Humans are damaging the planet at an unprecedented rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or “dead zones” in the seas, an international report said on Wednesday.
The study, by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years.
“At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning,” said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
“Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted,” it said.
Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction, according to the assessment, the biggest review of the planet’s life support systems.
“Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel,” the report said.
“This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth,” it added. More land was changed to cropland since 1945, for instance, than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.
Read the full story Here.
WorldChanging points out that the report has a positive side too: three out of their four scenarios for the future suggest improvement, not decline. But it all depends on how we react.
Has the passing of the torch at SciScoop been accompanied by a lurch to the “eco-enlightened” left? If this polemic is representative of what will pass for “news” at SciScoop, I will drift elsewhere to get my daily science fix.
Why even browse for science news at all if you simply disregard a story for not liking its conclusions or the fact that it is controversial?
As pertaining to the reporting of a major study being published, which part of that is not “news”?
I may be speaking out of turn, but I think most readers here are more accustomed to getting links directly to original sources – as posted, for instance, by ? who posted the links to the Millenium Report.
Primary sources, then we derive our own conclusions, opinions, etc on what is read.
And, although it’s difficult to keep personal opnions out of story posting, certainly it’s been the practice (Yay, rickyjames and everything you’ve done!) to keep a tight leash on them. We all have beliefs, but we should probably avoid flaming rhetoric. It can turn off even those who might share a viewpoint.
What study? The post was two paragraphs of opinion. There were no links in the post to a study or to something else.
I assume it’s about the Millenium report, but who knows?.
“This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth,” it added.
I take issue with the ‘irreversible loss’ of biodiversity – if the same environmental conditions are recreated then over time new species will evolve into the recreated environment. Even though they won’t be exactly the same as the species that were in the original environment, it shouldn’t really matter – biodiversity will increase.
What humans have done is little different than any of the other mass exitinctions that have befallen this planet. Given time the planet will recover. And if we really wanted to speed up the recovery, I’m certain we could find ways to do it.
Which natural resources in particular are you talking about?
Oil? Oil can be manufactured from plants, it’s just that for now it’s cheaper to suck it out of the ground.
Minerals? While future generations may have to mine land fills for matter to recycle, minerals are rarely destroyed. And then there are asteroids and several other planets to mine.
This planet is not fragile – the planet is not going to break apart anytime soon. As for the life clinging to surface, it has shown remarkable resiliency and has kept bouncing back. And as for humanity, we are nearing the point where no longer need this planet to survive.
I can’t stand people who use our planets resiliency as an excuse to buy another gas guzzling SUV.
just because we may not be heading for environmental demise (even though more and more research suggests that indeed, humans may have an adverse longtime effect on the earth) is not an excuse to poop in your own pancakes.
come on I mean really, can’t we just conserve for the sake of keeping a clean, viable earth? maybe the earth will rebound, but that doesn’t mean we should just dispose of all the plastic we see and drill all the oil we possibly can.
The state of the planet is not caused by too many people. It is the greed and power, that keeps healthy developments at bay, If you invent a car that runs 100 mpg, you either end up rich or dead, but that car is never going to make it to the market. A serious change of human behaviour could fix all problems. How?? I wish I knew!
There are too many people in this world. That is the simple, obvious truth.
Simple and obvious.
“The United Nations projects that world population will stabilize in 2075 at nine billion due to the demographic transition. Birth rates are now falling in most developing nations and the population would decrease in many developed nations if there was no immigration.”