted how many flies are in the world?

So go back read the link in the OP, before posting reply's 

Also I know what humans have done, and are doing to Earths Wildlife, which is gruesome. But there are pockets around the world that does, rescue, rehabilitate, release stuff. So don't give me none of that.

I've been around over the  last 40 years and have seen the wildlife being wiped out on land and waters,  some survivors come into the suburbs since their territory was taken from them by human development of land.

I don't know how they measured to come up with 58% but sadly I bet it is very close.

[seeder]

Look lets make this simple.....ALL of the worlds wildlife we may not know, this perhaps includes some worms, slugs, snails, flies, fish and reptiles and such like....HOWEVER.....all the MAJOR wildlife we know about is taking a hit for sure

Few weeks ago was another story in the papers about the illegal ivory trade....showed elephants that had been killed with their tusks hacked off. A number of years ago we in the UK had to cut back on the cod we were catching as the numbers had got low.... again a few years ago it was reported about a lack of wasps....who pollinate many plants and tree's

ANSWER ME: Who will pollinate all the flowers/plants and trees if the wasp/and similar dies out?

Couple weeks ago I read about a fish bridge that had been built at a new river lock....we build locks but then the fish cant migrate and travel to spawning grounds....new motorways also have to have little tunnels under them so wildlife can cross to the other side without being squashed... in fact Ive seen many things killed on motorways.... deer usually...just trying to cross over to another field and bang....a car hits/kills them

I remember a story from many years ago that said because of women on hormone drugs.....when they excrete those drugs it goes to the river supply....and then we have fish who dont reproduce..... and the list goes on

Then think of Chernobyl, Fukishima, nuke accidents that poisoned the land/animals and fish

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by seeder

[Parsec]

5 hours ago, Noxasa said:

I don't think there's anything to do to stop this evolutionary result.  Human beings are bound to the same evolutionary forces that have always existed for all life.  Species will continue to go extinct as mankind expands it's domination over the planet and beyond.  Some species that can live in harmony, and even benefit from mankind's success, will survive.  Those that can't, will die off.  

It's the natural order of life and no amount of high-minded environmental ideals will stop it because when it comes down to it, almost all people, even environmentalists, will not suffer real hardships for concepts of environmental theory.  Just look at Al Gore or Matt Damon (to name two of thousands of hypocrites) with huge mansions and large private jets that take them all over the world spewing many times, in one trip, the average yearly carbon footprint of a typical first world person.  Not even the supposed environmental "heroes" make decisions to suffer their lifestyle so that they pollute below average levels.  What chance does the typical person have to make the choice to suffer for environmental ideals?  None!!!  Even though these "heroes" keep expecting everyone else to decide to suffer for those ideals.

Extremely few human beings are capable of sacrificing their comforts for intangible high minded environmental ideals.  It's just the way it is and it will never change.

That's your respectable point of view, but I don't share it. 

 

When you say "Human beings are bound to the same evolutionary forces that have always existed for all life" you mean eating, banging and pooping? 

Because eradicating any other life form from earth, as you imply, is not one of them. 

 

You see evolution in our technological progress, but it's not. Right now we are outside of evolution forces and we're not subjugated anymore to them. 

Let's be clear, humankind is not above nature, but as things stand nowadays, we bypassed the laws that regulated our ancestors and stil regulates wildlife. 

 

That's how today children with physical or even cognitive or psychological problems can live a normal life, while till a few centuries ago they couldn't (at least not with the same success rate). 

Think how many ways we have today to check and drive the development of a foetus. 

Maybe for you this is evolution, but technically speaking it's not. 

 

Regarding the "environmental heroes and theories", no one has to martyrise himself "for mother nature": if only companies and factories would play according to the rules, we'd have a lot less issues and part of the problem would already be solved. 

And the average Joe shouldn't have to do anything special or different than what he usually does.

Instead, for profit and greed, they use shortcuts, that are such only to them and in the short term,  but in the long run they affect negatively all of us, causing huge costs to the communities and irreparable damages to the environment. 

 

"What chance does the typical person have to make the choice to suffer for environmental ideals?  None!!!"

It saddens me that you think like this, but if everybody thinks alike, we are all doomed. 

And rightly so. 

[Nzo]

1 hour ago, Parsec said:

That's your respectable point of view, but I don't share it. 

 

When you say "Human beings are bound to the same evolutionary forces that have always existed for all life" you mean eating, banging and pooping? 

Because eradicating any other life form from earth, as you imply, is not one of them. 

 

You see evolution in our technological progress, but it's not. Right now we are outside of evolution forces and we're not subjugated anymore to them. 

Let's be clear, humankind is not above nature, but as things stand nowadays, we bypassed the laws that regulated our ancestors and stil regulates wildlife. 

 

That's how today children with physical or even cognitive or psychological problems can live a normal life, while till a few centuries ago they couldn't (at least not with the same success rate). 

Think how many ways we have today to check and drive the development of a foetus. 

Maybe for you this is evolution, but technically speaking it's not. 

 

Regarding the "environmental heroes and theories", no one has to martyrise himself "for mother nature": if only companies and factories would play according to the rules, we'd have a lot less issues and part of the problem would already be solved. 

And the average Joe shouldn't have to do anything special or different than what he usually does.

Instead, for profit and greed, they use shortcuts, that are such only to them and in the short term,  but in the long run they affect negatively all of us, causing huge costs to the communities and irreparable damages to the environment. 

 

"What chance does the typical person have to make the choice to suffer for environmental ideals?  None!!!"

It saddens me that you think like this, but if everybody thinks alike, we are all doomed. 

And rightly so. 

I obviously agree with you and find other people's point of view incredibly misguided and misinformed.

The issues you present are only one aspect. Even if you regulate all the factories, power plants, mines etc. etc. perfectly without breaking the laws you will still have these problems. The issue here is that we have 8 billion people on the planet and having travelled some of it I can tell you that it is much much worse than just 20 years ago. I remember going to Asia twenty some odd years ago and today whole forests, ecosystems, mountains for god sake have been removed to make residences for the incredible population. I have been to europe and it's exactly the same there. I recall seeing flora and fauna galore in europe 30 years ago and today there is nothing there. Not even the countless snails that would climb and stick to the ancient stone walls. Even the migrating birds that you would see are nowhere to be seen. It's all gone. But people keep breeding and the more people keep breeding the more the problem is going to get worse and unless the world community comes together to address this and fix it... it's going to get bad... like really really bad. Malthus was not wrong about his observations.

Soylent greens anyone?

[Parsec]

1 hour ago, Nzo said:

I obviously agree with you and find other people's point of view incredibly misguided and misinformed.

The issues you present are only one aspect. Even if you regulate all the factories, power plants, mines etc. etc. perfectly without breaking the laws you will still have these problems. The issue here is that we have 8 billion people on the planet and having travelled some of it I can tell you that it is much much worse than just 20 years ago. I remember going to Asia twenty some odd years ago and today whole forests, ecosystems, mountains for god sake have been removed to make residences for the incredible population. I have been to europe and it's exactly the same there. I recall seeing flora and fauna galore in europe 30 years ago and today there is nothing there. Not even the countless snails that would climb and stick to the ancient stone walls. Even the migrating birds that you would see are nowhere to be seen. It's all gone. But people keep breeding and the more people keep breeding the more the problem is going to get worse and unless the world community comes together to address this and fix it... it's going to get bad... like really really bad. Malthus was not wrong about his observations.

Soylent greens anyone?

Ah yeah, I completely agree with you, that's why I wrote "part of the problem would already be solved".

Of couse that wouldn't be enough, but we have to start somewhere.

One step at a time.

But. Regarding the overpopulation problem, what would you suggest to do?

I choose to be hopeful and to people that tell me we (and by "we" they usually mean "everybody elsem but me") should stop breeding, I ask "what if the next newborn would be the person capable to solve our problem?" "What if, reducing the number of new borns, we'd reduce our chances to find a solution?"

[Emma_Acid]

On 29/10/2016 at 1:34 PM, danielost said:

looks like the bible called it again.

Looks like Daniel's shoring up his beliefs again.