General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Remember When Wikipedia Was Considered Suspect? [View all]RandomNumbers
(19,037 posts)Not sure what you mean.
As for any conspiracy, well I fucking doubt it. If so, they aren't being very effective at it.
Do you really think allowing women to control their reproduction (the most effective step to active, HUMANE population reduction) is "unethical unacceptable actions" ??
Or perhaps my point was too subtle, that unless humans actively implement humane policies to slow and reverse population growth (which we have been doing in some places; but in the US those policies are actively being reverted - see Roe v Wade for exhibit 1) - then there will be some brutally active reduction - which may or many not be caused by humans (but I'd say the current world politics suggest it will be driven by humans, and quite brutal for those who cannot protect themselves).
https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/09/08/how-birth-control-girls-education-can-slow-population-growth/
Like I said, EXTREMELY inconvenient for almost everyone, but for different reasons.
Not sure why this is contested on a liberal discussion board. It's pretty basic that the bad consequences of what each of us do is multiplied by the number of people doing it. I don't think I've met anyone who has a zero or less carbon footprint + biodiversity impact, and I can bet that anyone claiming that is either misinformed or lying.
It's fine for humans to do things that impact the planetary ecosystem - of course they will, and we have a right to exist - the question is how much of that can the planetary ecosystem absorb, before it is changed in such a way that it can no longer support human population.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/catastrophic-73-decline-in-the-average-size-of-global-wildlife-populations-in-just-50-years-reveals-a-system-in-peril
The Living Planet Index, provided by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), tracks almost 35,000 vertebrate populations of 5,495 species from 1970-2020. The steepest decline is in freshwater populations (85%), followed by terrestrial (69%) and then marine (56%).
Habitat loss and degradation and overharvesting, driven primarily by our global food system are the dominant threats to wildlife populations around the world, followed by invasive species, disease and climate change.
Significant declines in wildlife populations negatively impact the health and resilience of our environment and push nature closer to disastrous tipping points critical thresholds resulting in substantial and potentially irreversible change. Regional tipping points, such as the decimation of North American pine forests, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and the mass die-off of coral reefs, have the potential to create shockwaves far beyond the immediate region, impacting food security, livelihoods, and economies.**
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6871202/
Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2019 Jun;17(1):13.
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY: THE BURGEONING THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH
Every year, at least a species goes into extinction while many species of plants and animals face extinction across the world according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Report (2019). 4
Sadly, most of the global loss of biodiversity occurs in the Developing World, Nigeria inclusive.5 Furthermore, the critical 25 hotspots of the global loss of biodiversity include areas spanning the rain forest belt of southern Nigeria although the enormous swathe of territory includes the Tropical Andes in South America and Indo-Burma areas in South East Asia. These hotspots are home to a considerable proportion of Earth's species of plants and animals. The Amazon in the Tropical Andes alone harbours 50,000 species or one-sixth of the Earth's total.6 Generally, known species are going extinct, 1000 times more than newly discovered ones.7