More scientists stating the obvious

[BrilloPad]

Earth has entered sixth mass extinction, warn scientists - Telegraph

Humans are responsible for so many species dying out that we are now in a sixth mass extinction, Stanford University has warned

Only solution is less humans. Maybe we could start with killing all the scientists who peddle these pseudo-religious obvious statements.

[NotAllThere]

Thinking long term, sooner or later a big rock is going to wreak far more havoc to Earth's ecosystem than a nuclear holocaust ever could. Eventually, the sun will sterilise the planet completely. Therefore it makes sense for an intelligent form of life to emerge that can take life out into the galaxy (and beyond). The only alternative to humans exploiting the Earth for our own ends is complete annihilation.

[BlasterBates]

In the 1990's the scientists predicted that within 30 years the forests in central Europe would be more or less wiped out.

Well it's now 2015 and they're still looking pretty healthy.

I think these scientists need some funding to research this. They will also need to attend conferences in Hawaii and the Caribean, and they'll have to be invited on TV talk shows where they will be able advertise their latest books.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The only entities that we're aware of, capable of expressing a preference when it comes to genetic and species diversity, are human beings. I.e. we're the only one's who give a tulip.

I was reading about Morressey the other day saying

"If humans disappeared tomorrow, the world would thrive and prosper,"

What the feck does that even mean? 'Prosper'? by what standard without man?

I like the nature, and I'd like to see it stick around. But the only thing that values nature is mankind - so erasing mankind to preserve nature (even hypothetically as Morrissey means it) is a contradiction.

[minestrone]

In the 1990's the scientists predicted that within 30 years the forests in central Europe would be more or less wiped out.

Well it's now 2015 and they're still looking pretty healthy.

I think these scientists need some funding to research this. They will also need to attend conferences in Hawaii and the Caribean, and they'll have to be invited on TV talk shows where they will be able advertise their latest books.

To be fair improvements in power station design reducing emissions in Europe have halted forest destruction. There was a serious problem, to say that the prediction was wrong and that issue just went away on its own is nonsense.

[SueEllen]

I was reading about Morressey the other day saying

What the feck does that even mean? 'Prosper'? by what standard without man?

I like the nature, and I'd like to see it stick around. But the only thing that values nature is mankind - so erasing mankind to preserve nature (even hypothetically as Morrissey means it) is a contradiction.

Some other species will take over and evolve. So erasing mankind won't help.

[expat]

Sometimes doom-saying is intended not to predict the future but to prevent it. When the worst then doesn't happen, it may be because making the prediction had the desired effect.

BTW while it is obvious that human activity is causing a lot of species to become extinct, an "extinction" refers to a relatively short period in geological terms, when many species become extinct; this is likely to have a great effect on life on Earth overall.

[BrilloPad]

Thinking long term, sooner or later a big rock is going to wreak far more havoc to Earth's ecosystem than a nuclear holocaust ever could. Eventually, the sun will sterilise the planet completely. Therefore it makes sense for an intelligent form of life to emerge that can take life out into the galaxy (and beyond). The only alternative to humans exploiting the Earth for our own ends is complete annihilation.

Agreed. Intelligent life needed. That rules humans out.

[pjclarke]

The 'obvious' is frequently wrong. Population growth is an issue, however in terms of environmental damage, consumption growth is a larger one,. Birth rates are dropping, the UN estimates the population will peak in 2200, at a level 50% higher than today. But steady economic growth of 3% a year, as we have now and seen almost universally as ' a good thing' , leads to a doubling of economic activity every 23 years, or 1,134% by 2100, getting to over 1,800% by 2115.

Of course this won't happen, but it puts into perspective the relative threat from rising people numbers and rising consumption.

[BrilloPad]

The 'obvious' is frequently wrong. Population growth is an issue, however in terms of environmental damage, consumption growth is a larger one,. Birth rates are dropping, the UN estimates the population will peak in 2200, at a level 50% higher than today. But steady economic growth of 3% a year, as we have now and seen almost universally as ' a good thing' , leads to a doubling of economic activity every 23 years, or 1,134% by 2100, getting to over 1,800% by 2115.

Of course this won't happen, but it puts into perspective the relative threat from rising people numbers and rising consumption.

Most consumption happens in the West. But those Easterners are catching up.