Wildlife Populations have fallen by more than 50% since 1970

[MERIZoC]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/30/wildlife-populationsfallsbyhalffourdecades.html

The world populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles fell overall by 52 percent between 1970 and 2010, far faster than previously thought, according to a new study by one of the biggest environmental groups.

In a study released on Tuesday, the Swiss-based World Wildlife Fund blamed human threats to nature for the decline particularly in tropical regions like Latin America.

The group described the study it has carried out every two years since 1998 as a barometer of the state of the planet.

"There is no room for complacency," said WWF International Director General Marco Lambertini, calling for a greater focus on sustainable solutions to the impacts that people are inflicting on nature, particularly through the release of greenhouse gases.

The latest "Living Planet" study analyzed data from about 10,000 populations of 3,038 vertebrate species from a database maintained by the Zoological Society of London.

It is meant to provide a representative sampling of the overall wildlife population in the world, said WWF's Richard McLellan, editor-in-chief of the study.

It reflects populations since 1970, the first year the London-based society had comprehensive data. Each study is based on data from at least four years earlier.

In the new WWF study, hunting and fishing along with continued losses and deterioration of natural habitats are identified as the chief threats to wildlife populations around the world.

The same report two years ago put the decline at 28 percent between 1970 and 2008.

The worst decline was among populations of freshwater species, which fell by 76 percent over the four decades to 2010, while marine and terrestrial numbers both fell by 39 percent.

Other primary factors are global warming, invasive species, pollution and disease.

This is very worrying. I mean, I knew it was bad, but this is just astounding, and yet, we should have seen this coming. Yet again, we're seeing the disastrous effects of climate change, and our modern lifestyles. To solve this, we have to act quickly. Our carbon footprint must be reduced, and we need to stop our expansion into the few natural areas we have left. Countries like Brazil have to work harder to protect the rain forests from logging, and have to prevent the flow of invasive species. These measures will probably happen at some point, but I only hope that they can happen in time.

What do you think, NSG? How do we face the toughest issue we've ever seen?

[Napkiraly]

Turn everything and everyone into cyborgs that gain energy via the sun and/or nuclear reactors. Will reduce the need for farmland and fisheries.

[Sun Wukong]

Stop being so clumsy wildlife.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, take that, environment!

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Now Transhumanism has a use
I can become a robot but not a fox.
Thanks Humanity

[The Sotoan Union]

Turn everything and everyone into cyborgs that gain energy via the sun and/or nuclear reactors. Will reduce the need for farmland and fisheries.

That requires pretty advanced technology. Acquiring that technology requires industrialization, and industrialization of the third world is generally what's causing such rapid environmental collapse.

[Avenio]

It's probably higher than that. The study (understandably) only takes into account vertebrates. Invertebrates and plants have it far, far worse than vertebrates when it comes to extinction events like this; the majority of insects, plants and other invertebrates remain unknown to science, and we're losing them faster than we can catalogue them. And that's unlikely to change, especially considering there's almost none of the 'aww' factor to drive people to donate or otherwise agitate for greater protection.

[Napkiraly]

Turn everything and everyone into cyborgs that gain energy via the sun and/or nuclear reactors. Will reduce the need for farmland and fisheries.

That requires pretty advanced technology. Acquiring that technology requires industrialization, and industrialization of the third world is generally what's causing such rapid environmental collapse.

The third world can be momentarily left behind as we develop the required tech.

[The Sotoan Union]

That requires pretty advanced technology. Acquiring that technology requires industrialization, and industrialization of the third world is generally what's causing such rapid environmental collapse.

The third world can be momentarily left behind as we develop the required tech.

Then do we give it to them?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

That requires pretty advanced technology. Acquiring that technology requires industrialization, and industrialization of the third world is generally what's causing such rapid environmental collapse.

The third world can be momentarily left behind as we develop the required tech.

But then we'll have First World Problems when we're cyborgs.

[Napkiraly]

The third world can be momentarily left behind as we develop the required tech.

Then do we give it to them?

Sell it. With mass marketing.

[Laerod]

What do you think, NSG? How do we face the toughest issue we've ever seen?

Wildlife is an inaccurate term here. Vertebrates is more appropriate. Kinda fucked up that about three quarters of all freshwater vertebrates we know of are extinct though...

[Napkiraly]

The third world can be momentarily left behind as we develop the required tech.

But then we'll have First World Problems when we're cyborgs.

"But Lacey's mom bought her the 8 tetrabite gold plated breasts with two fusion reactors, why can't you!?!!"

Meanwhile in famine plagued Somalia.

[MERIZoC]

It's probably higher than that. The study (understandably) only takes into account vertebrates. Invertebrates and plants have it far, far worse than vertebrates when it comes to extinction events like this; the majority of insects, plants and other invertebrates remain unknown to science, and we're losing them faster than we can catalogue them. And that's unlikely to change, especially considering there's almost none of the 'aww' factor to drive people to donate or otherwise agitate for greater protection.

What do you think, NSG? How do we face the toughest issue we've ever seen?

Wildlife is an inaccurate term here. Vertebrates is more appropriate. Kinda fucked up that about three quarters of all freshwater vertebrates we know of are extinct though...

Oh, yeah, right. Silly Aljazeera. Messing me up. I'll change the title.

Oooooor not, since vertebrate is too long.

[Sun Wukong]

What do you think, NSG? How do we face the toughest issue we've ever seen?

Wildlife is an inaccurate term here. Vertebrates is more appropriate. Kinda fucked up that about three quarters of all freshwater vertebrates we know of are extinct though...

My Geology laughs at the idea that it's only three quarters.

[The Sotoan Union]

Then do we give it to them?

Sell it. With mass marketing.

They have no money, that's why they are industrializing.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

But then we'll have First World Problems when we're cyborgs.

"But Lacey's mom bought her the 8 tetrabite gold plated breasts with two fusion reactors, why can't you!?!!"

Meanwhile in famine plagued Somalia.

That is so going in my sig.

In Somalia:
"Those kids should be lucky for what they have. All we have is our flag, towns, guns, and the White Girls Mercia sent."

[Laerod]

It's probably higher than that. The study (understandably) only takes into account vertebrates. Invertebrates and plants have it far, far worse than vertebrates when it comes to extinction events like this; the majority of insects, plants and other invertebrates remain unknown to science, and we're losing them faster than we can catalogue them. And that's unlikely to change, especially considering there's almost none of the 'aww' factor to drive people to donate or otherwise agitate for greater protection.

Wildlife is an inaccurate term here. Vertebrates is more appropriate. Kinda fucked up that about three quarters of all freshwater vertebrates we know of are extinct though...

Oh, yeah, right. Silly Aljazeera. Messing me up. I'll change the title.

Oooooor not, since vertebrate is too long. :p

Change 1970 to 70s and it should fit =P

[Napkiraly]

Sell it. With mass marketing.

They have no money, that's why they are industrializing.

Well that'll suck for them wont it.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Damn thats unfortunate..

[Avenio]

What do you think, NSG? How do we face the toughest issue we've ever seen?

Wildlife is an inaccurate term here. Vertebrates is more appropriate. Kinda fucked up that about three quarters of all freshwater vertebrates we know of are extinct though...

And it's worse for freshwater invertebrates. 70% of them are in need of urgent, immediate protection and conservation if we don't want them to go extinct within our lifetimes. For example, I help work on a project to study a species of freshwater mussel native to the Rockies in North America. Their populations used to go from mid-central British Columbia all the way down to the Mexican border, but damming in the major rivers and human development mean that they're restricted to just a handful of habitats scattered across Oregon, Washington and BC. They would be in need of immediate rehabilitation, if they weren't already doomed thanks to the quagga and zebra mussels.

There's pretty much nothing stopping people from transmitting them from lake-to-lake via boat trailers, and everyone I've talked to in academia or conservation is saying that it's only a matter of time until some moron brings them into the watersheds the native species live in. And at that point, it's curtains for the mussels. It makes conducting research on them a bit depressing sometimes - you're collecting information about a species that you will probably outlive.

[Laerod]

Wildlife is an inaccurate term here. Vertebrates is more appropriate. Kinda fucked up that about three quarters of all freshwater vertebrates we know of are extinct though...

And it's worse for freshwater invertebrates. 70% of them are in need of urgent, immediate protection and conservation if we don't want them to go extinct within our lifetimes. For example, I help work on a project to study a species of freshwater mussel native to the Rockies in North America. Their populations used to go from mid-central British Columbia all the way down to the Mexican border, but damming in the major rivers and human development mean that they're restricted to just a handful of habitats scattered across Oregon, Washington and BC. They would be in need of immediate rehabilitation, if they weren't already doomed thanks to the quagga and zebra mussels.

There's pretty much nothing stopping people from transmitting them from lake-to-lake via boat trailers, and everyone I've talked to in academia or conservation is saying that it's only a matter of time until some moron brings them into the watersheds they live in. And at that point, it's curtains for the mussels. It makes conducting research on them a bit depressing sometimes - you're collecting information about a species that you will probably outlive.

It's a crying shame that mussels aren't as sexy as otters and are thus somewhat handicapped in the PR department. =/

[Napkiraly]

Wildlife is an inaccurate term here. Vertebrates is more appropriate. Kinda fucked up that about three quarters of all freshwater vertebrates we know of are extinct though...

And it's worse for freshwater invertebrates. 70% of them are in need of urgent, immediate protection and conservation if we don't want them to go extinct within our lifetimes. For example, I help work on a project to study a species of freshwater mussel native to the Rockies in North America. Their populations used to go from mid-central British Columbia all the way down to the Mexican border, but damming in the major rivers and human development mean that they're restricted to just a handful of habitats scattered across Oregon, Washington and BC. They would be in need of immediate rehabilitation, if they weren't already doomed thanks to the quagga and zebra mussels.

There's pretty much nothing stopping people from transmitting them from lake-to-lake via boat trailers, and everyone I've talked to in academia or conservation is saying that it's only a matter of time until some moron brings them into the watersheds the native species live in. And at that point, it's curtains for the mussels. It makes conducting research on them a bit depressing sometimes - you're collecting information about a species that you will probably outlive.

So it's kinda of like an apocalyptic log? Damn, that is pretty depressing....

Anyway for them to be kept alive as a species? Like in captivity and in special academic institutions.

[Avenio]

And it's worse for freshwater invertebrates. 70% of them are in need of urgent, immediate protection and conservation if we don't want them to go extinct within our lifetimes. For example, I help work on a project to study a species of freshwater mussel native to the Rockies in North America. Their populations used to go from mid-central British Columbia all the way down to the Mexican border, but damming in the major rivers and human development mean that they're restricted to just a handful of habitats scattered across Oregon, Washington and BC. They would be in need of immediate rehabilitation, if they weren't already doomed thanks to the quagga and zebra mussels.

There's pretty much nothing stopping people from transmitting them from lake-to-lake via boat trailers, and everyone I've talked to in academia or conservation is saying that it's only a matter of time until some moron brings them into the watersheds the native species live in. And at that point, it's curtains for the mussels. It makes conducting research on them a bit depressing sometimes - you're collecting information about a species that you will probably outlive.

So it's kinda of like an apocalyptic log? Damn, that is pretty depressing....

Anyway for them to be kept alive as a species? Like in captivity and in special academic institutions.

Probably. They'd likely require a bit of specialist care since their larval stage is an obligate parasite of fish and they can easily live for 30-40 years, but it's also unlikely anyone's going to have either the funding or the interest to keep them. Like Laerod said, mussels aren't sexy, and given the climate for funding right now it's very unlikely that anyone's going to want to spent tens of thousands of dollars keeping them going.

Not to mention that reintroduction is entirely contingent on the zebra and quagga mussels being removed from their former habitats, and the only way people have managed to do that thus far is to wall off one bay at a time and fill it with lye - killing all the mussels as well as everything else living in that section.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, that's a shame. I suggest we convert to nuclear power, consolidate our farmland by increasing the crop:livestock ratio, and aid the third world in doing the latter; this will allow subsistence farming to be replaced with mass farming, thus reducing the land needed for farming while not significantly curtailing the population. This raises the question of how to provide jobs and housing for all those people who would likely be in more urban areas without breaking the bank too badly. Any suggestions?