News A million species threatened with extinction

The United Nations committee IPBES finds 1 million out of 8 million species under threat of extinction. According to their research more than a third of our marine mammals are in danger. Polluted and reduced habitats, climate change and overexploitation of resources and animals are examples of ways that our wildlife has been placed in jeopardy.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/worl...eatened-extinction-humans-scn-intl/index.html

What can we do to protect the diverse species and landscapes of our planet?

We're at a point where the average person can do very little. The change needs to come from governments and industries, the people who are doing the most massive damage and going out of their way to ignore hard evidence as to the effects of their actions. The best thing for the average person to do is vote for candidates who have a brain in their elections.

While I can't deny that corporations need to make huge changes, I disagree that people "can do very little". There's actually an abundance that people can do to reduce their plastic consumption and use of resources. A plant-based diet is one of the biggest ways to reduce your carbon footprint as you're no longer paying for deforestation, you're using significantly less water, and it takes far fewer crops to feed a human than it does a cow (multiplying that by about 50 billion compared to the human's 7.5 billion, seeing as that's how many unfortunate land animals are used for food). Carpooling or taking public transportation (i.e., the bus) reduces gas and oil consumption, as well as overall traffic pollution; some people even decide to quit driving pretty much altogether and take a bike to and from. Bringing your own bags to a grocery store is a great way to reduce your plastic consumption, preferably the reusable ones made of cotton, and opting for homemade meals with fresh ingredients generates less waste from boxes, plastics, and general by-products created from the intensive way most pre-packaged food is prepared.

There are many ways in which people can do their part to help, and refusing to purchase most or all of the things causing such horrible issues is the first step to helping protect our planet and the creatures who inhabit it. And by making ethical and economical purchases, you're pushing the market in a different direction. But it's really easy to shove the blame onto companies and factories while continuing to support said companies you wish to oppose than it is to actually make a change. Information isn't readily available, knowledge isn't readily given; you typically need to put the effort into searching for the answers, which is difficult to do in such a busy world. Most people can't be assed/are just virtue signaling and it really shows.

Also if people could stop ducking littering... >.>

CiCi Sama said:

Snip

Click to expand...

I should clarify, I'm well aware that there are plenty of things people can change in their lifestyles to help ward off problems like these and we absolutely should do what we can. However, these changes will ultimately prove fruitless in the long term without bigger changes from those in power. It's important we all do our part, but without some cooperation from the top end, it's a delaying tactic.

Which is why we should be making these more ethical and economic choices daily. Eventually, the corporations that cause the problems will go out of business or have to yield to the sustainable businesses that consumers are supporting. Consumers do have power -- even comparing what people used to buy less than 100 years ago to now, there've been huge changes. I just dislike the helpless victim stance that a lot of people seem to perpetuate. Money talks, and where your money goes matters more than people realize.

CiCi Sama said:

Which is why we should be making these more ethical and economic choices daily. Eventually, the corporations that cause the problems will go out of business or have to yield to the sustainable businesses that consumers are supporting. Consumers do have power -- even comparing what people used to buy less than 100 years ago to now, there've been huge changes. I just dislike the helpless victim stance that a lot of people seem to perpetuate. Money talks, and where your money goes matters more than people realize.

Click to expand...

Speaking as someone very poor, I don't always have as much freedom about where my money goes as you seem to think people have. I do the best I can of course, as everyone should, but if it's a choice between paying the bills and eating that week and the green option, well it's not really that much of a choice is it?

gimmepie said:

Speaking as someone very poor, I don't always have as much freedom about where my money goes as you seem to think people have. I do the best I can of course, as everyone should, but if it's a choice between paying the bills and eating that week and the green option, well it's not really that much of a choice is it?

Click to expand...

I didn't assume you have money. In fact, the things I mentioned help save money in the long run. Beans and rice is a cheaper option than getting meals from McDonald's. Fresh vegetables are cheaper than meat at the grocery store. Taking the bus is cheaper than paying for a car and getting gas for it. It costs nothing to take shorter showers or unplug things that aren't in use. Reusable cotton bags typically cost less than a buck fifty in the States. You're assuming that I'm coming from some rich background when I grew up in poverty and found that these techniques helped me and my partner to save up. Enough so that we can afford more important things without having to worry so much (like affording my senior dog's vet bills).

CiCi Sama said:

I didn't assume you have money. In fact, the things I mentioned help save money in the long run. Beans and rice is a cheaper option than getting meals from McDonald's. Fresh vegetables are cheaper than meat at the grocery store. Taking the bus is cheaper than paying for a car and getting gas for it. It costs nothing to take shorter showers or unplug things that aren't in use. Reusable cotton bags typically cost less than a buck fifty in the States. You're assuming that I'm coming from some rich background when I grew up in poverty and found that these techniques helped me and my partner to save up. Enough so that we can afford more important things without having to worry so much (like affording my senior dog's vet bills).

Click to expand...

Those are largely things I do ^
I think we're mostly on the same page.

Recycle, don't support companies known for burning their unsold products, try to eat organic food instead of highly processed food, buy biodegradable things, use electric mechanical devices over gas powered ones, and so on. It might not seem like much but these little things add up when a lot of people do them.

Way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this plant are gone.

Now, we didn't kill them all! They just disappeared.

I think the best prescription for the hysteria about the climate is a healthy dose of scepticism, along with a thorough look at the facts. I've lost count of how many Twitter sillies I've ran into who cite the IPCC report, and I know they haven't read it because their claim isn't in there. We can always do better.

By the way, did you know that approximately half of the scientists cited in that report as believing that climate change is real don't have confidence in saying that global warming is anthropogenic? I don't hear people mention that too much, but it's true. AGW is actually a minority view, although it's vastly overrepresented in public discourse.

Alexander Nicholi said:

Way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this plant are gone.

Now, we didn't kill them all! They just disappeared.

I think the best prescription for the hysteria about the climate is a healthy dose of scepticism, along with a thorough look at the facts. I've lost count of how many Twitter sillies I've ran into who cite the IPCC report, and I know they haven't read it because their claim isn't in there. We can always do better.

By the way, did you know that approximately half of the scientists cited in that report as believing that climate change is real don't have confidence in saying that global warming is anthropogenic? I don't hear people mention that too much, but it's true. AGW is actually a minority view, although it's vastly overrepresented in public discourse.

Click to expand...

We have contributed to driving many species to extinction or the brink of it nonetheless. This is the fact of what happened to the Dodo bird, the Arabian ostrich, Merriam's elk, Martinique Amazon, Saudi gazelle, the laughing owl, the domed Mauritius giant tortoise, the broad-billed parrot and a number of species.

It sounds like you're making fun of the topic by stating the obvious i.e There are extinct species that we didn't kill! Nobody said otherwise. If the topic was reducing crime in our communities then I don't think anyone would dispute that not everyone who has ever died was murdered.

In respose to your comments about people just being hysterical about the climate, I want to underscore that while yes, climate change was cited as a threat to the survival of species in the IPBES report, the report also included a number of examples of how our current activity threatens the sustainability of other species, all of it is worth talking about like overfishing and hunting, exploitation of their resources, the deforestation, the introductionary of invasive species, poaching, pollution of their habbitats. Let's talk about this first because none of that is anything new.

We hunted the Japanese sea otter until it became extinct, hunted the sea mink also to extinction for fur, the great auk for it's down feathers, the carribean monk seal for its oil, killed off the California grizzly bear through brutal bear-baiting and hunting practices, drove the Labrador duck extinct by overharvesting its eggs. The Cebu Warty pig disappeared after habitat loss, the Xerces Blue butterfly is also gone from the world due to habbitat loss from urban development, the Javan tiger fell victim to deforestation, the Mauritius blue pigeon. These sadly are just a handful of examples.

We need to look to the past and how we mistakenly treated our wildlife as a source that would always be available to enjoy.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4078988/amp

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org...y/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/beautiful-extinct-animals/amp/

Below are animals that have not gone extinct yet, but their populations have nonetheless been ravaged due to human activity and they now face the threat of extinction like polar bears, mountain gorillas, orangutans. I could go on further, but I do not want to present so many unfortunate numbers to depress members, as this is meant to be a constructive thread. However, we can't progress if we don't have the same facts for the consensus that our current way of life is not acceptable.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/06/...eatened-extinction-humans-scn-intl/index.html

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/species.html

https://inhabitat.com/6-critically-...r-threat-of-extinction-due-to-human-activity/

https://amp.livescience.com/41421-animals-threatened-with-extinction.html

It isn't just a matter of sure, we can always do better. This is the problem I have with climate change denial because this belief at its core releases us from any obligation to make significant change. If there's no connection between human activity and rising temperatures then we don't have to make big changes to the way we have always been doing things. No need to inconvenience ourselves with a carbon tax or not buying factory farm food and choosing sustainable seafood, catching public transportion or telling our leaders to support the Paris Climate Agreement so that we can work together as nations to keep our emissions as low as we can. No, no need if climate change is all just a hoax.

The reason I wanted to respond to this comment most of all is because it evidently is important to post the actual IPCC report from the United Nations so there is no misunderstanding about what is in the report. You are entitled to your own opinion about climate change and why the earth is heating up, but please don't cite this report as evidence that the jury is still out on climate change being manmade.

It states on page 10 the report "Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)"

A high confidence statement does not indicate that there is uncertainty as high as 50% by the experts examining the scientific data. High confidence would reflect an 8 out of 10 degree of confidence that this is correct according to the scales of scientific confidence. There are statements of lower confidence within the report, but acknowledgement that human emission has contributed to warming was not such a statement. Climate change is not considered a controversial belief by the panel. Half of the scientists in the report did not say they had no confidence that global warming was anthropogenic as you said. You might want to reread the report for yourself, so you have the correct information in the future and don't unknowingly put forward something that is not true to support your argument, and can take this opportunity to strengthen your arguments

A robust debate is always welcome here, but we want to deal in facts regardless of which side of the aisle we come down on.

Here is the link PDF file.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAJegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0HYw_0GFe7V2GJmEfszRvJ

VisionofMilotic said:

We have contributed to driving many species to extinction or the brink of it nonetheless. This is the fact of what happened to the Dodo bird, the Arabian ostrich, Merriam's elk, Martinique Amazon, Saudi gazelle, the laughing owl, the domed Mauritius giant tortoise, the broad-billed parrot and a number of species.

It sounds like you're making fun of the topic by stating the obvious i.e There are extinct species that we didn't kill! Nobody said otherwise. If the topic was reducing crime in our communities then I don't think anyone would dispute that not everyone who has ever died was murdered.

Click to expand...

not really. i was humouring the lack of perspective people have about extinction, and y'know, it's the same thing with school shootings. the stats have been way down any way you look at it, and it just so happens the prevailing sentiment couldn't be further from the truth. it's not helpful.

VisionofMilotic said:

In respose to your comments about people just being hysterical about the climate, I want to underscore that while yes, climate change was cited as a threat to the survival of species in the IPBES report, the report also included a number of examples of how our current activity threatens the sustainability of other species, all of it is worth talking about like overfishing and hunting, exploitation of their resources, the deforestation, the introductionary of invasive species, poaching, pollution of their habbitats. Let's talk about this first because none of that is anything new.

We hunted the Japanese sea otter until it became extinct, hunted the sea mink also to extinction for fur, the great auk for it's down feathers, the carribean monk seal for its oil, killed off the California grizzly bear through brutal bear-baiting and hunting practices, drove the Labrador duck extinct by overharvesting its eggs. The Cebu Warty pig disappeared after habitat loss, the Xerces Blue butterfly is also gone from the world due to habbitat loss from urban development, the Javan tiger fell victim to deforestation, the Mauritius blue pigeon. These sadly are just a handful of examples.

We need to look to the past and how we mistakenly treated our wildlife as a source that would always be available to enjoy.

Click to expand...

that's all pretty much great, but i think we're not really in disagreeance about the facts insomuch as the sentiment. you say "these sadly are just a handful of examples" (emphasis mine), but i don't affix emotion to it like that. it is what it is. when you understand that the vast majority of extinction had nothing to do with us, the sadness can't stem from guilt because there's no involvement, and really no emotional stake to be taken anyways because it had nothing to do with us. and where's the rationale to focus in and give all this out-of-proportion coverage to what we have done? isn't that kinda selfish? and another question: what does it mean to 'enjoy' the wildlife of this planet in the first place? most of mankind from history will tell you that's about sport, or petkeeping, or livestockery. we can easily draw a bunch of guilty conclusions from that stuff, but then the end goal is the problem!

VisionofMilotic said:

It isn't just a matter of sure, we can always do better. This is the problem I have with climate change denial because this belief at its core releases us from any obligation to make significant change.

Click to expand...

I don't really see what you're talking about.

VisionofMilotic said:

No need to inconvenience ourselves with a carbon tax or not buying factory farm food and choosing sustainable seafood, catching public transportion or telling our leaders to support the Paris Climate Agreement so that we can work together as nations to keep our emissions as low as we can. No, no need if climate change is all just a hoax.

Click to expand...

climate change denial is a pretty pitiful strawman to erect against these kinds of things, because there are far stronger arguments against each and every thing you cited. carbon taxes are economically harebrained (ever taken a look at france?), carbon credits have been a disaster by results because everyone wants to buy the indulgence and no one is keeping track, and most importantly, have you taken a look at where most of the room for improvement is with carbon emissions? it's in asia, not here. the biggest contribution to CO2 is coming from automobiles, which are in heavy use in the US, China and Indonesia, and this leads us right back into the problem of "these attempts to solve it aren't working". isn't that infinitely more prevalent than whether some rando "believes" in it or not? we don't have to care at all whether humans are to blame for this to be interested in solving it.

VisionofMilotic said:

The reason I wanted to respond to this comment most of all is because it evidently is important to post the actual IPCC report from the United Nations so there is no misunderstanding about what is in the report. You are entitled to your own opinion about climate change and why the earth is heating up, but please don't cite this report as evidence that the jury is still out on climate change being manmade.

It states on page 10 the report "Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)"

A high confidence statement does not indicate that there is uncertainty as high as 50% by the experts examining the scientific data. High confidence would reflect an 8 out of 10 degree of confidence that this is correct according to the scales of scientific confidence. There are statements of lower confidence within the report, but acknowledgement that human emission has contributed to warming was not such a statement. Climate change is not considered a controversial belief by the panel. Half of the scientists in the report did not say they had no confidence that global warming was anthropogenic as you said. You might want to reread the report for yourself, so you have the correct information in the future and don't unknowingly put forward something that is not true to support your argument, and can take this opportunity to strengthen your arguments

Click to expand...

this argument suffers from basic failure to understand how science works.

first of all, there is no jury to be out on the question of climate change. if there was, The Last Question would be answered before that jury returns. it's simply not how science works, it's never how science has worked, and it will never be how science works. science doesn't provide answers, it's not some Oracle of Truth.

what is science, then? it's a tool for reasoning, and it's currently the best we have for understanding the universe. science says precisely nothing about climate change; actually, scientists say things, and they're following everything that they have observed and reasoned about using the scientific method. crucially, they're not all on the same page about their work.

when you poll an aggregate of scientists, their answers don't constitute reality at all. there can be one scientist who found results differently, and we can't assume that he's wrong because a majority of his peers think so. that defeats the entire purpose of all the reasoning every single scientist did, reducing it to a vague mysticism that's as helpful as consulting the village seers about an omen. the moment that 'climate change' becomes unfalsifiable (undeniable, beyond reproach, sacred, gospel, et cetera) is the moment it becomes unscientific, and at that point you can send the IPCC report to the shredder because it doesn't help with that. science doesn't service beliefs.

Alexander Nicholi said:

Snip

Click to expand...

I take issue with a lot of this, but the thing that I really want to comment on is this talk of science because you are displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is. Science is about systematic study and research in pursuit of understanding. It is literally the process of applying research to reach an answer to a question. Furthermore, while it is true that science is constantly evolving, the general rule of thumb is that you don't ignore evidence and the evidence by and large points to humans having a scientifically significant impact on the climate and on various ecosystems.

The idea isn't that you can't say someone is wrong, because you can. Numerous scientific propositions have been indisputably disproved. In science you accept what the evidence suggests until new evidence comes up to suggest looking elsewhere. That isn't the same as saying "once you say something is definitively wrong it's not science". The general scientific consensus is that humanity is having a negative impact and that we need to do something about it and arguments against that stance, ignoring that they generally come from extremely biased parties, have been repeatedly disproved.

But you seem to agree that action needs to be taken to reduce human impact on the climate and on the ecosystems we destroy. So what's the point of being deliberately contrarian, especially when expressing ideas that are just plain false in the process? I really don't understand where you're coming from beyond "I don't feel emotional about the situation". That's great, but you still acknowledge that action needs to be taken? So what are you getting at?

gimmepie said:

I take issue with a lot of this, but the thing that I really want to comment on is this talk of science because you are displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is. Science is about systematic study and research in pursuit of understanding. It is literally the process of applying research to reach an answer to a question. Furthermore, while it is true that science is constantly evolving, the general rule of thumb is that you don't ignore evidence and the evidence by and large points to humans having a scientifically significant impact on the climate and on various ecosystems.

The idea isn't that you can't say someone is wrong, because you can. Numerous scientific propositions have been indisputably disproved. In science you accept what the evidence suggests until new evidence comes up to suggest looking elsewhere. That isn't the same as saying "once you say something is definitively wrong it's not science". The general scientific consensus is that humanity is having a negative impact and that we need to do something about it and arguments against that stance, ignoring that they generally come from extremely biased parties, have been repeatedly disproved.

But you seem to agree that action needs to be taken to reduce human impact on the climate and on the ecosystems we destroy. So what's the point of being deliberately contrarian, especially when expressing ideas that are just plain false in the process? I really don't understand where you're coming from beyond "I don't feel emotional about the situation". That's great, but you still acknowledge that action needs to be taken? So what are you getting at?

Click to expand...

it's not "you can't say something is wrong", it's "you can't say that something can't be wrong". it's not about falsification, it's about falsifiability.

i've said a lot about what i'm getting at. it's mostly regarding hyperbole, poor policymaking, and a lack of scientific rigour in what's going on.

Alexander Nicholi said:

it's not "you can't say something is wrong", it's "you can't say that something can't be wrong". it's not about falsification, it's about falsifiability.

i've said a lot about what i'm getting at. it's mostly regarding hyperbole, poor policymaking, and a lack of scientific rigour in what's going on.

Click to expand...

Okay sure, but the vast majority of the evidence indicates that we are very much approaching a point of climate disaster and that humans actions are directly responsible for both this and extreme damage to natural ecosystems. If there was a sizeable enough amount of (unbiased) evidence to suggest that this was uncertain, most people would be a lot more open to debate. However, the evidence very much indicates that human activity is responsible for much of these happenings.

As for hyperbole, I think that it's probably a bit dramatic to say we only have ten years left sure before nothing is fixable, sure. But we need to emphasise that this is a very real and very significant threat to the majority of macroscopic life on Earth. It's proving hard enough to get people to get off their asses and doing what needs to be done as is, imagine if we were as chill about is as you want us all to be. We need to do something about the ecosystems we're currently destroying because the damage we are doing to other species is also posing a direct threat to us. The dramatic changes we are causing to the climate are directly affecting us. Human being are literally already dying because of climate change we ourselves have caused.

Even if you have no sympathy for the animal species we're killing off, surely you realise having such a blase and contrarian attitude here is a threat to humanity. I agree that mindless panic isn't helping anyone, but if pushing hard on environmental issues is achieving results then I really don't care if it's offending people's sensibilities because we're talking about the futures of millions of species - including our own. Make no mistake either, making changes like converting more to green energy and improving public transport/lessening car use is making a difference and the more global pressure there is for people to continue making the necessary changes, the more those changes will occur.

Edit: Sorry for the extra quote notifs, caught a bunch of dumb typos.

gimmepie said:

Even if you have no sympathy for the animal species we're killing off, surely you realise having such a blase and contrarian attitude here is a threat to humanity.

Click to expand...

this be where we disagree. it's a lot more harmful to take an attitude of alarm and panic than to hold your horses and stick to what we know.

unfortunately, what we know about climate change is like the tip of an iceberg in regards to the climate change. as the IPCC report is a scientific summary (or, at least, the policymaker's summary is), it is rigourously guarded with metrics of confidence, certainty, citations, and so forth. these serve the purpose of defeating any post-facto mysticism that's so often applied to the report. make a claim from the IPCC? chances are, there's something else it also says that brings it into question. they're seriously the last folks to take sides on the matter, and that's crucial. often times taking sides is the job of policymakers.

but what does being blasé or contrarian do to the positions of the scientists? it changes nothing. they could empathise or demonise me all day long, and still hold everything they collected together in that document aside. they're more separated than we are.

now, what does being blasé or contrarian do to the positions of the policymakers? it brings their whole show into question. i'm standing here demanding that the operation be walked back and proven, and that's better for the results of successful action than rolling around in platitudes or foaming at the mouth like i'm in a death cult. i know what climate change implies, and unlike some i'm not afraid of it. i would like to see it solved and move on to other things, as i'm sure others do too. this is what it means to struggle as a human.

One thing I think people are forgetting is that the serious pollution changes that need to happen are not coming from most first world countries. Europe, North America, Japan, etc are putting in measures to curb climate change but that is not going to do much to stop many of the poorer countries that engage in mass deforestation, industrial pollution, and chemical accidents. If the world is serious about climate change it's going to hurt a lot of poorer countries in slowing or destroying their economy than it will most first world countries that have already adapted such measures.

EnglishALT said:

One thing I think people are forgetting is that the serious pollution changes that need to happen are not coming from most first world countries. Europe, North America, Japan, etc are putting in measures to curb climate change but that is not going to do much to stop many of the poorer countries that engage in mass deforestation, industrial pollution, and chemical accidents. If the world is serious about climate change it's going to hurt a lot of poorer countries in slowing or destroying their economy than it will most first world countries that have already adapted such measures.

Click to expand...

A lot of the companies responsible for major pollution and deforestation are from first world countries and there's plenty that first world countries are doing that is causing a great deal of damage that can be changed. Trying to push all the blame onto poorer nations that are less economically able to make changes is just making excuses and trying to shirk responsibility.

gimmepie said:

A lot of the companies responsible for major pollution and deforestation are from first world countries and there's plenty that first world countries are doing that is causing a great deal of damage that can be changed. Trying to push all the blame onto poorer nations that are less economically able to make changes is just making excuses and trying to shirk responsibility.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is even if you punish the companies, it will still cause major economic repercussions to the poorer countries as the companies pull out and stop doing business, thus the end result is the same.

EnglishALT said:

The problem with that is even if you punish the companies, it will still cause major economic repercussions to the poorer countries as the companies pull out and stop doing business, thus the end result is the same.

Click to expand...

Not if the action is coming from where the countries are based. Then it doesn't matter where they're doing business and pulling out and moving to a place with weaker regulations is no longer going to be and option.