Animals are running out of places to live!

[southernhybrid]

I'm gifting a long article that explains how humans are taking up so much of the rest of the planet's animal inhabitants, that it's causing species to lose their habitats and in many cases become extinct or become threatened with extinction.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...Bjn4QaHssLHIaDAsvyibLkEr9E-OaA&smid=share-url

The groups of animals you just scrolled through aren’t the only species that have lost a third or more of their global habitat. They’re just some of the mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles researchers can currently track. Most live in tropical forests.

“If the forest disappears, they will disappear,” said Walter Jetz, a professor of biodiversity science at Yale University who leads Map of Life, a platform that combines satellite imaging with ecological data to determine how species ranges are changing around the world. Map of Life shared data with The New York Times.

Biodiversity, or all the variety of life on the planet — including plants, invertebrates and ocean species — is declining at rates unprecedented in human history, according to the leading intergovernmental scientific panel on the subject. The group’s projections suggest that a million species are threatened with extinction, many within decades.

Nations are meeting in Montreal to try to chart a different path. Delayed two years because of the pandemic, delegations are working to land a new, 10-year agreement to tackle biodiversity loss under a United Nations treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“With our bottomless appetite for unchecked and unequal economic growth, humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction,” said António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, in his opening remarks on Tuesday in Montreal.

The last global biodiversity agreement failed to meet a single target at the global level, according to the Convention on Biological Diversity itself, and wildlife populations continue to plummet.

 

[Elixir]

It is shameful, and will cause unforetold human hardship and pain in the not too distant future.

 

[lpetrich]

Something that would help a lot is  Vertical farming or indoor farming. The main problem it seems to have is the electricity bill, since indoor farms must have their own lights. But aside from that, they can easily keep out bad weather and agricultural pests.

Also helpful is vegetarian fake meat -  Meat alternative - because it enables us to live lower on the food chain. If we eat meat, we have to grow crops to support not only ourselves, but also the food animals.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think the biggest problem is humans inability or unwillingness to do anything aggressive enough to help this problem.

In Central America, illegal cattle ranching drives deforestation on protected state and Indigenous lands, said Jeremy Radachowsky, director for Mesoamerica and the Caribbean at the Wildlife Conservation Society. Wealthy individuals, often affiliated with drug cartels, grab land, sometimes through illegal payments. They raise beef, some of which ends up in the United States, he said.

Elsewhere in the region and beyond, desperation sometimes pushes people to find remote areas with little government presence where they can simply take land to make a living.

“They need land in order to feed their families,” said David López-Carr, a professor of geography at the University of California Santa Barbara who studies how people interact with tropical forests in Latin America.

Rainforest countries like Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo are known for widespread deforestation. But the species that have lost the largest portions of their habitats tend to be concentrated in places that are geographically isolated in some way, like the isthmus of Central America and Madagascar. Because animals there often have smaller ranges to begin with, habitat loss hits them especially hard.

For example, 98 percent of lemurs, primates that only exist in Madagascar, are threatened. Almost a third are on the brink of extinction. “I don’t want to lose my hope,” said Jonah Ratsimbazafy, a primatologist who leads a nonprofit group on the island that seeks to save lemurs while helping people. Madagascar is among the poorest countries in the world.

It's heartbreaking and frightening to think of what the future will bring. I know humans didn't plan on destroying these habitats, but due to our first world excessive consumerism and greed, we are destroying our own habitats along with those of the animals that share this planet with us.

I used to see a lot of bats when I first moved to my current location. I haven't seen any in years. While there are still a lot of bird species in my yard, many have disappeared. I haven't seen any goldfinches in years. We used to see them flock to our feeders in large numbers every spring. If my tiny piece of paradise is losing species, I can only imagine what's happening in the rest of the world. I had no idea that lemurs were on the verge of extinction, an animal that I've always loved and been fascinated by.

I agree with Loren's suggestions, but what will it take to get humans to stop eating beef? Chicken production is far less harmful to the environment, so that would be better than eating red meat. But, it doesn't seem as if the meat substitutes are very popular or affordable for most people. I have read that meat is being lab grown but will that be a realistic, affordable way to stop raising cattle? How do you convince those who raise cattle that they need to stop? It's primarily us first worlders who are using up so much of the earth's resources and land. It's extremely difficult to get people to change their habits, so I'm not optimistic about anything being accomplished by this group that is meeting to try and address this problem.

Am I being too pessimistic?

 

[Elixir]

Am I being too pessimistic?

No. That’s called realism.
While indoor or vertical farming could offer some relief, it would also create vulnerability that would be seen as opportunity by Putinesque despots. And despots don’t restrain themselves.

Meanwhile, people are not going to stop eating whatever they can get that they like most. And they will not modify their behavior en masse out of fear of predictable but unseen (willfully or otherwise) consequences.

Until the middle classes are starving and sickness decimates the servant class that makes the rich comfortable, nothing significant will be done.

At that point the rich will try to save themselves at the expense of everyone else, but they won’t be able to restore the planet in time to save “civilization”. Populations will crash, and in a few millennia the planet will find a new equilibrium.

 

[southernhybrid]

Am I being too pessimistic?

No. That’s called realism.
While indoor or vertical farming could offer some relief, it would also create vulnerability that would be seen as opportunity by Putinesque despots. And despots don’t restrain themselves.

Meanwhile, people are not going to stop eating whatever they can get that they like most. And they will not modify their behavior en masse out of fear of predictable but unseen (willfully or otherwise) consequences.

Until the middle classes are starving and sickness decimates the servant class that makes the rich comfortable, nothing significant will be done.

At that point the rich will try to save themselves at the expense of everyone else, but they won’t be able to restore the planet in time to save “civilization”. Populations will crash, and in a few millennia the planet will find a new equilibrium.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. We first worlders don't seem to realize or care much about what's already happening in parts of the world that suffer from extreme poverty, and the impact of climate change, which is also mentioned as another factor in the linked article.

 

[bilby]

If wealthy North Americans don't want poor South Americans to destroy the rainforest as a way to earn a living for their families, then wealthy North Americans need to pay poor South Americans to preserve the rainforest; And they need to pay them more for keeping the rainforests than they currently can earn by destroying them.

Put your money where your mouth is. Poor people won't stop wanting to support their families, just because wealthy people are unhappy about habitat loss.

 

[Politesse]

If wealthy North Americans don't want poor South Americans to destroy the rainforest as a way to earn a living for their families, then wealthy North Americans need to pay poor South Americans to preserve the rainforest; And they need to pay them more for keeping the rainforests than they currently can earn by destroying them.

Put your money where your mouth is. Poor people won't stop wanting to support their families, just because wealthy people are unhappy about habitat loss.

The worst actors in the Amazon basin aren't the people who actually live in the places that are being destroyed, and they definitely aren't poor people; these are at best getting pitiful wages out of the situation, not subsistence. One of the fastest drivers of deforestation at the moment is clearing land for cattle ranching or feed for cattle ranching, and very nearly all the money from that boom industry ends up in the bank accounts of a small class of very wealthy people, just like any other capitalist enterprise. The problem isn't a lack of money - astonishing amounts of wealth end up in the Amazon from national subsidy, private donation, and military investments - but that there is still far more economic incentive to destroy the forests than to keep them, and if you're a business owner for whom the forest itself has no obvious value except for its economic promise, buying you off is a very expensive proposition indeed. Even if the political willpower were there, how much money do nations even have to offer in trade for a hectare of forest?

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm gifting an article from WaPo on the same topic. I think it has some different information in it. This article was under the climate change section of the paper, as that impact as a lot to do with the dying off of species.

https://wapo.st/3W44Lck

As many as a million different species are threatened with extinction. Is there anything we can do to stop them from vanishing forever?
That’s the question at the center of an international summit kicking off this week in Montreal.

More broadly, conservationists see the meeting as their chance to hammer out an agreement akin to the Paris climate deal in 2015, when nations agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions — or at least try to.
Climate change is intractably linked to extinction. Rising temperatures threaten to upend the habitats of everything from Antarctic penguins to tropical songbirds. Only by setting aside large swaths of forests and other ecosystems can wildlife thrive.
But there are plenty of other issues to hash out, and much of the agreement’s text still needs to be negotiated by representatives of about 190 countries
What counts as conserved area, for instance? Can wildlife be protected in ways that won’t infringe on the rights of Indigenous people to use ancestral lands?
And how much should rich nations — ones that have already gained by harnessing natural resources — help out poor ones that are still developing?

The last time there was a meeting like this, nothing substantially was accomplished. I already said that I'm not optimistic but perhaps as the damage we humans are doing to our own habitats along with those of the species that share the planet with us, something will at least be attempted. Do most people even understand that the loss of species will have devastating impacts on humans?

 

[bilby]

If wealthy North Americans don't want poor South Americans to destroy the rainforest as a way to earn a living for their families, then wealthy North Americans need to pay poor South Americans to preserve the rainforest; And they need to pay them more for keeping the rainforests than they currently can earn by destroying them.

Put your money where your mouth is. Poor people won't stop wanting to support their families, just because wealthy people are unhappy about habitat loss.

The worst actors in the Amazon basin aren't the people who actually live in the places that are being destroyed, and they definitely aren't poor people; these are at best getting pitiful wages out of the situation, not subsistence. One of the fastest drivers of deforestation at the moment is clearing land for cattle ranching or feed for cattle ranching, and very nearly all the money from that boom industry ends up in the bank accounts of a small class of very wealthy people, just like any other capitalist enterprise. The problem isn't a lack of money - astonishing amounts of wealth end up in the Amazon from national subsidy, private donation, and military investments - but that there is still far more economic incentive to destroy the forests than to keep them, and if you're a business owner for whom the forest itself has no obvious value except for its economic promise, buying you off is a very expensive proposition indeed. Even if the political willpower were there, how much money do nations even have to offer in trade for a hectare of forest?

Probably quite a lot.

How much do you want it?

 

[Politesse]

If wealthy North Americans don't want poor South Americans to destroy the rainforest as a way to earn a living for their families, then wealthy North Americans need to pay poor South Americans to preserve the rainforest; And they need to pay them more for keeping the rainforests than they currently can earn by destroying them.

Put your money where your mouth is. Poor people won't stop wanting to support their families, just because wealthy people are unhappy about habitat loss.

The worst actors in the Amazon basin aren't the people who actually live in the places that are being destroyed, and they definitely aren't poor people; these are at best getting pitiful wages out of the situation, not subsistence. One of the fastest drivers of deforestation at the moment is clearing land for cattle ranching or feed for cattle ranching, and very nearly all the money from that boom industry ends up in the bank accounts of a small class of very wealthy people, just like any other capitalist enterprise. The problem isn't a lack of money - astonishing amounts of wealth end up in the Amazon from national subsidy, private donation, and military investments - but that there is still far more economic incentive to destroy the forests than to keep them, and if you're a business owner for whom the forest itself has no obvious value except for its economic promise, buying you off is a very expensive proposition indeed. Even if the political willpower were there, how much money do nations even have to offer in trade for a hectare of forest?

Probably quite a lot.

How much do you want it?

A lot, but I'm not a cattle rancher. I'm just not sure paying a bunch of people not to develop their land, some of whom aren't running legal operations in the first place, is as simple a solution as you're thinking, nor something people are truly willing to see their tax money go toward.

 

[bilby]

If wealthy North Americans don't want poor South Americans to destroy the rainforest as a way to earn a living for their families, then wealthy North Americans need to pay poor South Americans to preserve the rainforest; And they need to pay them more for keeping the rainforests than they currently can earn by destroying them.

Put your money where your mouth is. Poor people won't stop wanting to support their families, just because wealthy people are unhappy about habitat loss.

The worst actors in the Amazon basin aren't the people who actually live in the places that are being destroyed, and they definitely aren't poor people; these are at best getting pitiful wages out of the situation, not subsistence. One of the fastest drivers of deforestation at the moment is clearing land for cattle ranching or feed for cattle ranching, and very nearly all the money from that boom industry ends up in the bank accounts of a small class of very wealthy people, just like any other capitalist enterprise. The problem isn't a lack of money - astonishing amounts of wealth end up in the Amazon from national subsidy, private donation, and military investments - but that there is still far more economic incentive to destroy the forests than to keep them, and if you're a business owner for whom the forest itself has no obvious value except for its economic promise, buying you off is a very expensive proposition indeed. Even if the political willpower were there, how much money do nations even have to offer in trade for a hectare of forest?

Probably quite a lot.

How much do you want it?

A lot, but I'm not a cattle rancher. I'm just not sure paying a bunch of people not to develop their land, some of whom aren't running legal operations in the first place, is as simple a solution as you're thinking, nor something people are truly willing to see their tax money go toward.

Indeed. And that's why the land is going to continue to be clear-cut.

People want something to be done, but they don't want that enough to actually pay for it to be done, so it won't get done.

 

[Wiploc]

XKCD

 

[Wiploc]

I think the biggest problem is humans inability or unwillingness to do anything aggressive enough to help this problem.

I don't know how aggressive we'd need to be. Nudges might suffice.*

- Suppose we made college free to the children of women who didn't have children until they were [insert appropriate age here] years old.

- And or suppose we made college free to the children of women who tied their tubes after their second child.

- Suppose we capped income tax deductions for children after the second child.

- Suppose we take fewer immigrants from countries with growing populations than from those with shrinking populations.

- Suppose we reduce foreign aid to countries with growing populations.

- Suppose we campaign to increase awareness like we did with drunk driving and gay marriage. Picture a billboard showing a couple in a Hummer with no kids and a couple in a VW bug with one kid. The billboard compares the two couple's carbon footprints.

I'm just brainstorming here. I can imagine ways these could go wrong. I can also imagine ways of coping with or mitigating those ill effects. I cannot imagine the ill effects being worse than not trying anything.



* Well, it's probably too late for these to work now, but it's probably too late for anything to work now. Gentle nudges like these might have sufficed back when there was time.

 

[southernhybrid]

Most people don't seem to care about anyone outside of their little in-group these days.

 

[steve_bank]

I woud not say shameful.

We are ding what most living things do. Expand until a resource is exaused or a nayrl check and balance occur. The back and forth balance between a predator abd prey.

If you take evolution to be true then we humans are not fundamentally different than any other critters that have evolved.

Evolution led us to brin coyoed with speech and language, and physical dexterity to create science and technology that maximizes populations. Evolution did not give us the capacity for the counter balancing self restraint.

We keep expecting a large scale human rationalism to emerge and it is not. Look ate world as it is.