Wildlife population now 1/3 of what it was in 1970

Thelonious Monk

https://www.independent.ie/news/environment/wildlife-population-is-now-one-third-of-size-it-was-in-1970-39521859.html

This is upsetting. As the article states, we destroyed all our wilderness in Ireland a long time ago and there's hardly any left in Europe due to 1000s of years of civilisation, but the destruction is being accelerated now by developments in newer countries in the world.
It's funny how flippant people are on the subject. I find many people just go "oh well the world was fine before us will be fine after us" which is a defeatist attitude and a kind of excuse for being unwilling to change anything about their lifestyle.
It's down to overconsumption and too many people basically.
It's hard really because the only thing that seems to matter to Governments is the economy which is based on us buying and buying and buying crap that we don't really need. Surely there's another way?
Do we have any hope of restoring wildlife? Do you even care?
With the rate we're polluting and destroying everything, there wont be much left for our grandkids.

Hawthorn Tree

We are parasites

LessOutragePlz

Unfortunately I think it will have to get worse before it gets better the amount of rainforest that is destroyed everyday is staggering can't think of the figure off the top of my head but it's shocking.

I think most humans in general are out of touch with nature as you said all most of us care about is consuming shiite that we don't need to impress people we don't really care about but it's the world we live in at the moment most people equate success with having more stuff whether that be possessions, money, houses, cars etc. and they don't care that getting all of that stuff usually has a very negative effect on nature and the environment.

Agent Smith

In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 Billion. When I was a kid the population jumped up to 5 Billion. Now it's 7.8 Billion.

We really need to decide at which point do our number become unsustainable.

To quote Agent Smith from the Matrix:

Agent Smith wrote:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and 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 and 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.

Eric Cartman

thankfully conservation efforts are taking place in europe and north america.

The world needs to really put pressure on Asia, Africa and South America to stop treating endangered animals so poorly and killing them for sport / superstition / medicines that don't work.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 Billion. When I was a kid the population jumped up to 5 Billion. Now it's 7.8 Billion.

We really need to decide at which point do our number become unsustainable.

Well it's already totally unsustainable. Even though European populations may be slowing or not growing, we still consume way more than people in poor countries. I think I read one Westerner consumes as much as 300 Bangladeshis or something.
I think in order to save ourselves we need to move away from the current political and economic status quo, but I'm not sure that's possible, and I think we'll go to war and face famine eventually rather than change our ways.

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thankfully conservation efforts are taking place in europe and north america.

The world needs to really put pressure on Asia, Africa and South America to stop treating endangered animals so poorly and killing them for sport / superstition / medicines that don't work.

It's the destruction of habitats that's the real concern, not sport killings etc. Insect populations are in real danger and it's not hunters doing this. I don't think we can lecture anyone on how we treat animals anyway, look at that pig blaze in the North the other day, 1000s kept in tiny pens on top of each other burning to death. Barely makes the news as people just don't want to know and want meat that costs next to nothing without thinking about where it came from.
Our own curlew has something like 30 breeding pairs left, due to destruction of bog habitats etc. We are not in a position to lecture anyone else about how they treat nature given we don't really have any ourselves having destroyed it all.
Also European conservation efforts may be underway, but Europe is still a society hell bent on consuming products produced all over the world. We're the ones fueling the cheap factories in China and soy farms in South America.

Harry lyme

Population controls should have been introduced a long time ago.
Overpopulation is the problem.

My grandparents are responsible for over 53 people in the 2 generations that came after them. An appropriate number would be 12 i.e. they each have 2 children and each child has 2 children.

Thelonious Monk

Harry lyme wrote: »

Population controls should have been introduced a long time ago.
Overpopulation is the problem.

My grandparents are responsible for over 53 people in the 2 generations that came after them. An appropriate number would be 12 i.e. they each have 2 children and each child has 2 children.

sure it's a problem but it can't be used as an excuse for our excessive consumption. If we halved the world population and kept consuming as we are, the world is doomed anyway.

Dyr

Yeah lets join a European sucide pact and hope that the Indians, Chinese and Africans will be responsible custodians of the Earth, thanks but no thanks.

Europe wiped out most of its wildlife and we're doing fine.

Thelonious Monk

Bambi wrote: »

Yeah lets join a European sucide pact and hope that the Indians, Chinese and Africans will be responsible custodians of the Earth, thanks but no thanks.

Europe wiped out most of its wildlife and we're doing fine.

Sigh

cdeb

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 Billion. When I was a kid the population jumped up to 5 Billion. Now it's 7.8 Billion.

We really need to decide at which point do our number become unsustainable.

The problem is our economy (especially pensions) is based on ever-increasing population and consumption.

Eric Cartman

Harry lyme wrote: »

Population controls should have been introduced a long time ago.
Overpopulation is the problem.

My grandparents are responsible for over 53 people in the 2 generations that came after them. An appropriate number would be 12 i.e. they each have 2 children and each child has 2 children.

Agree but the places its needed, it won't happen. You'd convince europeans with already low birth rates to have less kids which will help nobody.

Its Asia and Africa need to control themselves and theres little chance of that.

sabat

Hawthorn Tree wrote: »

We are parasites

When the sun turns supernova everything gets incinerated anyway and humans and our intelligence are the only possible way for Earth's life to survive elsewhere somehow, unless the giraffes and dolphins have been keeping a space programme secret from us.

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Agree but the places its needed, it won't happen. You'd convince europeans with already low birth rates to have less kids which will help nobody.

Its Asia and Africa need to control themselves and theres little chance of that.

We've low birth rates but we're consuming more and more than ever. That's what the problem is, you can't scapegoat poor countries for this.

cdeb

Actually birth rates are falling steadily outside Europe.

The problem is there's a time lag for it to have an effect on population.

Quicker population growth can happen even with falling birth rates

screamer

We will soon have no wildlife, that’s for sure. But, as a species we don’t care, the ultimate price will be ours to pay as we are destroying everything. A lot of the consumption in western countries is to keep up the economy whilst working slavishly to pay off life debts and purchases, we’re mugs really. Nothing will change, animals will go extinct and that’s the course of the world. I have no doubt that we will have to turn to genetic modification in order to grow enough food to feed ourselves and that will not be too far away.

Muahahaha

Is population the problem? I remember reading before that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone yet over a billion people go hungry everyday, mainly because vast food resources are allocated to feed livestock for meat production.

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

Actually birth rates are falling steadily outside Europe.

The problem is there's a time lag for it to have an effect on population.

Quicker population growth can happen even with falling birth rates

Not quite

"Africa is the only world region projected to have strong population growth for the rest of this century. Between 2020 and 2100, Africa’s population is expected to increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion."

"The population of Asia is expected to increase from 4.6 billion in 2020 to 5.3 billion in 2055, then start to decline."

The whole article is well worth a read.

Thelonious Monk

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is population the problem? I remember reading before that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone yet over a billion people go hungry everyday, mainly because vast food resources are allocated to feed livestock for meat production.

It takes a lot more land to produce meat than it does other food we could grow yes, that isn't helping. Especially as the appetite for meat seems to be growing all over the world.

Danzy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It takes a lot more land to produce meat than it does other food we could grow yes, that isn't helping. Especially as the appetite for meat seems to be growing all over the world.

Yet in so much of the world, especially in Ireland we don't have the land or climate to move away from meat.

Danzy

Climate concern, environmentalism are mostly a European and North American concern.

Outside of those major areas it is way down the list politically and near non existent socially and culturally.

Thelonious Monk

Danzy wrote: »

Yet in so much of the world, especially in Ireland we don't have the land or climate to move away from meat.

Well nearly all of it is produced for export. I think we need to stop looking at every piece of land as something that money can be made out of.
I think Fingal in North Dublin produces over 50% of all fruit/veg in Ireland, which is incredible given how small it is, so we're capable of producing a lot more food that isn't meat.

cdeb

Deleted User wrote: »

Not quite

"Africa is the only world region projected to have strong population growth for the rest of this century. Between 2020 and 2100, Africa’s population is expected to increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion."

"The population of Asia is expected to increase from 4.6 billion in 2020 to 5.3 billion in 2055, then start to decline."

The whole article is well worth a read.

That's what I'm saying though. Even with declining birth rates, it takes time for that to feed into a declining population.

Other factors affect population like lower infant mortality and generally living longer.

Gregor Samsa

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Agree but the places its needed, it won't happen. You'd convince europeans with already low birth rates to have less kids which will help nobody.

Its Asia and Africa need to control themselves and theres little chance of that.

It's all somewhat speculative, but trends strongly indicate that some of the major Asian populations are set to peak and then decline within the next 30 years. Japan is already in decline, and South Korea seem to be almost their peak. China's is expected to peak in 2029, and India's in 2048.

Some projections put the world population peaking sooner and lower than previously thought too.

Thelonious Monk

Hate Thy Neighbour wrote: »

When Africas and Asians stop having 20 children a piece I'll start to care

It's disappponting that people like to believe this is the problem so that they dont have to change anything about their consumption choices or how the environment is treated in their own back yard

cdeb

Yep. People wanting their avocados on toast (and thereby converting more tropical land to single-use agriculture while having fruit flown in from half-way around the world) are every bit as much part of the problem.

Thelonious Monk

cdeb wrote: »

Yep. People wanting their avocados on toast (and thereby converting more tropical land to single-use agriculture while having fruit flown in from half-way around the world) are every bit as much part of the problem.

We in ireland export food all over the world too at the expense of having no wilderness. Id like to see us become more self sufficient in what food we produce instead of importing so much.

screamer

Hate Thy Neighbour wrote: »

When Africas and Asians stop having 20 children a piece I'll start to care

But there is a point, look at how many of them migrate to countries with higher consumption. As Covid has taught us, the world is mobile. That’s not to say we need to limit consumption ourselves, we do, but population control is also needed, just like in the animal world, culls are organised when there are too many in one area. Now in humans of course that’s not feasible but better education and adoption of contraceptives is required, and the Religions need to get their noses out of it too, or at least change the narrative.

Tabnabs

Hate Thy Neighbour wrote: »

When Africas and Asians stop having 20 children a piece I'll start to care

Username checks out.

BloodBath

Deleted User wrote: »

In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 Billion. When I was a kid the population jumped up to 5 Billion. Now it's 7.8 Billion.

We really need to decide at which point do our number become unsustainable.

To quote Agent Smith from the Matrix:

It's unsustainable now.

Efforts should already be made to reduce the current population like China's 1 child policy but capitalism thrives on bigger populations for more profits.

MadYaker

We’ll destroy this planet eventually and then the human race will die out. I hope it happens after my lifetime.

nthclare

Call it what you like, but science is to blame for the destruction of the planet, scientific research and brown envelopes.

I remember studying horticulture in the 90's and the cnuts were saying that you could drink a spoon of round up and sure have two spoons of soil after and you'll be grand.

It's not the layman who's destroying the planet it's science...

cdeb

MadYaker wrote: »

We’ll destroy this planet eventually and then the human race will die out. I hope it happens after my lifetime.

The human race will kind of by definition not die out during your lifetime. So no worries there.

biko

If sharks would have evolved legs and become top predator on this planet they would have eaten all those animals anyway.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

We’ll destroy this planet eventually and then the human race will die out. I hope it happens after my lifetime.

Or any range of natural disasters, like a meteor, or axis shift, could happen to wipe everyone/everything out. Don't worry... it's likely something else will destroy the planet before humans manage it. It's far more likely anyway, that humans will kill the species off, rather than destroying the planet itself, so, it'll manage to recover from our presence... spawning a whole range of new creatures to replace what was lost.

BurnUp78

sabat wrote: »

When the sun turns supernova everything gets incinerated anyway and humans and our intelligence are the only possible way for Earth's life to survive elsewhere somehow, unless the giraffes and dolphins have been keeping a space programme secret from us.

Our sun won't go supernova. It will expand to a red giant and then die slowly as a white dwarf

Hawthorn Tree

biko wrote: »

If sharks would have evolved legs and become top predator on this planet they would have eaten all those animals anyway.

Thelonious Monk

Ok so in conclusion, no one cares because everything's going to end anyway. Not much point in trying really then is there.

Danzy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We in ireland export food all over the world too at the expense of having no wilderness. Id like to see us become more self sufficient in what food we produce instead of importing so much.

I'd like to see that and we readily could.

How that will go down in the plush homes will mean it won't happen.

Quite a large selection of our plants, insects and wildlife depend on agriculture surviving.

They came up together as such.

If you want to lock carbon away then traditional cattle grazing, which is done on most farms here kicks away more carbon per year than a 100 yr old native wood.

Thelonious Monk

Danzy wrote: »

If you want to lock carbon away then traditional cattle grazing, which is done on most farms here kicks away more carbon per year than a 100 yr old native wood.

So we'd be better off cutting down any remaining natural forest we have and putting cows there?

Danzy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So we'd be better off cutting down any remaining natural forest we have and putting cows there?

How do you get to that?

How did you even reach that?

Thelonious Monk

Danzy wrote: »

How do you get to that?

How did you even reach that?

I mean if we're trying to release as little carbon into the atmosphere as possible, which is hopefully the direction we're heading in

If you want to lock carbon away then traditional cattle grazing, which is done on most farms here kicks away more carbon per year than a 100 yr old native wood.

I don't know enough about this subject but what you're saying is that cattle grazing is better for the atmosphere than just having natural woods there?

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/news/environment/wildlife-population-is-now-one-third-of-size-it-was-in-1970-39521859.html

This is upsetting. As the article states, we destroyed all our wilderness in Ireland a long time ago and there's hardly any left in Europe due to 1000s of years of civilisation, but the destruction is being accelerated now by developments in newer countries in the world.
It's funny how flippant people are on the subject. I find many people just go "oh well the world was fine before us will be fine after us" which is a defeatist attitude and a kind of excuse for being unwilling to change anything about their lifestyle.
It's down to overconsumption and too many people basically.
It's hard really because the only thing that seems to matter to Governments is the economy which is based on us buying and buying and buying crap that we don't really need. Surely there's another way?
Do we have any hope of restoring wildlife? Do you even care?
With the rate we're polluting and destroying everything, there wont be much left for our grandkids.

Why would you have grand kids? They are the real source of the problem

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would you have grand kids? They are the real source of the problem

well I wont, it's just a figure of speech

cursai

Thanks God the world is flat. We just have to wipe it clean.

Danzy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I mean if we're trying to release as little carbon into the atmosphere as possible, which is hopefully the direction we're heading in



I don't know enough about this subject but what you're saying is that cattle grazing is better for the atmosphere than just having natural woods there?

Ok. To first one, we should try lock more than we produce, that's very doable for Ireland from traditional agriculture.

That can include increasing woodland, it's not all one or the other.

Cattle grazing traditional pasture is about twice as effective at locking carbon as a 100yr old native wood.

DangerScouse

For the last 30 years I've been reading and listening to "experts" tell us the earth has reached a tipping point but here we are still.

Thelonious Monk

Danzy wrote: »

Ok. To first one, we should try lock more than we produce, that's very doable for Ireland from traditional agriculture.

That can include increasing woodland, it's not all one or the other.

Cattle grazing traditional pasture is about twice as effective at locking carbon as a 100yr old native wood.

So why do they say agriculture is such a big polluter and carbon heavy industry in Ireland?

Gruffalux

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It's disappponting that people like to believe this is the problem so that they dont have to change anything about their consumption choices or how the environment is treated in their own back yard

Everyone thinks everyone else is the arsehole and yet if there is moss on the driveway or weeds in the gravel or fungus on the walls or scabs on the fruit or a smell in the drain or stains in the toilet or grease on the tiles or odours on the furnishings, most people reach straight away for the bottles of magic chemicals that make everything neat and ordered again.
Those magic chemicals get straight into the biosphere and wipe out diverse flora and insects, and after that the bigger fauna, and yet almost everyone still casually reaches for them as soon as things nearby them look supposedly messy.

Danzy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So why do they say agriculture is such a big polluter and carbon heavy industry in Ireland?

Carbon sinks are excluded from calculations.
Transport is excluded so that reduces others impacts. It's an easy target.

Dairy is very carbon intensive, tillage is also.