
Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here - DamienSF
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june/mass-extinction-ehrlich-061915.html
======
vixen99
The hard data will be more objectively assessed if coming from someone other
than Paul Ehrlich:

In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people
are going to starve to death” and “[our children] will inherit a totally
different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of
the 1960’s are dead.”

~~~
DanBC
He was wrong, but about 21,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger
related causes.

That's 7.6m per year, about 115m in the 21st century.

Nearly one in five children under the age of five dies from diarrhea related
illnesses. And that's easilly and cheaply treated (50 US cents of oral
rehydration salts).

~~~
alphapapa
What does any of that have to do with the fact that he was wrong? That's the
point: he was completely and absurdly wrong. "Chicken Little" doesn't begin to
describe it.

Yes, people suffer from hunger. That's been a problem for all of human
history. Hopefully someday it will be "solved," but that's not likely to
happen as long as some people are evil and want to control other people. If we
can't stop shooting each other and beheading each other and blowing up each
other, what makes us think we can stop each other from starving?

------
mattnewport
This is the same Paul Ehrlich known for his dire, alarmist predictions about
overpopulation in the late 60s that mostly did not come to pass
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Reception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Reception)
. His history doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong in this case but it's worth
being aware of when evaluating his claims.

------
alphapapa
> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss."

Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five
times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly
happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.

> To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per
> capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural
> habitats. The long list of impacts includes: Land clearing for farming,
> logging and settlement

All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the
other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could
live in peace.

Notice:

> a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic
> inequity

Could the anti-human, pro-population control, pro-communism spin be any more
transparent?

I guess they're safe, since they're the intellectuals pulling the strings.
After all, if the "population" of "researchers" were controlled, who would be
around to tell everyone else how to survive? It's everyone else, consuming and
inequitizing, that is causing the problems and needs to be reduced and
reequitized and controlled.

Edit: Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes.
Not big surprise. It's not necessary to promote the right side of the spectrum
to get in trouble, just criticize the left side.

~~~
Udo
_> mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do
with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our
fault._

Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is
tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last
time, so this asteroid could not _possibly_ be dangerous."

 _> All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all
the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species
could live in peace._

It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to
be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human
extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is
gathering data on _how_ we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize
that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've
been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do
so.

 _> Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes_

I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that
your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically
literate is not a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a
foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).

~~~
alphapapa
> I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that
> your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically
> literate is not necessarily a left wing trait (however, I do make this
> assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).

Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but I
don't think it's possible to prove it either way.

How are my statements about extinction objectively wrong?

> Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is
> tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last
> time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous."

No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point. It would be
closer to, "We have no idea whether that asteroid is going to come anywhere
near us, and even if it were, it's highly unlikely we could do anything to
stop it. However, devoting enough resources to mount a significant attempt to
stop it would definitely harm people. So we shouldn't start doing that until
it's much clearer that 1) it's going to hit us, and 2) we could stop it."

> It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important
> to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating
> human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing
> is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can
> minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process,
> but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely
> continue to do so.

I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. At smaller scales,
people are unwilling to admit certain possibilities, because doing so would
harm their careers--they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies,
which is evil. On a larger scale, certain people want to control other people
for their own gain, both in power and fortune. That is also evil.

And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those
in power to preserve and increase their power. CC was promoted as such a
policy vehicle back in the 70s, and it's still being used for it today. Very
little of the "science" is about actual facts--most of it is about politics.

This undermines the search for the truth. But people who don't recognize this
accept the "data" at face value. Then they advocate trying to stop climate
change. But doing that would line the pockets of certain powerful, wealthy
people and corporations. And it would keep certain parties and nations in
positions of weakness. This is why it is ultimately about evil. If all that
was being done was "gathering data," that would be fine.

~~~
Udo
_> Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but
I don't think it's possible to prove it either way._

Personally, I think opinions that match ideologies you're really opposed to
probably leave a bigger impression than the ones you agree with. It's easy to
come to the conclusion that you're in the minority when you're really not. I
believe there are a lot of social conservatives on HN, but the same people are
not necessarily technologically or scientifically conservative. This doesn't
fall cleanly into left and right by US standards, but I think it's a
reasonable model of HN majority predisposition.

 _> No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point._

I thought I was taking it as literally as possible, and after reading the
response I still believe I understood the core intent correctly. When you said
" _But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it 's our fault._", I
got the impression that you're asserting the only reason why we correlate
extinctions with human activity is because we _want_ to blame humans.

However, what's actually going on is more a collection of thousands of
observations about these events, made on a case by case basis. For example,
these are observations about human settlements impacting wildlife. In another
area, they might be data about the results of us restructuring local flora and
fauna. Or they might be analytical results pointing to correlations between
human-induced contamination of water bodies and changes in the biome that
characteristically follow it. It's literally a mass of thousands of data
points.

 _> I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. [...] they are
not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil._

You did originally use the word evil in an entirely different context, which I
was responding to.

 _> And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for
those in power to preserve and increase their power._

A lot of groups are proclaiming that the opposing organizations have money and
power on their side. The environmental protection movement makes the same
assertion, only about letting industry and agriculture go unchecked.

But let's move away from political formulas now. The reality of the fact is
that it actually matters very little whether and how often the Anthropocene is
publicly declared. We're going to continue on the path we're already on. There
will be some continued wide-scale destruction, and a lot of it will not be
happening in western countries. But we'll also ramp up initiatives to try and
lessen our environmental impact, both to preserve biodiversity for its own
sake, but also to improve our own quality of life.

You say that you believe any such efforts will harm people, but to be honest I
find that line of reasoning difficult to follow, especially considering the
fact that we're mortally dependent on the integrity of our biosphere and that
the measures we're putting in place are generally very modest.

None of this will change because some scientists make sensationalistic claims
in the media. The article we're talking about is a total yawner, to be honest.
Most scientific people already know we're witnessing a huge extinction event,
no matter how we actually label it. Talking about that label is the least
interesting thing we can do with the observations we made.

~~~
alphapapa
> Personally, I think opinions that match ideologies you're really opposed to
> probably leave a bigger impression than the ones you agree with. It's easy
> to come to the conclusion that you're in the minority when you're really
> not.

That's a good point.

> I believe there are a lot of social conservatives on HN, but the same people
> are not necessarily technologically or scientifically conservative. This
> doesn't fall cleanly into left and right by US standards, but I think it's a
> reasonable model of HN majority predisposition.

I'm not sure what you mean by socially conservative vs. scientifically and
technologically.

> Well, I thought I was taking it as literally as possible. When you said "But
> now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.", I got
> the impression that you're asserting the only reason why we correlate
> extinctions with human activity is because we want to blame humans.

I think there are some people who definitely do _want_ to blame humans, for
different reasons. At the conspiratorial end of the spectrum, there's
population control purposes (cf. blumkvist's comments about increasing
automation). At the more personal end of the spectrum, there are things like
those whose careers are already invested into declaring that humans are at
fault.

So when you say "we," I think you're glossing over a significant issue, that
of different groups with different motivations.

> However, what's actually going on is more a collection of thousands of
> observations about these events, made on a case by case basis. For example,
> these are observations about human settlements impacting wildlife. In
> another area, they might be data about the results of us restructuring local
> flora and fauna. Or they might be analytical results pointing to
> correlations between human-induced contamination of water bodies and changes
> in the biome that characteristically follow it. It's literally a mass of
> thousands of data points.

Sure, no doubt some of these researchers have compiled massive amounts of
data. But even if you take their historical data at face value, it does not
necessarily follow that these small-scale human impacts on the environment
will cause _mass_ extinctions. The gulf between the two is enormous.

> A lot of groups are proclaiming that the opposing organizations have money
> and power on their side. The environmental protection movement makes the
> same assertion, only about letting industry and agriculture go unchecked.

Certainly, there are huge amounts of money being spent lobbying on both sides
of the issue. It's not as if one side or the other is altruistic. In fact, I
think that's the point that needs to be emphasized, perhaps above all else:
these are less scientific issues than social and political ones. Science is
being used as a vehicle to push certain agendas. It's fine to consider the
science and the potential ramifications, but we absolutely must continue
examining the people and agendas that are pushing certain conclusions. If we
don't, we will have the wool pulled over our eyes, and possibly lead off a
cliff.

> You say that you believe any such efforts will harm people, but to be honest
> I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow, especially considering
> the fact that we're mortally dependent on the integrity of our biosphere and
> that the measures we're putting in place are generally very modest.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should go around killing and
burning and polluting and destroying willy-nilly. I think we should be good
stewards of the planet and all of its resources, both living and non-living.

But I don't think we should put "biodiversity" above human life. The policies
that are often proposed would result in real harm to real people right now.
And the people pushing them either don't value human life, or they value their
own (and their own wealth/power) above everyone else's. And that's dangerous.

------
fsloth
It's unnerving to see statistics clearly pointing out to a mass extinction
event. Because fossil evidence points out that animals larger than a cat have
gone first I get this immediate "oh shit" creepy feeling.

However, humans are quite omnivorous and have a really widely spread
population...

[http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-
exti...](http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-
creatures/mass-extinctions/surviving-mass-extinction/index.html)

------
codecamper
People, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats.

Corn, wheat, rice.

What else do you need?

I've been out driving across Europe for the past year. What strikes you about
Europe is that almost every square meter of it is man controlled. The most
wildlife they have are a few deer and wild boar. Even squirrels are rare.

~~~
jacquesm
Besides bio-diversity being 'nice' it is also a source of stability. The fewer
species there are and the more of those few species we have the more
susceptible those few species are to pathogens that wipe out those species.
Monocultures are a risk.

Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if
you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their
reservoir hosts.

Eco-systems are fragile, any attempt so far to create a stand-alone biosphere
that I know about has failed.

I also miss the oceans in your little table and I think those + all the oxygen
generating plants and trees are really rather important for life on Earth. And
those plants rely on insects for their pollination. And those insects in turn
are kept in check by all the predators on insects which are missing from your
list as well. And so on...

~~~
alphapapa
> Eco-systems are fragile, any attempt so far to create a stand-alone
> biosphere that I know about has failed.

From another perspective, the earth's ecosystems are robust. Life on this
planet has yet to become extinct, despite the universe's "trying" several
times. When one species declines, another takes its place. One ecosystem
declines, another increases.

Isn't this just the Lion King, the Circle of Life and all that?

~~~
jacquesm
Life will continue, that's for sure. Even a nuclear wipe-out will very likely
not erase all traces of life from Earth.

Keep in mind that humans are also just a single species and with global air
travel and enormous numbers we're setting ourselves up for a pandemic. Nature
loves large numbers of well connected individuals in close proximity.

And the way we're using anti-biotics could come back to bite us.

~~~
codecamper
I too am highly disturbed by the loss of ecosystems. I'm just describing the
reality of what the planet is becoming & will probably continue to become.
Very sad, but quite possibly true.

In reality, we could all probably continue to live on a planet that has just
20 or so species left.

Everything else, we'll have to describe to children with stories.

~~~
jacquesm
[http://www.amazon.com/Last-Chance-See-Douglas-
Adams/dp/03453...](http://www.amazon.com/Last-Chance-See-Douglas-
Adams/dp/0345371984)

