- cross-posted to:
- digitalbioacoustics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- digitalbioacoustics@lemmy.world
Loss of intensity and diversity of noises in ecosystems reflects an alarming decline in healthy biodiversity, say sound ecologists
Sounds of the natural world are rapidly falling silent and will become “acoustic fossils” without urgent action to halt environmental destruction, international experts have warned.
As technology develops, sound has become an increasingly important way of measuring the health and biodiversity of ecosystems: our forests, soils and oceans all produce their own acoustic signatures. Scientists who use ecoacoustics to measure habitats and species say that quiet is falling across thousands of habitats, as the planet witnesses extraordinary losses in the density and variety of species. Disappearing or losing volume along with them are many familiar sounds: the morning calls of birds, rustle of mammals through undergrowth and summer hum of insects.
Today, tuning into some ecosystems reveals a “deathly silence”, said Prof Steve Simpson from the University of Bristol. “It is that race against time – we’ve only just discovered that they make such sounds, and yet we hear the sound disappearing.”
“The changes are profound. And they are happening everywhere,” said US soundscape recordist Bernie Krause, who has taken more than 5,000 hours of recordings from seven continents over the past 55 years. He estimates that 70% of his archive is from habitats that no longer exist.
If I try to make the argument that the earth is overpopulated i’ll quickly get downvoted to oblivion in the typical thread.
There’s too many humans. The only hope of life surviving long term is the fall of humankind. The writing is on the wall in terms of heading towards an extinction event anyway so it’s not like we’ll need to do anything for it to happen.
We can probably manage at our population level with better habits. Most of this loss is linked to pesticide use and our impact on the climate imo.
Our population levels amplify this but it would be fine if we weren’t spitting out poison.
With 8 billion humans it’s too hard to centralize control or do anything to realistically get people to follow the rules. Things being technically possible is one thing, but human nature means it’ll never actually happen. Humans are awful.
We’re so obsessed with rules that nobody actually follows and covering up how things actually work. Whistleblowers have their lives ruined and these giant multibillion dollar conglomerates get a slap on the wrist. This is the world we live in and the systems we push for actively dissuade it from getting better.
All we have to do is get off oil and find a better solution than pesticides. 8 billion humans aren’t individually fracking their backyard.
I think the problems go much, much deeper than oil and fracking. American QOL is not sustainable for 8 billion people, and it only exists for a couple hundred million really anyway.
I’m all for making big sweeping changes but I am not one of the rich stakeholders who control how things work in this world.
Space stations. Space is full of space, so much so its named after the stuff. We need to get off planet
Getting people into space is very resource intensive though. I’d rather go towards ultra dense cities or even underground ones if it’s feasible.
It is, but once we’re set up, its getting back onto Planets that will be resource intensive and not the other way around. Ultra Dense cities would be a good temporary solution until we can set up a stable society in space, but we’ll never escape having a population cap or having to think of the nock on effects of any new piece of technology or infrastructure project until we’re off this planet
Oh life will survive on this planet no matter what we do until the sun runs out of fuel. It’s just us and a lot of stuff that might go with us that science gets concerned about.
It’s basically impossible to wipe the earth of every last living species even if we nuke the surface of the earth and cause a nuclear winter some species would survive.
deleted by creator
It’s so weird how any time you suggest it, a bunch of people show up and accuse you of being a Eugenicist, and how the earth can support 28bbillion humans or whatever.
Edit: although you kind of lost me with your second paragraph there.
My second paragraph is basically: I have no faith in humanity coming out of all of it. I don’t think humanity as a whole has any chance of changing course because of how humans just are.
Maybe we’ll have runaway greenhouse gas causing catastrophic climate change. Maybe we’ll blow everybody up in what some might call world war 3. Maybe we’ll just have more and more humans be born until Earth can’t support practically any non-human, non-livestock life. Maybe we’ll have a biological outbreak that actually causes extremely high mortality rates. Maybe we’ll have a CME hit and wipe out all electronics on the majority of the developed world. There’s so many things that are more likely to happen than the majority of humanity changing course.
We can’t even stop two pointless wars or fix American politics. There’s no way humans can solve a global problem that requires believing in science and putting business owners second.
Don’t look up.
so what‘s your point?
Too many humans
and also that we should accept fate. So that‘s strange. You don’t want something to be done against our demise? I mean, I can at least provide you with some relief, cause the number of humans will decrease soon, and that is without catastrophe.
Famine?
No.
Heat stroke?
Edit : My wild speculation was wrong, not unexpected and happily welcomed. Post left unedited below.
Let me preface this by saying I’m wildly speculating to try to find underlying reason to their statement. But I’ve made the mistake before of applying logic to try to figure out an illogical being, it usually leads nowhere. That said, here we go.
I always suspect that the “too many humans” take is the closest opinion someone can express without coming out as a supporter of genocide. In my opinion, and since they won’t elaborate, they are attempting to be edgy.
Thus why they never elaborate, they’re just trying to guide us to the “logical solution” of genocide? It does seem dumb but the internet is full of enough stupid racists for this not to be unexpected.
In regards to a solution, populations drop voluntarily when a certain standard of living is reached. I doubt the people expressing this would advocate taking care of the poor to speed up the process of natural population decline.
Wild speculation concluded.
Birth control, education and empowerment of women, and secularization. Not genocide. We either do that or we continue on thoughtlessly growing our population until we exceed what the earth can support at our given technological level. Then people will starve, thus decreasing the population with maximum suffering.
Malthusian.
Thankfully the population is increasing at a decreasing rate, and mostly because we are living longer, the fertility rate has already dropped, we just won’t see the benefits (probably benefit) of decreasing population for awhile. Kids as a % of the overall world population has been declining since the 1960s. Steeply. That will play out.
TIL Malthusian.
I’m not looking forward to seeing this play out, I’ve been fortunately and selfishly insulated from most global trauma, but I’m not sure the insulation will hold for this one.
I urge change to the people I know, but they’re mostly convinced the world has reached steady state. Foolish in my view. Appreciate the PoV.
I think there are too many humans.
I advocate taking care of the poor, globally, to speed up the process of natural population decline.
I even have a (general) plan. Promote sexual education, make contraceptives free and easily available, eat the rich. The global side is harder; it’s not like dropping a bunch of condoms on India and China will do anything. But it all starts with education and the elimination of the owner class.
I’m very glad to be wrong, thank you for your clarification. Sometimes I can be a bit too much of a doomer, a fault of mine.
Fuck genocide. I’m not saying I have a solution, i’m just stating the problem.
As a species we are not willing to change the status quo because we’re all too inherently selfish unless it benefits us. The people who have the power to change things all have way too much to lose by taking away from anyone with money power and influence, so it won’t change.
Worldwide net humans will continue to increase until some kind of collapse comes. Human nature will not allow for any substantial change to happen. Maybe at some point some maniac(s) will go the genocide route but it still won’t change the inherent problem: human beings when considered as a whole are inherently selfish when it counts. Genocide is just another example of that selfishness.
I don’t see a selfish solution to the problem though maybe some rich assholes will start a colony on another planet before it ends and they can do it all over again.
I DARE you to TRY to extinguish life on Earth. Are you kidding me? You arrogant sock puppet. You think this power lies in your pathetic hands, o human? You think yourself so powerful?
You may kill yourself, you may create a whole new ecology, but LIFE WILL SURVIVE. If we lose our magnetosphere, THAT would do it. But you? Pish. Earth cares not a bit about you. Something will rise up and take your place. Although there will probably be crabs again, someday.
Life, uh, finds a way.
To my knowledge we not heading towards an extinction event, were IN ONE. But more seriously, we just need to get off this planet. So many of our incompatibilities with nature wouldnt be a problem if Earth was turned into a nature reserve and we just lived on space stations and harvested our resources off asteroids