James Joyner tells us that “Scientists have issued a report that life on this planet will cease to exist unless we change our evil ways.”
Report on Global Ecosystems Calls for Radical Changes (WaPo)
Many of the world’s ecosystems are in danger and might not support future generations unless radical measures are implemented to protect and revive them, according to the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted of how the world’s oceans, dry lands, forests and species interact and depend on one another. The new report collates research from many specific locales to create the first global snapshot of ecosystems. More than 1,300 authors from 95 countries participated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, whose results are being made public today by the United Nations and by several private and public organizations. “Only by understanding the environment and how it works, can we make the necessary decisions to protect it,” said U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in a statement marking the report’s release. “Only by valuing all our precious natural and human resources, can we hope to build a sustainable future.”
The effort brought together governments, civil society groups, industry and indigenous people over a four-year period to examine the social, economic and environmental aspects of ecosystems. The report was assembled by the U.N. Environment Program and included scientists from many universities and organizations, including the World Bank. Jonathan Lash, president of the nonprofit World Resources Institute, which helped put together the report, said it “created for the first time a set of leading ecosystem indicators.”
Although food production is up, the report said, many other benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems are threatened, and some environmental changes can produce sudden, unexpected deteriorations in water quality, climate and health. “Human actions are depleting Earth’s natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted,” the authors said. The report cites widespread and growing problems such as the collapse of fisheries in some parts of the world because of over-exploitation, the creation of “dead zones” around the mouths of some rivers because of nitrogen runoff from farms, and environmental degradation in some dry-land ecosystems.
Within countries, said Harold Mooney, a professor of environmental biology at Stanford University, separate government agencies were often assigned to protect forests, regulate water pollution and oversee economic development — even though changes in any one of those systems affected the others. “When you enhance one service, like food production, you can detract from another,” said Mooney, who co-chaired the panel that examined scientific data.
I believe every word… Don’t you?
Update
The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries – some of them world leaders in their fields – today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure. …
Like I always say, 1,360 scientists can’t be wrong.
Paul:
Technicality:
Regarding your update. The title says resources “used up” while the text says “being degraded”. There’s quite a difference there. Was the title yours?
The amusing thing is that Paul considers himself to be a scientist.
Really? Is that true? What’s your field Paul?
“The amusing thing is that Paul considers himself to be a scientist.”
Caught me off guard too. First time anyone has accused Paul of being a scientist. When did you make this assertion, Paul? I thought I was paying attention. Your graph certainly did not enhance your reputation as a scientist. The many comments on the graph have irrefutably proven that your graph is not a proper application of the scientific method. Sorry, but it’s true. Please don’t be offended.
Equally inexplicable are the repeated claims that he’s a (closet) Thumper. I know Thumpers (being one myself), and Paul is not a Thumper. If memory serves, at the beginning of this fracas he noted that he is a Catholic. In my entire life, I never met a Catholic who knew dick about how to properly thump a Bible. Not a criticism, just an observation. Bible-thumping is an art form which is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
Paul seems to be the blank slate upon which everyone else feels free to write their pre-conceived notions. And he keeps dodging. What the heck are you up to, Paul? You must be some kind of masochist. How can you endure the mockery, the condesencion, the pain? What’s wrong with you, Paul?
Paul, Paul, WHAT DO YOU BELEEEEEEEEEEEEEIVE?
Sorry, “condesencion’ should be “condescension”. Guess I need to start proofreading.
A meeting in London in the late Sixties made the same pronouncements but also included the grim conclusion that even if human activities drastically subsisted, particularly as to consumption of natural resources, it was (by the Sixties) “already too late” to effect any species saving changes.
Umm, not saying I agree with that omnireportage, or appearance of such, just saying…
I think that there’s much to learn about the Earth’s orbit and position in space over time and in relationship to our Sun that can explain a lot of extinction, near extinction and future extinction level events. Just saying, there’s more to heaven and earth than meets our eye. That includes “scientists.”
These alarmists never figure out that all these problems are self-limiting. Human population outgrows its food supply? Impossible. Mass-starvation will cull the numbers to a manageable level. If we make the air unbreathable? No problem. Plants don’t even need oxygen. We’d have a planet covered with 200 foot trees. A couple of centuries of rain and they’ll be plenty of clean air. We manage a nuclear holocaust? Won’t effect insects. It’ll be a world full of 3 foot tall cockroaches. They’d be happy. So what’s the fuss?
And, yes, Michael, Thumping is counter to Catholic doctrine but it’s not like there’s a doctrine that actually discourages or disallows Thumping. I think the Thumping characterisation is, um, a unique one.
On the other hand, Catholicism itself appears to, simply by mentioning the word, make a certain impact upon *some people* and what I think it is is that the very suggestion that Thumping might occur afterward sends some into a state.
You can even SAY, much less suggest, that water is blessed and it’ll still burn some people. Same principle, I believe, as is Thumping.
What JohnS. wrote because I always marvel that some people suggest harms to our human species because “we’ll run out of foood.”
If we start running out of food, habitat and survivable conditions, we begin to reduce our population (d’oh). Meaning, by the time food becomes available for one hundred people, there’lll be one hundred people surviving. It’s so obvious as to be laughable…that these ‘scientists’ issue these reports that DEPEND UPON THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS BE MAINTAINED THAT THEY DECRY inorder to prove/explain their reports.
No species exists in a continuum. Population numbers increase and decrease depending upon conditiions and do so all the time. This report and others like it actually require that the same conditions present today, that they decry as being unacceptable, won’t continue unless we change! I mean, please, try making sense of that.
If you read Al Gore’s book Earth in the Balance you’ll get a really good laugh, he made the same predictions years ago and said we’d all be dead by now if we didn’t outlaw cars. I never figured out how he had the time to write that book and invent the internet at the same time. He’s awsome!
areaman asked:
Regarding your update. The title says resources “used up” while the text says “being degraded”. There’s quite a difference there. Was the title yours?
———–
Do I have to point out that this is why we have hyperlinks?
Yes, I could answer your question but I refuse to answer a question when the answer is so obvious. (A lesson the Commissar never quite figured out) Go click the link.
We now have to fund these guys to help us out of this mess. Maybe 10, 20 50, 100, 200 or 500 billion for reseach.
… Oooopps .. I forgot the 2/3 of all the resiurces are already used up. Cut ’em all off.
areaman wrote:
You should follow the little “ironic” link on that page so you can figure out what Malthus was really talking about. Ever heard of satire?
Before you try making a point, try reading your links fully.
I didn’t follow the link before, my mistake. Good admonition.
However, the entire essay is not satire, as the second page astutely notes.
The other thing is, which alludes to my earlier point, that other people like Darwin did take the essay seriously. Very seriously.
And what made you link Thomas Malthus to “Gaia eco-nuts”?
Now here’s where I should be brusque to you by telling you to read and think before you post. Instead, I’ll lay it out for you and others who can’t seem to “connect the dots.”
Eco-nut philosophy: “Humans ruining planet. Need less humans.” (see also bullwinkle’s excellent post above)
Malthus: “Poor people ruining society. Need less humans, especially poor.”
Darwin: “Barbarians ruining civilization. Need less barbarians.”
Of course, this is very simplified paraphrasing. I have to include this disclaimer to head off pedantic childishness that I see time and time again in these exchanges.
Dearest Sue,
Thanks for your wonderful reply. As you have mentioned, that second page astutely notes that the entire essay is indeed, not satire. However, read this:
For example, the first paragraph of Book IV, Chapter V, of the 1826 edition of “An Essay on the Principle of Population” is sometimes quoted to show that Malthus wished genuine harm to the poor. But read within context of the entire “Essay,” that paragraph turns out to be ironic, and he really did not believe what he said in that passage.
It is true that Malthus had some fairly harsh views, but to read the quotes you supplied as if he actually wished to kill all poor people…well, thats a little off base. Those 19th century writers and their irony you know. Malthus, in the link that you provided and took offense at, was responding sarcastically to people who were advocates of early marriage, and his response was completely ironic and over the top.
I think its funny when people like you get so pissed off about “eco-nuts”. I do understand that there are plenty of environmental groups that are over the top. Like anything in life one has to be discerning. What strikes me on sites like this one is the number of people that completely freak out when there is any mention whatsoever of environmentalism, etc. Whats the deal?
As far as Malthus and Darwin goes…you’re right, they did have some ideas that were less than admirable. It happens. Darwin had alot of good ideas, IMO, but he wasnt perfect, and he had some shitty ideas as well.
Answer me this: In your opinion, who are “eco-nuts”? Define what you mean by that. And dont get all pissed off at me for asking you to clarify.
Paul:
Hmmm…that link wasnt going anywhere yesterday, thats why I asked you.
You could have just answered my question, but instead you chose the less tactful way, for some reason.
The title contradicts what the text says, insinuating that 2/3 of the earths resources are already gone. The text goes on to say that they are ‘being degraded’, which is very different.
I’m not saying it was your fault…I just saw the discrepancy and asked.
You never answered…are you really a scientist?
Answer me this: In your opinion, who are “eco-nuts”? Define what you mean by that. And dont get all pissed off at me for asking you to clarify.
I won’t get pissed off if you don’t get pissy. I like civility as much as the next lady does.
My particular definition of an eco-nut would be someone who agrees with the philosophy I summarized before:
Eco-nut philosophy: “Humans bad. Humans ruining planet. Need less humans.”
Just off the top of my head, I can sort eco-nuts into four basic categories:
Category 1 – Grant-hungry scientist (Chicken Little)
May or may not actually believe the eco-nut philosophy, since main motivator is money. Will ignore any conflicting scientific work and publish “sky is falling” studies and articles to get fame, prizes, and grants.
Category 2 – Socialist journalist (Henny Penny)
Usually, but not always, believes Chicken Little scientist’s claims, but irrelevant because main motivation is money from column inches and TV face time. Believes Chicken Little mainly because they’re both from same coop on Marx’s Chicken Farm.
Category 3 – Tree-hugging lefty (Turkey Lurkey)
Believes anything Chicken Little scientist and Henny Penny journalist says, because Turkey Lurkey A) looks upon chickens as superior because of their really nice feathers, and B) is too dumb to really question the science behind Chicken Little’s claims anyway. Constantly reminded by Henny Penny not to look up during rainstorms to prevent Turkey Lurkey’s drowning.
Category 4 – Power-hungry politician (Foxy Loxy)
Doesn’t really care about the sky falling, as long as his belly stays full from chicken and turkey.
Sue:
I promise I wont get pissy. For some reasons after reading your post I am hungy…lol
Let me be honest…I know quite a few ecologists and biologists, and others whose main work is involved with the environment. What I am wondering is who you include in your catagory of eco-nut…is it anyone who works in such a field? Alot of people just fly off the handle whenever they hear see a press release about the environment, without even reading what the scientists are actually saying.
And taking the press release writers word for everything isnt the best way of going about things, as press releases are at best over simplified and at worst grossly inaccurate.
I agree with you that scientists who are more concerned about fame or funding are huge problems, and that journalists who regurgitate everything they say uncritically are also a problem. Uneducated “tree hugger” types who dont know shit about science and just want to be in a protest are also problematic, and misguided. Of course the politicians who capitalize on all of it suck as well.
In my opinion, gaining a better understanding of how human activities impact the environment is NOT a waste of time, and is in our best interest. Do you disagree with that?
In my opinion, gaining a better understanding of how human activities impact the environment is NOT a waste of time, and is in our best interest. Do you disagree with that?
I don’t disagree with that. That’s perfectly reasonable.
What’s not reasonable is hysterics (I know, that’s funny coming from a woman) that have nothing to do with scientific understanding.
I can’t speak for Paul, but the reason I put on my skeptic’s bonnet everytime I read one of these things is because A) these “falling sky” predictions have been made for decades upon decades now without any part of it coming true, and B) the major players have dubious motives, mainly money.
Here’s someone’s blog entry that sums up a lot of feelings I have about the subject, in a much more articulate way. I found it while trying to google examples of unfulfilled ecological catastrophe predictions.
Sue:
What’s not reasonable is hysterics (I know, that’s funny coming from a woman) that have nothing to do with scientific understanding.
Agreed.
I can’t speak for Paul, but the reason I put on my skeptic’s bonnet everytime I read one of these things is because A) these “falling sky” predictions have been made for decades upon decades now without any part of it coming true, and B) the major players have dubious motives, mainly money.
Its always good to question things that are put forth as fact. And deifinitely some of the major players have questionable motives, but not all of them…the problem is it gets hard to tell who’s who. I grew up with all the El Nino disaster stuff, etc…so I know what you are talking about. Alot of predictions have been wrong. So that makes it important to look into things carefully.
I just wanted to make sure that you didnt lump all environmental biologists and ecologists, etc into one catagory because of what some “eco-nuts” do. You know?
Thanks for the link. I’m late for class. I’ll read it later on.