forum Politics and Society ›› Half of world's animals gone since 1970 ›› new reply Post Reply
Rats in the walls

crush, kill, destr
1,167 Posts
32/M/NY

offline   (1)
October 4 2014 7:17 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
.





Half of world's animals have disappeared since 1970

A shocking report has found that 52 per cent of the world's animals have vanished in 40 years

telegraph.co.uk Oct 2 2014



Half of the animals in the world have disappeared since 1970 because of uncontrollable human expansion, shocking new figures have shown.

A report by the World Wildlife Fund has found that populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish have declined on average by 52 per cent in the last 40 years.

And for freshwater creatures the situation is even bleaker, with population collapse of more than three quarters over the same period.

Almost the entire decline is due to human activity, through habitat loss, deforestation, climate change, over-fishing and hunting.

Anyone born in 1970 or before would have lived in a world teeming with animal life compared to life today.

The report looked at 10,380 populations of 3,038 species across the globe.

The situation is worst in low-income countries, where wildlife populations have declined by 58 per cent on average between 1970 and 2010. Latin America has the biggest declines, with 83 per cent of its animals lost in 40 years.

Wildlife that are suffering extinction-level population collapse include forest elephants in Africa, which are facing habitat loss and poaching for ivory and could become extinct within our lifetime, and marine turtles which have seen an 80 per cent drop in numbers.

The report also warned that human activity is far outstripping the resources the Earth can provide, cutting down forests too quickly, overfishing and putting out more carbon dioxide than the planet can absorb, leading to climate change. It is estimated Earth would need to be 2.5 times larger to soak up the damage caused by man.

According to the study, Kuwaitis had the biggest ecological footprint, meaning they consume and waste more resources per head than any other nation, followed by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

"If all people on the planet had the footprint of the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 planets. If we lived the lifestyle of a typical resident of the USA, we would need 3.9 planets," the report said.

Professor Ken Norris, director of science of the Zoological Society of London, which updates the species database, said: "The scale of biodiversity loss and damage to the very ecosystems that are essential to our existence is alarming.

"This damage is not inevitable, but a consequence of the way we choose to live. We need to explain to the public that what they do is directly behind the trends we are seeing. There is an enormous disconnect between going to the supermarket and putting fuel in your car and the global statistics we're talking about here.”

click here for link.







Kadesh
Kadesh
37,475 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
October 5 2014 10:09 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
....that's quite a large tree.
WREN
Pulp Free
52,133 Posts
34/M/PA


offline  mobile reply   (19)
February 16 2015 8:40 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
This is such a depressing statistic.
ctran
Time Husk
1 Posts
25/F/NA


offline 
February 16 2015 10:19 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
That poor elephant
TOOTHPAC SHAKUR
master quoter
30,897 Posts
31/M/OH


offline  mobile reply   (15)
February 16 2015 11:59 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Where did they go
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,519 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
February 16 2015 4:22 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
This should be far more frightening to everyone than stupid shit like fighting over religion or trying to keep gay marriage or pot illegal.
tom.
^__^
62,529 Posts
34/M/PA


offline     (5)
February 16 2015 4:46 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
nope.
can only care about one thing at a time.
today it's human trafficking.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,519 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
February 17 2015 10:21 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: tom.

nope.
can only care about one thing at a time.
today it's human trafficking.



And that does nothing at all to change the time, money, media presence, and manpower spent on things like fighting against gay marriage and gay rights, Sam Brownback going out of his way to remove protections for LGBT workers, etc.. etc.. etc..
WREN
Pulp Free
52,133 Posts
34/M/PA


offline   (19)
February 17 2015 12:52 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

This should be far more frightening to everyone than stupid shit like fighting over religion or trying to keep gay marriage or pot illegal.




It's a terrifying statistic and a reason why I support the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. I don't necessarily believe that humans should stop procreating altogether and end their existence, because all species deserve to thrive, but we should recognize that we are the problem and reduce future generations by not shitting out a bunch of kids.
tom.
^__^
62,529 Posts
34/M/PA


offline     (5)
February 17 2015 1:33 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
bring back eugenics.
WREN
Pulp Free
52,133 Posts
34/M/PA


offline   (19)
February 17 2015 1:42 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
That's clearly sarcasm, but I guess I should expect you to not really care about the mass extinction of animals because of that recently bumped "just not an animal person" thread.

However, my idea is that if this generation were to cut back an only have one or no kids, the next generation would be reduced greatly. Do that for two or three more generations and we're at a level that the earth can withstand our destructive nature. The earth is due to another mass extinction event and humans are pushing the throttle to the max. It won't happen but humans could slow the process.


Personally, I care what happens when I'm gone for the future of all living creatures. I'm not stoked to know that I'm part of an era that is responsible for wiping out half the world's animals.
tom.
^__^
62,529 Posts
34/M/PA


offline     (5)
February 17 2015 1:46 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
because i don't own a dog means i don't care about the extinction of animals?
WREN
Pulp Free
52,133 Posts
34/M/PA


offline   (19)
February 17 2015 1:51 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
You haven't given one serious answer in this thread and that, so I just assumed. You know the whole man above animals thing. Gave me an impression.
tom.
^__^
62,529 Posts
34/M/PA


offline     (5)
February 17 2015 2:01 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
men are above animals. that doesn't mean i go around kicking dogs in the face.
properly instruct men, and they will properly care for the animals.

i swear, some of you have the worst opinions of me.
Dianana
8====D
65,614 Posts
34/F/PA


offline   (8)
February 17 2015 2:06 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
we are animals. we aren't above anything else. there's just a lot of people that think we are because we have the ability to destroy the earth for our own personal gain.
tom.
^__^
62,529 Posts
34/M/PA


offline     (5)
February 17 2015 2:09 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
if i eat a person, i'm going to jail for a long time.
if i eat a burger, some wings, and kielbasa, i'm going to nap for a long time.
forum Politics and Society ›› Half of world's animals gone since 1970 ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: Half of world's animals gone since 1970

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol


google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band



Your ad here?