Home | About | Donate

Humans an Invasive Species Heading for a 'Crash,' Study Says


#1


#2

Everyone, please read and watch the video's produced by Dr. Guy McPherson at Nature Bats Last. The 6th Extinction is here and it is now. We humans are on the list, we loose 200 species a day. Please become educated and aware of what is really happening and why. Please. Thank you.

Just an edit, instead of going to the bottom of the page and 57 + replies, cheating :slight_smile: it does not matter what lifestyle or money system or breeding system we have when there is no habitat...with sea level rise's we'll have nuke joints go thermal plus the added benefit of floating radioactive human waste...not only are we running out of habitat we are also running out of water Rapidly...we have 8 to 18 years folk's, hopefully we can live in Grace or at least try


#6

It also corresponds to the "Green Revolution" that leveraged artificially-produced nitrogen fertilizers to explode the apparent amount of food available.


#9

And led to human species overshoot. Your own form of denial is obvious.


#10

Climate change, the ocean is full of plastic, all of our proxy wars
(Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, who knows where else) one trillion
spent on nuclear weapons by the United States and one American general
already saying the smaller ones are usable in battle, Pakistani nuclear
missiles pointed at India controlled by commanders with Indian attack
Pakistan policy in case of a terrorism attack in India, the United
States and NATO breaking agreements with the Russia and moving more
troops toward Russia's boarder while supporting a fascist regime in the
Ukraine, China disputing territory with Japan and the Philippians, the
United States moving more troupes and ships to Asia, and Japan declaring
it can militarize again, the possible collapse of the dollar and lastly
most of the worlds leaders are sociopaths. How long do you think this
world has?


#11

About fifty years past its "pull date" at this point.


#12

And the sociopaths on the right want to eliminate abortion, celebrate selfish people who have large families, and make birth control very difficult to obtain.


#14

Zero population growth (ZPG) was widely discussed in the press and in college classes I attended during the 60s and 70s. By 1980 anybody discussing ZPG was viewed as a heretic.


#15

The article quotes "...its unclear as to whether we can invent a way out of planetary carrying capacities"

Aside from the fact they used the unpardonable* sin of Siouxrose - the WE word...

It is an open ended race with no finish line at issue but clearly they suggest an overpopulated planet but one stille somewhat similar to what we have now with slight modifications. That is an error. The sixth extinction may be virtually total in an open ended ending.

In any case, we have already invented ways out of our planetary carrying capacities! What is perfectly unclear is whether we would ever implement them or implement any newly invented ones. We could easily feed the planet but we cant do that and create profits for the food producers and the transportation and distribution of food networks etc. if the goal were simply to produce enough food to feed everyone we could do it easily but will we? Oops that word again...forgive me oh dominatrix of the red marking pencil!!! But would we implement these new inventions? Whether we can invent a way of doing things that also generates enough profits to get them to be implemented is unclear.

That said...

The article and others of a similar nature assume a world of nature in which we (Oops oh darn that we that we may never say)!...live but that is the world as it is en passant. The anthropocene ahead is single species dominant and a world that is of that invasive species, created by that invasive species for that invasive species, at least primarily. Ahead of us ( hey is 'us' allowed? I bet it isn't! Oh my, Am I developing that pseudofreudian red marking pencil envy?)... Ahead of us is a world of our own making, by our own efforts that leaves only enough room for us almost exclusively. Want fries with that vat grown beef burger?

Lions, Tigers and Bears - Oh my!

No room for them no more.

Pigeons, Rats and Roaches - Oh my!

Only the most invasive will survive!


#17

Apparently you don't actually know the definition of an invasive species. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration defines it as an organism that causes ecological or economic harm in a new environment where it is not native. The National Wildlife Federation says can be any kind of living organism...that is not native to an ecosystem and which causes harm. And the National Geographic Society is even more explicit: An invasive species is an organism that is not indigenous, or native, to a particular area. Invasive species can cause great economic and environmental harm to the new area...To be invasive, a species must adapt to the new area easily. It must reproduce quickly. It must harm property, the economy, or the native plants and animals of the region.

Tracing the history of human development and evolution, human beings clearly fall within the purview of these definitions. The problem is not sociopoltical in origin. However, social and political factors are most responsible for exacerbating the problem.


#18

Vat grown beef is actually being sold in stores in Britain right now. The problem with soylent green is prions. Mad Cow Disease makes that a no go! Algae wafers are already being sold too in health food sections in supermarkets. If they had any spirit or a sense of marketing they'd license the rights to call it soylent green...lol.


#19

Elizabeth Hadly of Stanford University must be a young person in this world of Capacity Model for human population on this earth. The 1970's developed the earliest models. Models fail consistently. Maybe Elizabeth and others should consider the awesome responsibility to becoming part of the creative interdisciplinary class of 2016. If we intellectually wish to be the global leader an alternative design to the problem might be judicious. Consider how poorly we have created villages, towns, and cities and transferred the consequences worldwide. Filled with analytical critiques with an RAH RAH RAH following, it is devasting to observe no collaboration amongst the narrow disciplines each preaching their monologues. Surely goodness and mercy where are the prognosis? Where would you research for a synthesis? Get together and solve the problem as we are fast destroying the Earth, our only home.


#20

Scott Morton and M.P. Sharma dealt with sustainable human carrying capacity in a paper they published in 2009: Thermodynamic Considerations in Carrying Capacity. Their approach was straight forward. Treating humans as heat engines, they calculated possible ranges in carrying capacity for 2 life styles: one without the use of fossil fuels and one with a 2009 American lifestyle. For the non-fossil fuel lifestyle carrying capacity would be up to 3.8 billion. For the fossil fuel lifestyle it is less than 1 billion. They concluded their paper by stating that their calculations were preliminary and could be further refined. I haven't seen where anyone has done that. I guess it's taboo. We can beat around the bush with archeological studies that allow wiggle room and not do not hold current population responsible.


#21

For anyone who does not believe the world is vastly overpopulated, I suggest an overland trip by local transport across Africa or the Middle East. If you can't get away for 6 months, then try flying into South Sudan, Ruanda, Pakistan, or Bangla Desh.


#22

As Whitehead once observed, "All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Pogo." No doubt he was referring to this epigram: "We have met the enemy and he is us."


#23

Anthropocene is not a scientific term, either. Also, of note, you'll never hear a scientist talk about "capitalist agriculture," which is obviously a biased, political term. The article clearly discusses how becoming a sedentary species and the technological advances that came along with it led to humans becoming an invasive species some 5,000 years ago. What does the atmosphere and the "hockey stick" have to do with humans being an invasive species??? Humans have been decimating species for centuries.


#24

Hey check out this new company Soylent (no seriously!). It's a drink, not wafers, but keep your eye on them as they diversify their product line...


#25

I frequent NBL at least once or twice a week. Only site I've seen where a compassionate, clear-headed, Human-oriented conversation on this topic actually occurs.


#26

Here is the FUTURE for those who want to know. We will barely survive for next 300 years. By 200 years, Florida will be under the sea, so would a lot of sea side cities. Then we will wake up and redo our Governance from a BAD one to a GOOD one and by 300 years, we will have real space ships to start two other planets to go to...

At least that is what is in my dreams...Whether it happens, I do not know. It is basically end of Kali Yuga for those who want to know..


#27

300 years? As an NTHE believer, it's possible that our destruction of our environment through the release of ancient entrapped hydrocarbons to generate power has reduced that greatly. Add in the many feedback loops, and it could all be over with by 2030. Not very much time to get your affairs in order and make peace with whichever god (Mammon?) you hold dear.

The carbon dioxide causing our current temperature rises was released in the 1970s. Since then, we as a species have increased the amount of carbon release every year from then to the present. The end has already been written, most people just don't realize it yet.