
Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN - nwrk
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/stop-biodiversity-loss-or-we-could-face-our-own-extinction-warns-un
======
sverige
A great place to start would be to seriously limit or eliminate pesticides
like Roundup. Don't believe the alarmists in Big Ag who will say the world
will starve. We overproduce food now, and organic farming techniques, if
widely adopted, wouldn't make it impossible to continue to produce enough. The
loss of diversity in insects and "weeds" has had a huge impact up the chain.

~~~
bamboozled
I once saw a great quote which was, "maybe food is too cheap". This is
probably true, we could probably eat better quality, organic food grown in a
more diverse way, it would just cost more. On the flip side, it would be more
valued so we'd have less waste.

I can't imagine the amount of "non-valued" food, fruit vegetables etc which
end up in the bin.

~~~
mchannon
Everybody here is ignoring yield per acre. RoundUp, for all its faults, drives
the yield number up. More people (and particularly more cattle) are fed per
acre when you use pesticides.

If you banned the pesticides, it would do a lot of good, but now consider how
many more acres would need to be farmed in order to keep the overall yields
the same. How many acres would be cleared that would not otherwise be cleared?

I agree that glyphosate (RoundUp now makes up less than half the market, which
is largely Chinese-made and Chinese-consumed now) should probably be far more
heavily regulated, but be aware that humans are not going to happily grow less
food on the same land when yields drop.

Taste the rainforest.

~~~
xg15
> _More people (and particularly more cattle) are fed per acre when you use
> pesticides._

This feels like saying we absolutely _need_ multiple GB of RAM to display a
website because how else would Angular work otherwise?

If the increased yield per acre is used primarily to support todays
industrial-scale meat production, maybe we should address the latter first.
The way meat production works today seems to have almost exclusively
downsides: It's a moral bankruptcy considering current state of research in
animal consciousness, it's a health hazard for consumers, it's an inefficient
way to consume proteins _and_ as you note, it monopolizes vast parts of crop
production.

~~~
candiodari
We only have a few percent more food production than humanity needs, if I
remember correctly. Roundup and other pesticides combined with fertilizer
increased yields ... it doubles and triples them, and it prevents famines
resulting from sudden insect plagues, which were common (as in every 30 years
on average) for most of human history.

If these numbers are even close to accurate, eliminating roundup and modern
farming would kill BILLIONS of humans.

I would love to get more accurate numbers, but what do you intend to do about
the little "humans need food" issue in general ?

~~~
heurist
As i understand it, there are new intensive organic farming techniques that
are practically unknown to big ag and which produce similar yields with higher
quality (by not destroying soil and ecosystems every year). I'd counter that
the final death toll of Roundup and similar chemicals could be much higher any
potential famine caused by abrupt cessation of pesticide treatments.
Destruction of ecosystems is an externality which has never been accounted
for, and sooner or later someone will pay that bill.

------
jelliclesfarm
Getting rid of chemical warfare on soil and in farms will become much easier
of farming is automated. Automation in farms works longer than any human
labourer. And getting rid of weeds in farms and planting hedgerows and letting
at least 30-50 percent of land go back to nature with reforestation and
installing grasslands will help with habitat restoration. We have urban indoor
farms that can deal with the shortage. A lot can be grown indoors..not all our
food tho. Just take inside whatever is possible to be grown indoors! Shorten
supply chains. Population needs to be reduced not by punitive methods but by
incentivizing smaller families. In the 70s, our population was around 3.5
billion ..now it’s close to 7.5 billion. This is a problem. We accommodated
this explosion by getting rid of animals, birds, insects and turning forests
into farmlands. Some of this conversion needs to be reversed.

------
ah765
I agree with the big idea of conservation of biodiversity, but it really
bothers me when these articles are using what seems like lies and fear tactics
to convince me. 2 years? Why is it so urgent? The article doesn't explain. And
"By 2050, Africa is expected to lose 50% of its birds and mammals," sounded
really implausible to me. I had to do further research to determine that they
are probably actually referring to "50% of species" rather than "50% of
population", which is a very big difference that seems the opposite of what is
implied. In this case, "face our own extinction" seems like a huge
overexaggeration. This kind of deception and disregard for actual facts makes
me much less sympathetic to the cause.

~~~
omosubi
Losing 50% of species _is_ the loss of biodiversity by definition. Just about
every species plays a vital role in maintaining a habitat and losing 1 or
several has consequences that are hard to predict and could mean a drastic
reduction in the ability to grow food and have clean water.

What incentives do scientists have to lie about this? Why is everyone so
skeptical about warnings that scientists around the world agree on and have
been saying for 20 or 30 years? It's maddening

~~~
ah765
Losing 50% of species sounds bad, but much less bad than losing 50% of all
mammal populations. Are we just talking about losing ten thousand obscure
rodent species? I actually have no real idea what this value means, which
makes me inclined to ignore it. A scientific source would be great, but the
article doesn't provide any.

If we're talking about "human extinction" level threats, it would probably be
from massive famines, and "half of the animals are now dead" seems much more
likely to cause that than "half of animal species are extinct". What is the
actual percentage estimate that we would go extinct from this, and when? It
matters when comparing it to nuclear war or AI.

The incentive for scientists to lie seems obvious to me. They want people to
support and fund their efforts (possibly for noble reasons, possibly because
they just want more money). They think that simple facts aren't good enough,
so they use fear tactics like "we could face our own extinction" hoping that
will convince us instead.

Also, the authors of these articles and the people interviewed are not
necessarily the scientists either. Given that sources aren't provided, I have
no idea what the scientists are actually saying.

~~~
jeremyjh
Most animal species are insects, so probably that is the majority of animal
species that will die out. Insects and grubs, worms etc though can be very
important to the local ecology. Loss of some could damage human food
production that relies on them in sometimes very indirect ways.

~~~
DennisP
There have been a several recent studies showing massive loss of insect
populations:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarm...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarming-
study-shows-massive-insect-loss/?utm_term=.96d6124d639c)

But insects are also a foundation of natural food webs; we can't lose lots of
insects without losing lots of other animals too. And as a couple of us have
posted already, a recent study showed that we've reduced the populations of
mammals, birds, fish and reptiles by 60% since 1970:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-
wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds)

------
carapace
Permaculture (Applied Ecology) - we can provide food _and CARBON-NEUTRAL fuel_
for ourselves without wrecking Nature.

A "Permie" farm is more productive than any other mode of food production. By
setting up ecosystems that consist of a preponderance of human-usable crop
species you can grow _multiple times_ the amount of food-per-acre of
conventional agriculture (even with GMOs and pesticides, et. al.) After the
initial set-up very little labor is required.

Permie farms _foster_ biodiversity.

"Permaculture Behind `Greening the Desert` with Geoff Lawton"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U)
Salt desert to figs in two years.

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)

"Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" [http://permaculture.com/](http://permaculture.com/)
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 scavenge feedstock. Farmer Dave used
to have an arrangement with a donut shop to ferment their old leftover/scrap
dough.

------
Illniyar
Why would reducing biodiversity cause humans to go extinct? It isn't made
clear in the article.

Wouldn't it just cause certain creatures to be more dominant?

~~~
dyeje
The environment is a complex web of interdependent relationships between
species and ecological processes. You remove enough relationships and it'll
just collapse.

~~~
Illniyar
That's very vague. Collapse how? According to other comments we have already
remove 60% of species, why wasn't that enough to cause a collapse. Other
species take up the slack left by those removed.

~~~
intended
Death of insects means no honey and many dead birds.

No pollination means many fallow meadows and dead plants.

This means either weeds spreading or top soil depletion.

This also means many crops we depend on will not survive because various
helper species aren’t available.

Earthworms dying mean no areation of soil, or the impact of other insects to
improve the eco system.

So no those other species aren’t taking up the slack as you put it. Wasps
aren’t interchangeable with moths for example.

But I too want to understand better how far this collapse impacts human
beings.

~~~
nearbuy
This doesn't really explain human extinction. Our food supply doesn't come
from a natural ecosystem.

\- Commercial bee populations aren't declining. (There has been an increase in
Colony Collapse Disorder, but lost colonies are replaced and total bee
population hasn't declined.)

\- The vast majority of the world's food supply does not depend on pollination
from insects. To quote from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees):

> The most essential staple food crops on the planet, like corn, wheat, rice,
> soybeans and sorghum, need no insect help at all; they are wind-pollinated
> or self-pollinating. Other staple food crops, like bananas and plantains,
> are sterile and propagated from cuttings, requiring no pollination of any
> form, ever.

\- None of the crops that require pollination from insects are essential to
human survival. It's hard to see how their loss could lead to our extinction.

\- Crops can be pollinated by hand or machine.

\- Crops can be propagated without seeds.

\- Crops can be grown in all kinds of unbelievable conditions. Crops can be
grown without soil. They can be grown in space stations, completely isolated
from Earth's ecosystems.

\- Extinction is a very strong claim. To support it, it wouldn't be enough,
for example, to show that 90% of the population would die off, leaving 750
million people. They need to propose a mechanism by which all humans would
die.

~~~
esarbe
If you think that the human food supply will not be affected by a planet-wide
ecosystem collapse, you might want to think again.

Fertile soil is not just dirt. Talk to a soil expert and you'll find out very
quickly how difficult it is to keep soil healthy, especially if you punish it
every day with pesticides and herbicides. See you long you can maintain
production if you don't have a support system of insects, arachnids, worms,
fungi and so on. You'll end up with just dirt. Nothing grows in just dirt. You
can try to keep up production by downing it in fertilizer, but in the end
you'll just prolong the inevitable; loss of crop and collaps of production.

See how many humans you can feed by growing crops in space stations. See how
long you can maintain a closed ecosystem in space.

To your last point; if you lose more than 30% to 30% of the productive
workforce, you can kiss human civilization goodbye; our manufacturing is
highly de-centralized, but heavily interdependent and without safety buffer..
Our infrastructure is wide-spread and needs tons of maintenance. Lose enough
people and it all comes crashing down, leaving the survivors with broken
machinery for which they don't have energy, don't have the knowledge to
operate let alone repair if (not when) they stop working. They will also have
to deal with all the poison and radioactive fallout from all the fission
reactors that experience core-meltdown because nobody's around anymore to
power them down over the period of ten years.

Don't kid yourself; saving what's left of this earth's ecosystem is the only
shot we have. There's not techo-utopia down the road to carry us to eternity
and the heat-death of the universe. Its you and me and the rest of us puny
humans that will have to do the saving.

------
jelliclesfarm
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07183-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07183-6)
: this explains about the loss of terrestrial biomass. [..]Numerous studies
are revealing that Earth’s remaining wilderness areas are increasingly
important buffers against the effects of climate change and other human
impacts. But, so far, the contribution of intact ecosystems has not been an
explicit target in any international policy framework, such as the United
Nations’ Strategic Plan for Biodiversity or the Paris climate agreement.

This must change if we are to prevent Earth’s intact ecosystems from
disappearing completely.[..]

------
anon1203
We can't even stop killing each other because of greed and other stupid
reasons, we can't even stop global warming, who's going to stop biodiversity
loss and how? It's in the nature of mankind to create but also destroy. Every
era of civilization was build on the ashes of the former, and the next will
not be different, a lot of people will have to die of violent death for
humanity to evolve and come to its senses. we are at the beginning of a
climate refugee crisis of proportions never seen before,coming from Southern
countries, do people really think it will go smoothly?

~~~
dwaltrip
We kill each other less than we did in the past. Humanity is not a completely
static thing.

There are many struggles ahead of us. But not all hope is lost. I
wholeheartedly reject any fatalistic notion. There is always something that
can be done to improve the situation.

------
arminiusreturns
Once again the principles of centralization vs decentralization play out in
front of us. Decentralization is a strength, centralization is a weakness, in
almost everything, from the internet to crops...

------
quotemstr
Humanity will never go extinct as long as the Earth supports photosynthesis
generally. If the ecosystem collapses, we might suffer for a little while, but
our technology can overcome any environmental problem. Environmental damage,
no matter how severe, is not an _existential_ threat, and hyping it up as so
does nobody any favors.

That said, environmental damage is expensive, and we should mitigate it. But
we should do so with an accurate, not inflated, knowledge of the consequences.

~~~
esarbe
Holy cow, Batman, that's some fatal case of hubris if I've ever seen one.

Environmental damage /is/ an /existential/ threat. We're part of an ecosystem,
we're not independent of it. We have no way to produce food or oxygen without
an ecosystem. In what artificial Biosphere do you live in?

The sheer audacity leaves me (almost) speechless.

~~~
quotemstr
Agriculture _is_ producing food without the ecosystem.

~~~
esarbe
Nope, it isn't. You're still dependent on the fertile soil, on nematodes and
fungi, on insects and arthropods. You fool yourself when you think that all
these square kilometers of dry and dead dust will yield anything at all when
there's no ecosystem around to renew the dehydrated husk of soil we leave when
we're done.

Google for 'arable soil loss' and read a bit about it, please.

------
starfish99
I like to think each living organism as a gigantic living git repository of
successful experiments by evolution. No wonder a huge number of human
inventions come out of either isolating naturally occurring compounds or
mimicking some natural occurring behavior of some organism: plant/animal.

Each time we lose an organism, we lose an entire repo of commits made over
billions of years.

------
jelliclesfarm
There is a lot of skepticism and charges of exaggeration about this threat to
the planet. Is it ok to make a book recommendation here?
[https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-
History/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-
History/dp/0805092994) : Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. And it’s not a
new book either. Many people have been warning about this and 2020 is a
pivotal year for answers about our survival. Media..as usual..is getting
hysterical about it too late and all in unison. But that doesn’t negate the
overwhelming evidence that the threats are real.

------
musha68k
This has happened many times before in more localized settings. The big
difference to our situation is that the pertaining cultures were most likely
plain ignorant about the dynamics that lead to their demise.

We are lucky that we do have all the knowledge but instead of taking action we
constantly bathe ourselves in dystopian fantasies and social media whining
(Q.E.D.) without any _vision_ other than what seems like a global death-wish.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee#Environme...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee#Environmental_impact_and_extinction_\(part_five\))

------
village-idiot
Honestly, I think it’s too late.

It’s not too late technically, we could make changes now that would save us.
But it’s far too late politically because people are stubbornly doubling down
on the behaviors that are killing us.

~~~
titzer
There was never any time. We're programmed like bacteria to expand and fill
the available resources until either our consumption or our waste products
kill us off. The only question was the speed and ugliness of it all. After
agriculture, without population control, this whole shit became inevitable.
Science? Education? Democracy? Capitalism? All just ingredients into making
this global society capable of mass digestion. Chewing up the Earth and
shitting it out.

[http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199539...](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199539536.001.0001/acref-9780199539536-e-1221)

------
botverse
What about overpopulation as a factor? The elephant in the room. Every time
someone suggest that we are too many, people tend to agree, but when what is
suggested is that we should think about how to be less people, everybody halts
in horror

------
raprp
I some countries is still a challenge to forbid use of plastic bags on
supermarkets and plastic straws. We just keep throwing this disposable stuff
out like crazy.

------
esarbe
It's incredible how many participants in this topic don't seem to grasp the
delicacy of earth's ecosystem and see it as something that is easily replaced
or that humans can exist without.

Let's not kid around; if the ecosystem of goes the way of the way of the dodo,
humans will go along for the ride.

You might (or not) have noticed that humans don't exist outside of the
ecological system that our plant harbors. We're part of this ecological
network, we're fully, totally, non-negotiable dependent on it. Techno-utopian
dreams (nightmares, more like it) of being independent of the 'natural' world
are not going to save mankind; we're part of 'nature', we exist within nature,
there's no existence for humans outside nature. We need an ecosystem that
provides us with calories and oxygen. The only ecosystem in existence that is
capable of providing that is the very ecosystem we're working tirelessly to
dismantle and destroy. So yes; we might die out because of lack of resources.
We very probably will. There's only so much damage that an ecosystem can take.
And there are tons of signs that signal that our earthly ecosystem is reaching
it's breaking point; - we've lost about a third of the arable land in the last
forty years. - we've lost about 30% of bio diversity in the last twenty years.
- we've lost almost 75% of insect biomass in the last thirty years.

The loss of insects is especially alarming; insects play a major role in all
food webs on earth. The disappearance of 75% of insects (biomass, not species)
has a catastrophic impact of everything further up the food chain. Yes,
including humans.

We're currently working non-stop to destroy our ecosystem's capacity to carry
animals in the upper food chain. Guess who's on top of that food chain. Yes,
us humans.

Don't kid yourself; we're currently rushing full-speed ahead towards a full-
scale ecosystem collapse. And don't fool yourself on our ability to create and
maintain a man-made closed ecosystem as a replacement; we're not able to do
that and we probably won't for many, many, many decades to come.

The only ecosystem we have to save our collective asses is the one we're
currently punishing every day with our overproduction, overconsumption, with
our fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides and waste.

It's so past high times that we - humans, as a collective - have a hard talk
how much longer we want to exist as a 'civilized' species, with global trade,
no struggle for survival, boundless capitalism.

Because if we keep going, we've got a dozen or so decades left. It's back to
hunter gathering for the rest of mankind's existence after that.

If we leave enough prey species alive, that is. Otherwise that will be the end
of mankind's short stint.

------
newnewpdro
Collapse != extinction

~~~
esarbe
It is, for humans. We've got a hard dependency on civilization because we've
forgotten how to live without it and don't have any natural habitats we could
live in (as hunter/gatherers) even if we remembered how.

~~~
newnewpdro
B.S.

~~~
esarbe
Even tough you've very eloquently made you point, would you care to elaborate?
What of my argument is -- to quote you -- 'B.S.'?

------
Rubinsalamander
While it would be sad to see so many species dying, i dont think it will
affect the survival of humans.

If really needed bacterias and plants would be enough for humans to survive.
Wouldnt be pleasant though, so we should try our best that it doesnt happen.

I just dont see the apocalyptic prophecies coming true.

------
intended
So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth
it’s going to entail?

Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is
going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction
reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms.

Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system
which at the end must put a finite price on a human life. Whether by market
price discovery or by fiat, we are going to say, “there’s only this much we
can spend”.

I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under
domes, in the far future.

Is there some other plausible outcome?

———-

Edit: people are correctly targeting the rational part of markets, but here’s
the counter.

It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being
priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And
it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of
poverty to want better food, clothing and power.

That guy burning crops in India says “shit, sorry for the bad smoke Delhi. But
it costs too much to do anything else. Sucks to be you.”

That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s
rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of
people out of poverty.

Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to
actually price in externalities ?

~~~
jnurmine
A system of economy based on continuous growth and limited resources is simply
not viable. That is nothing new, the Club of Rome presented their findings
already in 1970s.

Their conclusion was a rapid and uncontrollable decline in population and
industrial capacity, and the signs of that would be apparent by 2072.

Given that the "business as usual" scenario has persisted, we are on track to
that sudden crash "overshoot" scenario. In addition, now there is the looming
climate catastrophy as well. Countries and regions have to become more
resilient to all kinds of impacts from climate change, as it does not look
like we can avoid or prevent it.

In addition, another economic system than one expecting continuous growth is
required.

Therefore the question of "who pays for the reduction in growth" is a rather
non-starter, as the reduction in growth is inevitable.

Edit: crash not at 2072, signs visible at 2072.

~~~
boombust
I think his point was that individual actors do not want to hinder their
prosperity at the cost of the planet. The looming threat of extinction is not
something a business or a 3rd world farmer takes into account when making
choices. Out of sight out of mind, unfortunately.

------
9712263
Terraforming Mars, or maybe just create a habitable satellite is easier than
saving the earth. Current economical model fosters growing business, and only
government regulation to deal with externality. Growing is intuitive to human
activity, but restricting human growth is counter-intuitive.

I forget the link, but a lecture video using bacteria growth as a metaphor of
human growth creeps me out. Supposed bacteria in a jar growth 2 times for 1
minutes, and the jar will be full in 1 hour. When will the jar be half full?
Answer is at 59 minutes. At the time of 58 minutes, only 25% space is used.
How many bacteria thinks the jar or the world will be full after 2 minutes?

The situation is similar to human, and we still cannot find a way to protect
the environment and have economic growth at the same time. Maybe the end of
human history is next 2 years but we still think its pretty okay and didn't
notice anything unusual. Then maybe finding a new jar is the second best way
to deal with it.

~~~
justaaron
Holy guacamole. "easier to terraform mars or create a habitable satellite than
saving earth"

this is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on the internet. Get
back to me once you have 1/10000000th the bio-diversity of earth on your
habitable satellite.

1) change our paradigms, economic system, and other social factors. I can
assure you that this is far more maleable than Martian soil composition...

our social structures evolved in the context of low population densities and
plentiful resources.

our economic system is what needs to give, it doesn't even function for
humans, let alone the planet and the rest of life we share it with...

need I remind you that 1) we are only ONE species, and haven't the RIGHT to
destroy our shared home, nor the other species. Some of us humans are upset
about this, and we WILL take you other humans on over this issue!

2) our planet is STILL the only known place with LIFE in the entire universe.
This is likely to change, at some point, but not if you get us all killed
first.

3) our social systems are flexible, arbitrary, dare I say "PRETEND"... change
em.

~~~
gepi79
Indeed, people are dangerously ignorant regarding Earth and Mars.

If we can not rescue Earth, a biological paradise, we have no hope to make it
on Mars, a biological hell.

