>Rather than seeking a prime driver (e.g., climate change, human hunting, disease, or other causes) for Pleistocene extinctions, we focus on the process of human geographic expansion and accelerating technological developments over the last 50,000 years, changes that initiated an essentially continuous cascade of ecological changes and transformations of regional floral and faunal communities. Human hunting, population growth, economic intensification, domestication and translocation of plants and animals, and landscape burning and deforestation, all contributed to a growing human domination of earth's continental and oceanic ecosystems. We explore the deep history of anthropogenic extinctions, trace the accelerating loss of biodiversity around the globe, and argue that Late Pleistocene and Holocene extinctions can be seen as part of a single complex continuum increasingly driven by anthropogenic factors that continue today.
>The concept of the ecological footprint is well known amongst ecological economists. It represents the human impact on the Earth in a clear manner. As its originators note, the ecological footprint calculations have reinforced the view that if everyone enjoyed a North American standard of living then globally this would require three earths — although finding two other planets would be difficult Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Simply stated, we are living beyond our biophysical means. The ecological footprint is one attempt at developing a biophysically-based ecological economics, which approximates reality better than many economic expansionist models. This paper examines the ecological footprint as one contribution to the overall goal of making human development sustainable for current and future generations living in harmony with the rest of the biosphere.
How would you approach this issue morally?
Animols can suck a dick.
Only humans, only хapдкop
Mass sterilization, as long as I'm not included.
How much would you pay to support an NGO sterilization program for Africa/South America/Asia/continent you hate most?
>>1094575
>moral
yeah you have no moral only self perseverance ego instincts, anyway obviously we should find better ways to administrate our resources, preferably globally, abolish countries and use technology to maximize efficiency and do all that with the full understanding that the earth is the environment we depend on to exist and we must treat it with utmost respect and not destroy it for personal gain, basically what humanity's doing right now, oh wait I forgot they're doing just the opposite.. what a shame.
If animals are so sad about climate change why don't they do something about it??
>>1094702
They are.
>The distributions of many terrestrial organisms are currently shifting in latitude or elevation in response to changing climate. Using a meta-analysis, we estimated that the distributions of species have recently shifted to higher elevations at a median rate of 11.0 meters per decade, and to higher latitudes at a median rate of 16.9 kilometers per decade. These rates are approximately two and three times faster than previously reported. The distances moved by species are greatest in studies showing the highest levels of warming, with average latitudinal shifts being generally sufficient to track temperature changes. However, individual species vary greatly in their rates of change, suggesting that the range shift of each species depends on multiple internal species traits and external drivers of change. Rapid average shifts derive from a wide diversity of responses by individual species.
>>1094713
>running away from the problem
Not very productive mate
>>1094802
it's not like they can just start to kill all the humans
>Climate change
>How would you approach this issue morally?
State axiomatic principles, identify significant factors, extrapolate likely outcomes, decide upon desired goals, develop policy statements to achieve those goals.
>>1094702
They are dying, so that's something.
>>1094556
>>morals
It's not about morals, pal. In fact if advanced civilization is to survive the next century we are going to have to treat the poor miserable masses of the third world like utter garbage.
>>1095146
>Implying the last ice age hasn't ended
>>1094713
>metadata
Please
>16.9 kilometers per decade
wew, that's accurate! Sure it wasn't 16.8? So accurate they couldn't round up to an even 17?
>two and three times faster
What is it, 2 or 3?
Fuck this climate change meme. The rest of that post is word salad.
>>1098265
It's phenology, no one implied anthropocentric climate change (it's overly hyped compared to other issues), you do understand that the climate is not static right?
I'd assume the two or three, is because it's compared to previous studies observing different rates in different regions.
>>1098265
And it didn't say metadata, but meta-analysis, which in ecology is an analysis of previous work and current work, specifically the changes observed over a temporal period.
>>1098212
which could be a perfectly valid reason for the changes we see, your point is?
>>1098441
The drivers of change are less important than the impacts of the change.
>>1094556
>How would you approach this issue morally?
It's really not that difficult. They pick Americans as an example because they waste everything.
>In the USA, 30-40% of the food supply is wasted, equaling more than 20 pounds of food per person per month
- Irrational hate of public transportation and everybody driving alone in a big ass car
- Wealthy Americans buying all kinds of shit they don't need because they don't have where to spend their money
- A lot of anecdotal examples like growing lawns in the desert
>>1100817
The point being that you can actually achieve the same "standard of living" without wasting nearly as much resources. They should use someplace like Sweden for a "high living standard" comparisons.
