Hard to believe, but that's what it says here in The Guardian.
१९ मार्च, २०२३
"The total weight of Earth’s wild land mammals – from elephants to bisons and from deer to tigers – is now less than 10% of the combined tonnage of men, women and children..."
"... living on the planet.
A study by scientists at Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science, published this month, concludes that wild land mammals alive today have a total mass of 22m tonnes. By comparison, humanity now weighs in at a total of around 390m tonnes.
At the same time, the species we have domesticated, such as sheep and cattle, in addition to other hangers-on such as urban rodents, add a further 630m tonnes to the total mass of creatures that are now competing with wild mammals for Earth’s resources. The biomass of pigs alone is nearly double that of all wild land mammals...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
And?
I suspect I'm being manipulated as a given.
If you take out a few metric tons of humanity, the rest will take of itself? Just where are we going with this? For those who feel humanity is the problem, the solution would seem to be obvious, right?
We'd better be careful, we might tip over...
Oh well. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it only changes form. That's been going on for... a few billion years.
I've lost about .10 of a stone since Valentines Day. Doing my part.
A lot of pigs in China, I'm guessing.
So what.
So what.
Hard to believe, because that's what it says here in The Guardian.
FIFY
So?
You weigh less at the equator than at the north pole, so it might be mostly eskimos.
Very hard to believe. I tend to remain skeptical when I see unverifiable le claims that seem to be hiding an agenda. Especially when that agenda has anything to do with climate “science” and/or environment science.
and they say insects have more mass than humans
theyre just getting everybody ready to accept insects as food
well, not everybody
some are more equal than others
So what?
We provide a lot of protein for our apex predator. Who will be landing shortly in his saucer.
Oh. My. God.
Should we discontinue food stamps??
The plural of bison is bison. So I'm skeptical of the rest.
Yeah.....but you failed to weigh all those delicious bugs!!!
The obvious answer is for the Globalists to arrange a famine or two and start a few wars.
I would love to see the methodology, data and underlying assumptions of this "research".
As in social science research, it means absolutely nothing unless it is replicated by other independent researchers looking to disprove any part of the underlying theoretical assumptions.
Trust the scientific method, not "The Science".
Inferential logic, model(s) (i.e. hypothesis), or guesstimate in the vernacular.
The biomass of pigs alone is nearly double that of all wild land mammals....
There's bacon in the fridge right now.
Hell, cutting SPAM would be an extinction event for a lot of my friends.
Hard to believe, but that's what it says here in The Guardian.
And, if you can't believe The Guardian.. Who CAN you believe?
Serious Question though.. How come wild mammals like rats and mice aren't considered wild mammals?
As a general rule, scientific reports published by ecologists are BS, a should be ignored.
No way. There are appx. 23 million deer in the United States at 200 pounds per deer that's 2.3 million tons of deer. Just deer and just in the US. Their numbers are flawed.
Bacon is King.
The graphic presentation of these numbers is pretty impressive. Makes the point much better than just stating the numbers:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120#fig04
wild land mammals alive today have a total mass of 22m tonnes.
22 thousand tons sounds pretty low to me. Esp if they are Eurotonnes
John Henry
Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
At least we seem to be getting that right.
"By comparison, humanity now weighs in at a total of around 390m tonnes."
You have been to the malls or just walked down the street, right"
The authors don't seem to suggest the ideal weight sum for any particular species, other than I suppose suggesting that Homo sapiens weighs too much, in aggregate.
I've always read that ants weigh more than any other species. Why the focus on land mammals?
It's hard to believe because there is no way that they could know that. It's really easy to throw unverifiable "facts" out there when they know that there is no way to verify those "facts." It reminds me of that old thing about angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Don’t tell Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA).
He may express his concern that the planet will capsize.
Who had the job of weighing all these animals?
And, did they take into account the Wal-mart species?
Ok. So?
Anybody who has a problem with this is free to remove themselves from the equation, aren't they? Some species is always going to be at the top based on this measurement, even if every person on the planet disappeared tomorrow.
If it's hard to believe then it's not believable.
Humans can be incredibly efficient.
Insects outweigh Humans by a factor of 17. Even mollusks outweigh us by about 3 fold.
I've been working on dropping a few pounds if that helps.
Very believable on the human side. Assume average human weight is 72 kg [160 lb]. That's 14 humans per tonne [1000 kg]. At 7.8 billion people, that's about 560 million tonnes. Not worth quibbling over details at that level.
What we don't know is the historical mass of wild animals, especially non-ruminants, which may not have changed very much at all, especially for many creatures like, say, bears.
It's a comparison fraught with data gaps and potential errors.
I’m shocked, shocked.
Nowhere near the biomass of bacteria, though.
Climate change will kill off much of humanity soon, so the problem will resolve itself.
Did this study classify the cohosts of The View as humans or as mammals?
Now do trees. If it's true that our harvesting of animals has resulted in a large increase in the mass of livestock, it's likely (as has been suggested) that our harvesting of trees for wood and fruit has massively increased the number of trees. But perhaps that doesn't fit their agenda.
So about 140,000 Olympic size swimming pools?
Love the content keep it up.
I identify as a wild animal.
Like others upthread I suspect this is related to wild claims that the earth is overpopulated with humans. Many of the sort of people who show up regularly at Davos are pushing the idea that the ideal human population is around 500 million. For those of you who are math-challenged, that means roughly 93.6% of the world’s population would need to die without replacement.
I question whether any of the sort of people who show up regularly at Davos anticipate being in that 93.6%.
"Hard to believe, but that's what it says here in The Guardian."
Hard to believe, because that's what it says in The Guardian.
Navin Johnson : For one dollar, I'll guess your biomass, your height or your sex! The most exciting game on the midway! Imagine the thrill of getting your biomass guessed by a professional! You can blow up your cheeks, you can stick out your trunk, but you're not going to fool the guesser.
This is like those TV legal shows.
"Judge, is there a question here?"
All the article is meaningless.
So.. Serious Questions:
Has the total mass, of "wild mammals" increased, or decreased?
What about if you ACTUALLY Count wild mammals (that is, include mice and rats, ferral cats and dogs)?
What’s the collective mass of leftie blowhards? It’s probably roughly equivalent to that of the cockroaches.
- Krumhorn
What matters is species extinction—who’s on the list, how they’re doing. Are animal populations tending to get stronger or weaker.
The rest is nonsense. Red meat for the doomsday crowd, as the kids say.
loudogblog said...It's hard to believe because there is no way that they could know that.
You don't need to count every animal; there's no need to know exact figures. There are perfectly valid and tested techniques to come up with a "close enough" estimate.
The original research paper includes one of my scientific pet peeves: there is a lot of estimating and modeling and assuming and inferring, and then the authors state that they "found" certain results. Sorry, but they didn't find anything. They estimated something based on certain assumptions.
Their numbers may or may not be within shouting distance of reality. I'm willing to accept that their estimate is not unreasonable. Like other commenters, however, I have no idea what sort of numbers would be "good" for the ecosystem. I doubt the authors do, either, but it gives Guardian readers a golden opportunity to wring their hands and show their concern about our impact on poor Gaia.
Success!
"land mammals"
Whales are heavy.
James K @2:10
Lumbering companies plant something like 50 times more trees than they harvest.(survival rate calculation) trees are a renewable resource. Like Corn. There are more trees today than in 1650.
"We provide a lot of protein for our apex predator. Who will be landing shortly in his saucer."
Nope.
We are our apex predator.
"Climate change will kill off much of humanity soon, so the problem will resolve itself."
Maybe not soon enough!
"'Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'
"At least we seem to be getting that right."
Except for the "replenish the earth" bit. Also, there's been a great misunderstanding of the reference to "the fowl of the air," and took it to mean "foul the air."
Fat-shaming is not cool at all, Grauniad, not cool.
It's a crisis situation. If the human population continues to increase and said population continues becoming obese, the earth itself will gain weight. This increased mass will alter the gravitational pull on the moon and cause it to collide with the earth. Greta Thunberg has claimed that unless everyone on earth loses ten pounds in the the next year we will all be doomed, but Al Gore disputes her figures, so I don't know.
How much do all the bugs weigh?
Has there been a measurable change since Bill Gates started eatin' em?
If you look at this from just the right angle and just the right perspective and ignore a few troublesome facts it looks like an ecological disaster. It's like the spring flood pictures which are always taken at just the right spot and from just the right angle to maximize the false appearance of a disaster.
They conveniently ignore formerly wild but now domesticated species like cows, horses and pigs (to name just a few). I'll grant them that there are very few wild horses these days. But so what?
It's Great Lent so I'm not eating meat, and thinking about all those lovely farm animals is making me hungry! Not the rats though - Lent is hard, but you never get to the point of craving rat.
What stupid meaningless metric will they report on next? Seems like this is a distraction from the actual groundbreaking science study that showed windmills cause local drying and ground warming far in excess of any atmospheric warming ever detected by climate scientists. So in addition to being environmental hazards and extremely inefficient producers of energy windmills cause more harm than they can possibly mitigate. Way to go environmentalists!
Were we better off when the mass of dinosaurs outweighed us? Don't fucking think so, Skippy! This and other useless facts are in my new book Liberal Guilt Weighs More than the Sun and Moon Together, available from WhoGivesAFuck publishing.
Pictures of the scale or it didn't happen.
"...creatures that are now competing with wild mammals for Earth’s resources."
Uh... no. No, they're not.
So? Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Earth still weighs the same.
If they are so concerned... they can always go to Oregon and off themselves.
I don't normally try to "preach" in comments. However this is an issue about which I care deeply, having a fairly well developed theology of creation. I will refrain from offering a mini-sermon grounded in Genesis 1 and 2, although I would summarize the creational commands as "manage the world with God and for God". The first humans are presented as ecologists, gardeners, who protect and serve the world as well as continue creation.
Two years ago I read a ton of books about Greenland. One was A Wilder Time: Notes from a Geologist at the Edge of the Greenland Ice by William E. Glassley. It's a strange book by a geologist that often reads more like mysticism than science. Glassley has much to say about what happens when humanity increasingly loses awareness and experience of wilderness. We might extrapolate and consider what happens if increasingly we lose wild animals.
Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-human (as some strains of environmentalism can be) and have no problem (for the most part) with domesticated animals. But what the Guardian describes is creation wildly out of balance. We can build and develop and frankly exploit too much, we can domesticate too much, and we lose something and are in danger of losing it permanently.
Several years back when the Society of Biblical Literature met in nearby New Orleans I attended a fascinating section on the book of Job with some papers offering new interpretations of God's overwhelming speeches in chapters 38-42. If I may try to summarize some of their main points:
God presents Job with a magnificent vision of creation – framed and interspersed with those three questions – that strangely enough does not mention human beings. Or rather it does because God is speaking to a human being. The universe – or at least the foundation of the earth. Followed by the natural order – focusing entirely on “wild” and undomesticated nature and animals (with the possible exception of Job 38:36 and the שֶּׂ֣כְוִי sekwi(y) which might mean “rooster”). Job wants to question how God runs the universe? God invites Job to consider a vast and mysterious universe full of creatures (and here I include galaxies, stars, and planets which are indeed creatures) so many of whom are outside everyday human experience. God hunts with lions and gives wisdom to birds. In a way God says "Job you and all human beings are part of something infinitely larger and more complex than what you can understand". (end quote)
Humanity are part of something much larger, most of which it outside what is developed and domesticated. By losing what is wild we risk losing our identity and our creaturely vocation.
I don't normally try to "preach" in comments. However this is an issue about which I care deeply, having a fairly well developed theology of creation. I will refrain from offering a mini-sermon grounded in Genesis 1 and 2, although I would summarize the creational commands as "manage the world with God and for God". The first humans are presented as ecologists, gardeners, who protect and serve the world as well as continue creation.
Two years ago I read a ton of books about Greenland. One was A Wilder Time: Notes from a Geologist at the Edge of the Greenland Ice by William E. Glassley. It's a strange book by a geologist that often reads more like mysticism than science. Glassley has much to say about what happens when humanity increasingly loses awareness and experience of wilderness. We might extrapolate and consider what happens if increasingly we lose wild animals.
Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-human (as some strains of environmentalism can be) and have no problem (for the most part) with domesticated animals. But what the Guardian describes is creation wildly out of balance. We can build and develop and frankly exploit too much, we can domesticate too much, and we lose something and are in danger of losing it permanently.
When the Society of Biblical Literature met in New Orleans (about 75 minutes away) I attended a fascinating section on the book of Job. Some of the papers offered new interpretations of God's overwhelming speeches in chapters 38-42. Some of their insights have made their way into sermons and theological reflections. May others forgive me for quoting myself:
God presents Job with a magnificent vision of creation – framed and interspersed with those three questions – that strangely enough does not mention human beings. Or rather it does because God is speaking to a human being. The universe – or at least the foundation of the earth. Followed by the natural order – focusing entirely on “wild” and undomesticated nature and animals (with the possible exception of Job 38:36 and the שֶּׂ֣כְוִי sekwi(y) which might mean “rooster”). Job wants to question how God runs the universe? God invites Job to consider a vast and mysterious universe full of creatures (and here I include galaxies, stars, and planets which are indeed creatures) so many of whom are outside everyday human experience. God hunts with lions and gives wisdom to birds. In a way God says “Job you and all human beings are part of something infinitely larger and more complex than what you can understand". (end quote)
Humanity are part of something much larger, most of which it outside what is developed and domesticated. By losing what is wild we risk losing our identity and our creaturely vocation.
I don't normally try to "preach" in comments. However this is an issue about which I care deeply, having a fairly well developed theology of creation. I will refrain from offering a mini-sermon grounded in Genesis 1 and 2, although I would summarize the creational commands as "manage the world with God and for God". The first humans are presented as ecologists, gardeners, who protect and serve the world as well as continue creation.
Two years ago I read a ton of books about Greenland. One was A Wilder Time: Notes from a Geologist at the Edge of the Greenland Ice by William E. Glassley. It's a strange book by a geologist that often reads more like mysticism than science. Glassley has much to say about what happens when humanity increasingly loses awareness and experience of wilderness. We might extrapolate and consider what happens if increasingly we lose wild animals.
Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-human (as some strains of environmentalism can be) and have no problem (for the most part) with domesticated animals. But what the Guardian describes is creation wildly out of balance. We can build and develop and frankly exploit too much, we can domesticate too much, and we lose something and are in danger of losing it permanently.
When the Society of Biblical Literature met in New Orleans (about 75 minutes away) I attended a fascinating section on the book of Job. Some of the papers offered new interpretations of God's overwhelming speeches in chapters 38-42. I will try to summarize some of their major points:
God presents Job with a magnificent vision of creation – framed and interspersed with those three questions – that strangely enough does not mention human beings. Or rather it does because God is speaking to a human being. The universe – or at least the foundation of the earth. Followed by the natural order – focusing entirely on “wild” and undomesticated nature and animals (with the possible exception of Job 38:36 and the שֶּׂ֣כְוִי sekwi(y) which might mean “rooster”). Job wants to question how God runs the universe? God invites Job to consider a vast and mysterious universe full of creatures (and here I include galaxies, stars, and planets which are indeed creatures) so many of whom are outside everyday human experience. God hunts with lions and gives wisdom to birds. In a way God says “Job you and all human beings are part of something infinitely larger and more complex than what you can understand". (end quote)
Humanity are part of something much larger, most of which it outside what is developed and domesticated. By losing what is wild we risk losing our identity and our creaturely vocation.
Lot of qualifiers there - what's the saying "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Wild - Wild animals naturally require more space than domesticated, predators especially, what was their biomass 200 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago - maybe the big reduction occurred before we were civilized. But it has been replaced by domesticated mammals.
Mammals - Now do the biomass differences in birds, reptiles and amphibians, fish, shellfish - maybe even less decrease since primitive man didn't run them off cliffs in mass.
Land - And forget 70% of the earth's surface and all those whales, dolphins, seals, elephant seals. Again, historical biomass differences are more interesting than a throw away statistic.
A useless and meant to be inflammatory statistic. It tells you nothing but allows the usual suspects to have the vapors.
so what?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा