Jump to content

An SOS for nature


SoulMonster

Recommended Posts

In the latest biannual report from the WWF, The Living Planet Index, it is shown that since 1970 population sizes of more than 5,000 studied mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds have had an average drop of astounding 68 %. In other words, if you looked at a population of a given animal back in 1970, chances are it would be less than half the size now in 2020, 50 years later. There are less birds in the sky, fewer otters in the rivers, salamanders are becoming a rarer sight, and lizards are disappearing. https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf

Obviously, the 68 % drop in population sizes is an average, so some animals haven't seen such a huge drop... while others have had a larger drop and become decimated and are now extinct. Currently, about one million species are believed to be on the brink of extinction.

It doesn't get much worse than this. We are destroying our home. We are destroying the foundation for our own existence.

Personally, I find this to be an even greater threat to humanity than climate change - although the two things are of course intertwined (global warming is one of the reasons animals are going extinct, others being deforestation, pollution, illegal trade of animals, agriculture, and overfishing).

Just terrible and utterly scary.

Edited by SoulMonster
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Do you have a link to the article?

And what areas/species are affected the most?

Oh, my apologies, I forgot to add it: https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf

I don't know what animals are affected the most, but the greatest decrease in population sizes are seen among animals in the tropical subregions of the Americas.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id add Colony Collapse Disorder among our pollinators to the list as well. And I encourage everyone to look up how their local bee population has faired since colony collapse first really revved up around 2013. Pesticides are believed to be the cause of the phenomena. We need pollinators to produce food. Avoiding the use of pesticides containing Neonicotinoids will help support the pollinators we need. Also growing plant species that are native to your region, using organic methods is a vitally important step we can all take to help rehabilitate the pollinators populations (butterflies too!).

*******

On a lighter note, people might recall a news story from 2018 about a killer whale mom carrying her dead calf for 17 days after it died, as a way of mourning it? Mom, known as J35, has a new baby born on or near September 4th!

Researchers believe that this brings the Southern Resident Killer Whale population off the West Coast of Canada/Coast Salish Territory to 73.

Edited by soon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Oh, my apologies, I forgot to add it: https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf

I don't know what animals are affected the most, but the greatest decrease in population sizes are seen among animals in the tropical subregions of the Americas.

“The lungs of the planet” aka the Amazon.

Massive deforestation would logically lead to a reduction of animals/species that live in those rainforests. :( 

And I’d imagine the same thing is happening in other parts of the world where deforestation occurs.  Then add overfishing in other parts of the world...and we are beginning to see the effects. 
 

I thought of something the other day.   When I was growing up, 30+ years ago there was a massive worldwide effort to “save the Amazon”. People made huge efforts to reduce their consumption of paper, etc.  Everyone was saying “use plastic bags when you go to the grocery store!” Etc 

 

30 years later we are discovering that plastic bags are linked to the reduction of some sea life since they are being disposed of in the ocean, in some cases.  So now it’s back to using paper but it should obviously be “use re-useable bags” when you go to the store.  
 

And why isn’t “dumping waste” in the oceans banned yet on an international level?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I was just thinking the other day that I rarely see butterflies whereas they abounded in my youth. Then again, you don't see white dog shit anymore either.

The only time I see butterflies is at my organic garden, usually on my coneflowers and borage.

I know you’re a fellow green thumb, maybe you’d like to grow some natives and attract some butterflies? Here I can google it and find a portal on my cities website that lists all the native plants. 

In the northern hemisphere, I believe right now is a perfect time to collect some seeds from nature too! @cineater knows more about that. (You could likely buy them too).

Im planning to deck out my patio with some shade loving natives next spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, soon said:

The only time I see butterflies is at my organic garden, usually on my coneflowers and borage.

I know you’re a fellow green thumb, maybe you’d like to grow some natives and attract some butterflies? Here I can google it and find a portal on my cities website that lists all the native plants. 

In the northern hemisphere, I believe right now is a perfect time to collect some seeds from nature too! @cineater knows more about that. (You could likely buy them too).

Im planning to deck out my patio with some shade loving natives next spring.

I actually had one flying around my tubs, which is why I was thinking that, that ''you hardly see them nowadays compared with yesteryear''.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

I thought of something the other day.   When I was growing up, 30+ years ago there was a massive worldwide effort to “save the Amazon”. People made huge efforts to reduce their consumption of paper, etc.  Everyone was saying “use plastic bags when you go to the grocery store!” Etc 

 

 

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

30 years later we are discovering that plastic bags are linked to the reduction of some sea life since they are being disposed of in the ocean, in some cases.  So now it’s back to using paper but it should obviously be “use re-useable bags” when you go to the store.  

 

Yep, what a mess. And those nylon type reusable bags have a sizeable carbon foot print to produce them. I heard an interview a while back on the radio with researchers who created a formula to compare the ecological impact of the different bags. And basically, according their calculations you need to use a nylon reusable grocery bags like a bunch of times - like a years worth + iirc - to have it fully balance out on every metric of environmental stewardship!

(sorry, but I dont recall more details or know their methodology)

And they also talked about how present those bags are in landfill as well. They too are commonly used as garbage bags. And then for some people, they go to a seminar and get gifted one, they go to a sporting event and 'win' a branded one, etc. And they eventually just get tossed. (Someone stole my favourite "tote bag" from my back porch recently!!!)

There are meshed or knitted 'produce bags' you can buy now, online. They keep your produce fresh and they even have the tare weight written on them so you can shop using them and the cashier can just enter the bag weight on their scale and go. Natural materials like hemp are a great choice of material of the produce/grocery bags. And then you can just take extra produce bags to carry all your other grocery items in. :headbang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Then again, you don't see white dog shit anymore either.

I had to look it up,lol.

Apparently, it's because there used to be a high amount of calcium in dog food (too much crushed bone in their diets).

https://alldogspoop.com/that-white-dog-poop-from-the-70s/#:~:text=White poop in this day,lighter in color and decompose.

 

I'm sure it also has to do with the likely hood that most people nowadays "curb" their dog's poop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

They are. And so are most other animals. This is a mass extinction event, only the sixth in the history of life. And it is caused by us.

Yeah I know.  We see ourselves as somehow outside of nature.  That we don't have any part in it.  We live in a bubble occasionally looking out to admire its beauty or destructive force.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gracii Guns said:

I'm car free by choice. Would love it if people aged over 50 didn't treat it as some kind of affliction. 
I've lost out on many job opportunities, not because of my incompetence to perform at the job, but because I use public transport. 

I felt that way when the younger generations gave me shit about not having a cell phone or facebook page.  Deemed incompetent because I didn't have what they had by personal choice.  On the plus side, I didn't have the headaches they had or the expense. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

I had to look it up,lol.

Apparently, it's because there used to be a high amount of calcium in dog food (too much crushed bone in their diets).

https://alldogspoop.com/that-white-dog-poop-from-the-70s/#:~:text=White poop in this day,lighter in color and decompose.

 

I'm sure it also has to do with the likely hood that most people nowadays "curb" their dog's poop. 

Yip. 1980s. White dog shit and poll tax riots. How I have nostalgia for thee.

PS

Pertaining to the topic, this chap is no longer with us,

 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the forests of the world are well on their way of being all burned / logged, releasing massive amounts of CO2 on top of an ever growing economy.

So we'll have more heat waves, rising sea levels, exotic new diseases for us, famine, drought and all that stuff.

Humans will not survive this, because were are selfish and stupid and we hugely overestimate the power of science to solve problems. Science doesnt solve problems, it creates problems. Without science, no overpopulation, no industry, no climate change.

So when going back to the stone age was not an option for us, nature decided, through very basic laws of nature, to make mankind go extinct.

Total extinction of all life is not possible. Not even an asteroid the size of new york is able to kill all life. It will be interesting to see what life will remain, and what new life forms will come forward. The future will not be for mankind to witness, that would be reserved for a new kind of life form that has a larger brain than us, to allow room for more empathy and generally more intellect. Humans, large as their brain is, really are not good enough. Their brains are big enough to allow for world-level climate change, but are too small to do something about climate change.

The human race, in a sense, deserves to die out. There is too much war, too much pollution, too little empathy. Our presence on here in ever growing numbers isn't sustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

It will never be as good as the original. 

You are referring to the need to add DNA from other marsupials to complete the genome? I don't think this will be necessary to the same extent as for the wholly mammoth cloning project where they add DNA from Asian elephants to "complete the picture" result at best in something "mammoth-like". What are they going to do, add DNA from a bandicoot or dunnart? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You are referring to the need to add DNA from other marsupials to complete the genome? I don't think this will be necessary to the same extent as for the wholly mammoth cloning project where they add DNA from Asian elephants to "complete the picture" result at best in something "mammoth-like". What are they going to do, add DNA from a bandicoot or dunnart? :lol:

I watched a documentary on that and must admit I found it absurd. Even the scientific team involved were basically admitting that the best that could be achieved would be a ''hairy Elephant''. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, action said:

Their brains are big enough to allow for world-level climate change, but are too small to do something about climate change.

What? Haven't you on at least two occasions argued fiercely that humans, or any single species, can't possible affect something as grand as the climate on a planet? :lol:

Anyway, I agree to a large extent with what you wrote in your post. This sixth mass-extinction even will not be the end of life on Earth, nor will climate change. Generally speaking, the "simpler" forms of life will always survive, like bacteria and other single-celled organisms. But I am not as convinced as you that humans will go extinct. Highly-adaptable, omnivorous species will likely find a way. There will not be enough food to sustain 7 billion of us, but we will likely cope eating whatever plants survive and algae and bacteria.

And yes, "our presence on here in ever growing numbers isn't sustainable." I couldn't agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...