
Sixth mass extinction: The era of ‘biological annihilation’ - dlgnaturals
https://www.dlgnaturals.com/blog4/2017/07/11/sixth-mass-extinction-the-era-of-biological-annihilation/
======
jayess
Isn't Paul Erlich the guy who, in 1968, predicted that hundreds of millions of
people would starve to death in the 1970s due to overpopulation?

~~~
Turing_Machine
Close. He said that 4 _billion_ people would die of starvation between 1980
and 1989, including 65 million Americans.

Other Ehrlich scenarios (he gets prickly nowadays if you call them
"predictions", as well he might):

"Smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles, claiming of the order of 200,000
lives.

U.S. life expectancy falling to 42 years by 1980.

All "important animal life" (whatever that means) in the oceans being extinct
by 1980.

Why anyone still pays attention to this chucklehead is a mystery to me.

~~~
btilly
On the "other scenarios", he made these projections before the EPA came into
existence in 1970. Regulation DRAMATICALLY dropped levels of pollution, very
rapidly.

[https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-
cleaning...](https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-
and-improving-peoples-health)

He can be counted on for reliably projecting the worst case scenario if
nothing changes. If something changes he pats himself on the back for saving
the world by sounding the alarm and does it again.

This doesn't mean that he should be entirely ignored as an idiot. But it does
mean that his projections should be doubted.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"On the "other scenarios", he made these projections before the EPA came into
existence in 1970."

The EPA is a U.S. government agency. It had (and has) no authority in the
Third World countries that were the subject of Ehrlich's most extreme
"scenarios".

------
shoo
Most of the comments here are talking about previous predictions that failed
to come true.

the current species extinction rate is estimated to be orders of magnitude
higher than the baseline rate. I.e. this is not a prediction of the future,
this is an estimate of what has been happening in recent history, based on
observations of reality.

~~~
kbutler
But it's biased toward large animals we can see, especially charismatic
animals. We don't see a collapse of the network of life that is a
characteristic of the mass extinctions in the paleo record.

“People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough
about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument,” he
said. “To a certain extent they’re claiming it as a way of frightening people
into action, when in fact, if it’s actually true we’re in a sixth mass
extinction, then there’s no point in conservation biology.”
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-
ends...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the-
world/529545/)

------
uptown
Since the server is down, here's the NYTimes story about this:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/climate/mass-
extinction-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/climate/mass-extinction-
animal-species.html)

------
GorgeRonde
Here is the the original paper that caused the article on CNN that caused thid
blog post:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/05/1704949114.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/05/1704949114.full)

Abstract: The population extinction pulse we describe here shows, from a
quantitative viewpoint, that Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than
perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions. Therefore, humanity
needs to address anthropogenic population extirpation and decimation
immediately. That conclusion is based on analyses of the numbers and degrees
of range contraction (indicative of population shrinkage and/or population
extinctions according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature)
using a sample of 27,600 vertebrate species, and on a more detailed analysis
documenting the population extinctions between 1900 and 2015 in 177 mammal
species. We find that the rate of population loss in terrestrial vertebrates
is extremely high—even in “species of low concern.” In our sample, comprising
nearly half of known vertebrate species, 32% (8,851/27,600) are decreasing;
that is, they have decreased in population size and range. In the 177 mammals
for which we have detailed data, all have lost 30% or more of their geographic
ranges and more than 40% of the species have experienced severe population
declines (>80% range shrinkage). Our data indicate that beyond global species
extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and
extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem
functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as
a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s
ongoing sixth major extinction event.

------
thriftwy
Right now I can see how the website has died out.

I've read just somewhere that if we're in the middle of max extinction, we
should be worrying about coyotes and pigeons, not about elephants and tigers.

If we're not we're probably not there yet.

~~~
piyh
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)

Species extinction is 100 to 1000x the baseline rates due to humanity.

~~~
kbutler
Medium-large animal extinctions are well-documented, primarily because of
predation and introduction of invasive species. This is largely complete, as
cats and rats and people are pretty much everywhere now.

The vast majority of the 100-1000x baseline extinctions are hypothesized: we
estimate that richly biodiverse areas hold N unknown species per area M. We
have destroyed M' area, therefore estimate N' species are now extinct.

I have been able to find no actual evidence of such extinctions.

The mass extinctions in the Paleo record are driven by more significant
disruptions of the base ecology - bees are probably the most vulnerable
foundation species talked about now.

------
darod
“There is only one overall solution, and that is to reduce the scale of the
human enterprise,” he said. “Population growth and increasing consumption
among the rich is driving it.”

~~~
acjohnson55
It's conceivable we can reduce the global impact of humanity while keeping
human population stable. We could consolidate people into higher density
settlements, and if we master energy production with much more manageable
externalities, perhaps we can make agriculture much less land intensive, with
things like vertical farming.

As resource hungry as wealthy humans are, at the very least, we appear to
naturally form populations that don't grow. So that gives me some hope for the
future.

~~~
pyre
I remember reading a statistic that if all people in the US lived at the
population density of Manhattan, then the entire US population would fit
within the state of Rhode Island. Think about what kind of impact that would
have on reducing the impact on the rest of the continental US.

Edit: Calculating that out:

    
    
        321,400,000 people (pop. of the US)
      ÷      66,940 people per mi² (pop. density of Manhattan)
      -------------
             ~4,801.31 mi²
    

The area of Rhode Island is 1,212 mi². Looks like it might be more accurate to
say Connecticut (5,543 mi²)

~~~
wavefunction
I would much prefer to live in a low-tech low-density rural society than live
in a Rhode Island-sized Manhattan.

Probably somewhere in between those extremes is more prudent.

~~~
acjohnson55
But even without agriculture, things like highways can be really disruptive.

------
m_mueller
is this the reason for the dark HN header?

~~~
mac01021
If only.

It's actually some kind of net-neutrality thing, for which you will find a
link embedded in the gray header.

------
dcgudeman
Am I the only one that feels like this article is out of place on hacker news?

------
rrggrr
I'm confused. There are about 40,000 known species of vertebrate. There were
18,000 NEW species of life in general discovered in 2016 alone
([http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-new-
spec...](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-new-spec...)).
It's estimated there are more than 8 million species of plant, animal and
insect life on the earth. Population decline doesn't equal extinction. So how,
pray tell, do we find ourselves in a mass extinction event when less than half
of vertebrate species are in decline, less than 1% of species in general are
in decline, and when we're still discovering new species and adaptations by
existing species every year?

~~~
darod
population decline != extinction but that is the direction that it's going.
There's a huge problem when one population is increasing (i.e. humans) and
everything else is declining. We can't invent a robot for every job that
animals occupy in nature.

~~~
acjohnson55
There are other species thriving as well, largely due to human activity. This
is because of decimation of their predators, elimination of competitors, or
introduction to new environments where they are more fit than indigenous
species. But global biodiversity appears to be in a nosedive.

