
Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds - ryan_j_naughton
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds
======
pingec
When I was a child about 20 years ago, I remember going snorkelling near my
home in the North Adriatic Sea quite often. I could see crabs, starfish, sea
urchins, sea horses, octopuses under rocks and loads of fish.

I went back there recently and was shocked to find the water looked clear but
there were no animals left inside except for a few fish and a crab here and
there.

This makes me really sad and pessimistic about the future of the planet and
its living conditions for all living beings on it.

~~~
nervousvarun
My equivalent of this is frogs. Frogs and the rhythmic noises they made at
night were the "white noise" of my childhood.

~~~
Rotareti
My equivalent of this is insects. My family and I made a lot of trips with our
car in the 90th. The front of the car was full of squashed insects when we
arrived. There was a constant knocking on the windshield. The amount of
insects that I find on my car today is far less. I think it's about 10-20% of
what it was in the 90th. I'm worried.

~~~
neetdavid
This has to be one of the funniest takes I've seen

~~~
r7000
[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-
insect...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone)

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/26/windscreen-
ph...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/26/windscreen-phenomenon-
car-no-longer-covered-dead-insects/)

~~~
neetdavid
I don't doubt that bug populations are dropping.

The idea of lamenting climate change by having nostalgia for the days when
piling into a car and driving across the countryside would guarantee a handful
of smashed insects on the windscreen is funny to me.

------
FriedPickles
If this headline feels overwhelming to you, I highly recommend this article by
Stewart Brand: [https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-
extinc...](https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinction)

Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species.

~~~
jfk13
> Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species.

Really?

"Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the
background rate ... as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly
heading toward extinction by mid-century"[1].

I'm sure estimates vary widely, but that sounds rapid to me.

[1]
[https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/)

~~~
bhelkey
I believe the point was that number in the title (60%) referred to animal
populations not species.

------
montenegrohugo
Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion
to 7.7 billion today).

This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are
destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to
make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled
ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting.

The consequences of this will not be felt by your grandchildren. They will be
felt by me and you. They are starting to appear already.

What can we do to change this? This cannot be fixed by individual action.
Buying an electric car and using recyclable shopping bags is not enough.

I implore you to be politically active, to consider support for candidates
that at least _acknowledge_ that there is a problem. Consider a carbon tax.
Consider big, international efforts to clean up our oceans. Consider sexual
education efforts in developing nations. Consider carbon re-capture efforts.
There's a ton of things we can do, but we have to _start doing_

~~~
Cthulhu_
I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the
corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock. Climate change will
cause famine, natural disasters and mass migrations. Poverty, overpriced
health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will
lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase.

~~~
uxcolumbo
> I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the
> corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock[...]

I wouldn't call WW3 a fix (short term anyway).

Even a small nuclear exchange would have devastating ecological consequences
[0]

[0] "Radioactive fallout from these weapons’ debris clouds would reach the
stratosphere, where it would travel worldwide, potentially contaminating crops
and livestock as well as causing radiation sickness and cancer directly.
Later, this fallout would cause genetic mutations in plants, animals and human
beings, as it has in the vicinity of the Chernobyl nuclear accident."

From: [https://medium.com/freeman-spogli-institute-for-
internationa...](https://medium.com/freeman-spogli-institute-for-
international-studies/how-nuclear-war-would-affect-the-world-climate-and-
human-health-8b40b4668074)

~~~
travisoneill1
This has been tested and disproven by the very large nuclear exchanges that
have already taken place:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo)

------
betageek
Is this true? It is hard to believe that killing off 60% of animals on the
planet would leave us with a functioning ecosystem. It's also very hard to
work out what the facts are here without finding yourself in climate change
denial land, a place I do not want to visit.

~~~
cbkeller
Geologist here! The report in question [1] and supplement [2] seem pretty
think-tank-y, but I would say they pass the sniff test to first order (if we
have a biologist or ecologist around, they could probably say better). The
focus on animals makes it relatively plausible -- these are charismatic and
easy to observe, but a lot of the ecological heavy lifting / biogeochemical
nutrient cycling is really carried out by microbes, which are are probably
doing better. Microbes also represent most of Earth's genetic diversity, and
will pretty certainly survive any mass extinction we throw at them.

In any case, the Guardian article is correct in claiming that

>Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction

This is pretty well accepted among geologists and paleontologists, as far as
I've seen. Here's one relatively recent perspective on the issue, which covers
some of the back-and-forth:
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2)

[1]
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_full_re...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_full_report_spreads.pdf)
[2]
[http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_suppl...](http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2018_technical_supplement_for_lpi.pdf)

~~~
ifdefdebug
>> Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction.

>This is pretty well accepted among geologists and paleontologists

Do they believe humanity will be one of the survivors?

~~~
c048
Sigh.

a) This is not in their field of expertise. b) If there is any species that
has the best chance of survival, it's humanity.

~~~
Chris_Jay
Oh now you're just tempting fate. Surely that distinction goes to the
cockroaches?

------
anoplus
Some companies are willing to harm humans and the environment for profit. I am
active against a gas processing project in Israel, planned to be built near
residents. Thousands of people joined the battle to protect their water and
air against the blind tycoon greed. Government hands are tied by threats and
bribe. Press are under incredible pressure to keep silent about the protests.

We demand building the rigs 120km off shore at original drilling spot, without
at least harming people directly.

Unfortunately, demands for renewable clean energies have no chance the near
future. It would be best to avoid polluting the sea all together

~~~
temp364364
This is just pure NIMBY-ism. You should be ashamed. Even the Green groups in
Israel support the current solution.

Building the gas infrafracture on-shore would have expanded jobs and the
industrial base. Instead this was moved off-shore 20-km. Now you are fighting
even this.

This is just richer/educated/organized people acting in the most selfish way
possible. Its disgusting. Its no wonder Israel is the country with the highest
OECD inequality.

To be clear. I am financially secure. I have multiple degrees. I work in tech
and dont "need" an industrial job. I think we need more solar, more EV, less
population, etc. But i am also realistic and compassionate to the rest of the
population.

~~~
marcus_holmes
There was a demonstration against an oil processing plant in Perth, Australia,
that thousands of people drove to take part in. Parking in the town was a
nightmare for the whole day.

No-one seemed to notice the irony.

~~~
andai
Short term pain for long term pain.

~~~
andai
* gain.

------
pvaldes
False statement. In any case would be 60% of vertebrates, not animals.

Big animals are being systematically wipped, but smaller animals had probably
increased in total number. With the same amount of grass you can have 1 cow,
or lets say '50' rabbits, or '1000' voles, or "1billion" of nematodes. I we
could really measure it, I bet that we would find a big increase in number,
and a big decrease in diversity.

~~~
groby_b
I think you might be mistaken.

Not just vertebrates:
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809)

It's biomass that's decreasing, not just numbers:
[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-
lose-65-percen...](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-
lose-65-percent-of-land-biomass-by-2060-15980)

Yes, maritime animals too: [https://www.int-
res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf](https://www.int-
res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf)

And yes, plant biomass too:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506](http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506)
(This one's on a much longer timeline, so hard to compare)

~~~
kleopullin
This article is about vertebrates, though. The headline is distinctly
incorrect, whatever else is happening to flying insect biomass, or even
plants, the article is a survey of vertebrate decline. Vertebrates are one
subphyllum of the chordates, not even the most diverse phyllum of animals.
Even children know snails are animals but not vertebrates, so how does a
journalist miss this.

------
ainiriand
How can we pretend to fix something wrong in our behavior if most people won't
even consider something as easy as going vegetarian most of the days. Even
something like that would have a huge impact.

~~~
jriot
How about most people stop using their mobile phones, or all the other
electronics they carry that require charging?

I am not going vegetarian on any day. Why? Vegetables don't satisfy my tastes
nor do I get enough calories from them for my activity output.

You aren't going to change people's wants and needs because they are different
from yours.

~~~
mikestew
_Vegetables don 't satisfy my tastes nor do I get enough calories from them
for my activity output._

One can't argue taste, but I can argue caloric intake for high intensity
activities. If a guy can win Western States 100 seven times on a vegan diet
(Scott Jurek), I'm not going to worry about getting enough calories.

But as a vegetarian endurance athlete I'll be the first to admit that taste
(for some folks) and convenience (for about everyone) kinda go out the window.

~~~
jriot
When I did ultra-marathons, never hit the 100 miler maker, my body could
tolerate less meat, filling it up with carbs. Switching to powerlifting 4 - 5
years ago, my body demands more meat. Demanding in the sense that I can feel a
difference when I go without meat i.e., it is stronger when I consume meat.
Granted I also went from 160lbs ultra-running to 230lbs powerlifting, so I am
sure there is difference in caloric intake due to weight and muscle mass.

Do I need to do either? No, but I feel better eating meat and lifting compared
to when I don't.

\-- When I did run ultras, I picked up Scott's book with recipes and tried
following it, I felt quite hungry.

~~~
mikestew
_Switching to powerlifting 4 - 5 years ago_

Aha, as I suspected! ("Eh? Plenty of runners get by on a vegan diet. Now,
power lifters or some such...") I can't speak to that, I'm still a scrawny
runner. I mean, I suspect one could still get results with a proper (read:
PITA) diet, but then I'd be talking out my arse. Enjoy your steak.

~~~
jriot
I suspect you are correct though it would be a lot of eating/chewing. At 4,500
calories a day, I am tired of eating as it is.

I looked up the PITA diet as I was unfamiliar, it recommends to eat less spicy
foods which is tough as a Cajun, but then states to add more chicory which we
add to our coffee. Maybe there is a balance!

~~~
mikestew
By "PITA" I meant "pain in the ass" because you'll probably have to track down
the special hoo-ha bean (I made that up) that can give you the extra protein
you need, though you can probably get by with garbanzo beans but they make you
fart, and yeah, calories will probably involve some high-calories food that
you'll quickly tire of. That's what I meant by PITA.

~~~
jriot
Well I am an idiot...

[https://lifespa.com/summer-grocery-list-pitta-reducing-
diet/](https://lifespa.com/summer-grocery-list-pitta-reducing-diet/)

I just assumed you accidentally left out a 't', but PITA makes more sense and
it would be a pain in the ass.

------
mattferderer
Some bright spots:

Solar & wind are getting cheaper & more common

AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel

Lots of research going on in creating beef in labs instead of fields to reduce
the over abundance of cattle

Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA. One
nice side effect I'm hoping for is that it's price & method of growing will
help improve technology & lower costs for growing plants indoors.

Several prototypes are being tested to do more precise fertilization of land &
use either small robots, lasers or other methods to control weeds & specific
pests on crops. Reducing fertilizer waste into waters & getting rid of
pesticides is a huge win.

~~~
biglenny
Most of what you said is relevant and correct, but:

>Medical Marijuana is becoming legal in just about every state in the USA.

Feel like this was just thrown in there. I don't see how wasting millions of
gallons of water on a useless plant is representative of the human population
taking sacrifices to luxuries in order to prolong the life of the planet. In
fact - it sounds like quite the opposite.

>AR & VR will hopefully decrease travel

"Hey boss can I take a week off next month for travel?"

"Sure bud where ya going?"

"google.com/images" \- said nobody... ever.

~~~
mattferderer
Medical marijuana to my knowledge is typically grown in a hydroponic system
indoors. It's one of few plants priced high enough to make this worth it. My
hope is that it can improve the tech & bring the prices down so that more
crops can be grown indoors. A lot of companies have tried this on fruits &
vegetables. I'm not aware of many that have been very successful yet due to
the high price of this growing method but it could scale dramatically if the
price comes down.

Travel is a huge pollution issue. I believe AR/VR will become an incredibly
addictive technology down the road.

Short Term (1-5 yrs) - It'll chip away small amounts by offering another form
of entertainment to keep people happy. I think it'll help improve business
meetings in the near future as well.

Long Term - I could see it becoming a form of entertainment that reduces the
amount of traveling we do. People go to the zoo to see animals because it's
easier & cheaper than finding them in the wild. You can also get closer
without them eating you or running away. VR will let you do a lot of things
you couldn't do or would have to suffer a lot of hardship to do. I think it
will also create false expectations of what the real world is like. So ya, I
do think as VR graphics & physics get better, it'll replace a large chunk of
traveling.

~~~
biglenny
I though you were talking about the legalization of MJ, not specifically
Medical MJ. Looking at the parent, you specified medical MJ, so I
misinterpreted. Apologies on my end.

------
pmontra
Human population skyrocketing, animal population crashing, not a surprise.
Even not taking into account pollution and exploitation of natural resources,
it's a competition for space.

~~~
Cthulhu_
There's a lot of space to go around though, most of it undeveloped for e.g.
agriculture, and a lot of developed space is under-utilized due to focusing on
livestock.

~~~
qubax
> There's a lot of space to go around though

Not really. There is a finite amount of arable rich land which can support
life. A lot of "space" is frozen or desertified wasteland.

> most of it undeveloped for e.g. agriculture

Agriculture is the most destructive human enterprise. Most of the animals (
insects and rodents ) that are killed are due to agriculture. You have to kill
all the animals in the land to create a farm. Then you have to constantly
spray insecticide and herbicides to keep animals and weeds off the farm.

> and a lot of developed space is under-utilized due to focusing on livestock.

Raising livestock is far less destructive than agriculture. Primarily
predators like coyotes, wolves and bears are victims of raising livestock.

------
dao-
Don't worry, look at the bright side. E.g. I heard the US economy enjoys a 4%
growth rate and that can only be a good thing! Right?

~~~
tonyedgecombe
HN doesn't really do sarcasm.

There is an interesting point here though, we will never get a grip on this
problem whilst the primary focus of politicians is growth. The idea that you
can fix this without some lifestyle sacrifice is probably false. If we want a
sustainable future it won't include foreign holidays, personal cars, juicy
steaks and shiny toys.

~~~
trentnix
And by what conditions would the problem be judged as fixed?

I’ll believe it’s a real crisis when the people insisting it is actually live
like it is. But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and
watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes
all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle
sacrifice”, I remain skeptical.

If such a sacrifice is indeed necessary, you should get started immediately
and not wait for the government to force that sacrifice on you.

~~~
dao-
I stopped eating meat five years ago and made the decision not to get a car.
It's a start but it's not enough. I'd welcome the government forcing more
change on me, but more importantly I want the government to encourage if not
enforce change on a larger scale (like the EU banning old-school light bulbs
some years ago), because that's what governments are there for. I can't do
that on my own and the looming ecological disaster is too severe to sit back
and hope that enough people will wake up before it's too late.

~~~
trentnix
Centuries of fear-mongering by those warning of ecological disaster and yet
we've experienced no global ecological disasters. But you want government
_forcing_ change despite many, many examples (within a century!) of that
resulting in political, and subsequently human, catastrophe. You might want to
think this through...

~~~
tonyedgecombe
"Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970"
isn't an ecological disaster?

~~~
trentnix
It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and
observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic
reduction in the population of game such as deer and bear and sport fish, but
those populations thrive. I should see fewer snakes and birds and rabbits in
my yard yet that hasn’t happened. So that tells me it’s nonsense.

~~~
dao-
As the article says, different species are affected differently. It's really
not that hard to understand that you observing snakes and birds and rabbits in
your yard doesn't disprove an extensive scientific study covering all kinds of
natural habitats.

------
carapace
This is it. This is the alarm. The siren is sounding.

We are destroying ourselves.

It's not too late: We can wake up together as a species and pull through.

There are two main technological things to be aware of, first Buckminster
Fuller "Design Science Revolution" \- We have the technology we need already,
we just have to deploy it efficiently. Second, Permaculture (Applied Ecology)
- we can provide food for ourselves without wrecking Nature.

"Permaculture Behind `Greening the Desert` with Geoff Lawton"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U)

Toby Hemenway - "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Earth, but Not
Civilization"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo)

The most important things _you_ can do right now are to immediate reduce your
"ecological footprint" to a minimum, start or partner with a Permaculture farm
to provide your food and fuel[1], and encourage others to join you. Get
political: vote and write to your representatives. Vote with your wallet.
Change your diet.

It's not too late, and there is a lot to be done. We have to live in harmony
with Nature. The good news is that _this is fun!_ Living in harmony with
Nature is really fun and enjoyable. We are actually _punishing ourselves_ with
the current design of our cities and civilization[2].

The thing we need, the thing we yearn for, is not more gadgets, it's more
life. More connection with living things.

It starts with your choice: wake up to a wider world that wants and needs your
love and attention.

[1] [http://permaculture.com/](http://permaculture.com/) "Alcohol Can Be a
Gas!" Small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated with a Permaculture farm.
You can grow your own energy. The economics are totally different from large-
scale industrial ethanol production. You can start this in your backyard and
be driving your converted car from your own home-grown _carbon-neutral_ solar
energy within a few months. Faster if you scavange feedstock. Farmer Dave used
to have an arrangement with a donut shop to ferment their old leftover/scrap
dough.

[2] This is uncontroversial.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents)

------
ivanhoe
60% of animals or 60% of animal species?

~~~
isp
Neither.

The best explanation I've seen is:
[https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1057210578429755393](https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1057210578429755393)

"the _average population_ has declined by 60%. If you have two populations,
white rhinos (8 animals) & pigeons (a billion animals), and four of each of
them die, then "the average population" has declined by more than 50% but the
total number of animals has declined by 0.0000007%"

------
marcus_holmes
I got as far as "WWF" and stopped reading.

The WWF has been doomsaying for decades, because that's its business model.

It is an organisation specifically designed to raise funds from the general
public in order to promote green causes. It does this by creating scares like
this. The WWF is as much "big business" as any energy company.

I don't trust "science" funded by it, because there's not a chance in hell
that it would publish any studies that disagreed with its agenda.

~~~
yters
It wasn't exactly clear what was being reduced. Is the 60% across all mammals,
etc., or is it a weighted reduction, such that eliminating all freshwater
crocodiles is equivalent to eliminating all cows, even though there are many
more cows than freshwater crocodiles? It seems likely the amount of livestock
has dramatically increased since the 1970s. How is that reflected in their
graphs? I also do not know how they could accurately measure such things.

That being said, it is pretty plausible that humans are dramatically messing
up the ecosystem, at least in the areas where people live. It's also pretty
plausible the destruction is irreversible. I have no idea how we could ever
recover extinct species, or repopulate species that have had their natural
ecosystems dramatically changed.

Our future is going to be a globe mostly populated by humans, cows, chickens
and tuna, with a smaller population of dogs and cats, all subsisting on an
agriculture of corn. The next stage of evolution will consist of genetically
engineered variants of these 7 species.

------
nojvek
I dived in the barrier reef a decade ago. Soooooo much life everywhere I
looked. In a single dive you’d see so many animals you couldn’t keep track of.
It was just the most amazing experience I’ve had. Like I was in another plant.

I dived recently, it wasn’t the same. It’s like I went from a 8K Oled plasma
to a CRT monitor.

I’m just really sad my kids will never get the same experience.

May be we are cancer to the planet after all.

------
pcarolan
I think the world seriously needs to consider what we're going to do about
Brazil under the leadership of a right wing populist who gained presidency via
the support of commercial agriculture. This could be the end of the Amazon as
we know it if we sit by.

------
malandrew
For perspective, the world population has grown 150% in that time. It was just
over 3 billion in 1970 and is 7.6 billion today.

------
mlcrypto
Those animals weren't suited to reproduce in the modern era and were thus
eliminated. End of story

~~~
abootstrapper
Human's are changing the environment faster than animals can adapt via natural
selection. Your philosophy boils down to lining up all the animals, shooting
them in the head, and expecting some of them to evolve bullet proof heads.
That's not how evolution works.

Human's are part of the ecosystem and we're slitting our own throats by
ignoring the damage we're doing to it.

------
LiterallyDoge
Yum.

------
thelastidiot
More rats and cockroaches in New York, more mosquitoes in Hawaii, more
seagulls in Boston, more pigeons in San Francisco, more crows in the bay area,
what is this article talking about?!

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
I don't know if the population of these species is increasing globally but it
seems the ones you listed are very unique in the way they relate to humans –
see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis).

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that human overpopulation and profligate
consumption make a few species' population to thrive (e.g if they feed on
human waste, share habitats, etc) while still causing a mass-extinction event
and an ecological collapse (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)).

Multiple independent species have shown that in Europe, the insect biomass has
dropped by more than 75% in the last 3 decades. In France, bird populations
have fallen by 33+% over the last 15 years, but migratory birds are
disappearing even faster (e.g the meadow pipit population has declined by
nearly 70%).

edit: s/strive/thrive

~~~
chrisweekly
> "strive" (try) -> "thrive" (succeed)

Not nit-picking, rather trying to help readers for whom English is a second
language. :)

------
MadSudaca
Only 60%? I would have thought we had made more progress at this point.

------
expertentipp
> “We are rapidly running out of time,” said Prof Johan Rockström, a global
> sustainability expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
> in Germany. “Only by addressing both ecosystems and climate do we stand a
> chance of safeguarding a stable planet for humanity’s future on Earth.”

This is what happened the last time European bison crossed Polish-German
border. Bison is under strict protection in both countries and there are
ongoing efforts to reintroduce the specie. No negative consequences whatsoever
for anyone.

[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.polskieradio.pl%2F5%2F3%2FArtykul%2F1857538%2CNiemcy-
przy-granicy-z-Polska-zastrzelono-zubra-z-lubuskiego-stada)

~~~
Cthulhu_
You say that but local development has to keep it in mind. There's a similar
tale about wolves in my side of Europe (more to the west), they've been
spotted on occasion. They feed on local livestock though, which is causing
direct economic damage (not to mention cleanup). Of course, sheep will also
fall into the water and drown on occasion, or end up on their backs and die.

------
throwaway487548
This problem has no solution. Now we are in the stage "growth vs. animals and
nature". Growth will win. The second stage would be some human populations vs.
other human populations.

Also learn about these very efficient viruses which are wiping themselves out
by killing all its hosts too quickly. From the point of view of the Rest Of
Nature humanity is a virus.

