Top
Best
New

Posted by pseudolus 11 hours ago

Nature's capacity to 'bounce back' when species are lost is overestimated: study(phys.org)
291 points | 147 commentspage 2
meander_water 8 hours ago|
For anyone curious about what can be done about this, see the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted during COP15 by 188 countries - https://www.cbd.int/gbf

Push your leaders to stay the course

contingencies 3 hours ago|
TARGET 2: Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity.

Uhh, yeah, I think that one was certainly known to be a non-starter when drafted in 2022. Most of the targets are vague and subject to interpretation. Some of them are loaded with overly effusive language. Not an agreement, it seems, that will garner much in the way of political support. It was clearly designed as idealism rather than policy.

tkdb 8 hours ago||
I'm reminded of Ian Malcom's monologue in Jurassic Park (the book).

Paraphrased: "Nature will be fine, it's humanity we should be worried about."

Bounce back can take millions of years.

esarbe 7 hours ago|
I think that's be best argument one can make for environmental protections. Forget the warm-and-fuzzy-koombaya altruistic argument and appeals on mother nature or whatever.

In the end this is about protecting and preserving our own ecosystem without which we will perish.

OroPla 8 hours ago||
The "natural" state of the universe is having no life at all. And once our sun implodes this region of the universe will cease to be an exception.

Instead of trying to perform a balancing act with nature we should just continue to shape things into things that are more convenient to us. Like redirecting water into a desert.

rwyinuse 1 hour ago||
It would be highly convenient for us to stop pumping so much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, to keep climate stable for food production. But we're incapable of even that, even though technology to get rid of most fossil fuel use exists.

When this is the status quo, I'm not very hopeful of humankind's general capability to control the nature in ways that ultimately benefit us.

jna_sh 8 hours ago|||
The article clearly spells out why this wouldn’t be in our favour: functional ecosystems provide services to humanity that we need, and those ecosystems need biodiversity to effectively provide those services. The idea that destroying these systems is “more convenient to us” is very flawed
corps_and_code 8 hours ago|||
There must be myriad unintended consequences that would come with dumping a whole bunch of water into a desert though? It feels like there's an awful lot of hubris in thinking we could accurately predict all the changes that would cause and know it would have a net positive outcome.
OroPla 2 hours ago|||
If there are, we should have figured them out by now, since that is the story of California during the 1840s. People redirected a bunch of water to turn the desert into a treasure. Kinda literally, since shortly after they found gold, which destroyed all the positive economic change that was brought.

Or take the Netherlands, that used to be a lot of water and now it is a lot of flat land.

dylan604 8 hours ago|||
If the Sahara wasn't dry, what would be the knock on effects of losing the dust from it that lands in South America?
corps_and_code 6 hours ago||
The dust, sand, and soil from the Sahara that lands in South American is an enormous source of nutrients and fertilizer for the Amazon rainforest. It would certainly cause vast changes in how that whole ecosystem operates and the impact it makes in other parts of the world.

The knock on effects of those changes to one of the most important and diverse ecosystems on the planet cannot possibly be completely predicted beforehand.

barbazoo 8 hours ago|||
The behavior you're describing has already brought us close to the planetary boundaries of our own existence in the last century or two. Plenty of second order effects to our actions.
arbitrary_name 6 hours ago|||
i think this is a dumb take that does not withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.
esarbe 8 hours ago||
That's conjecture.

For all we know the universe could be teeming with life, in whatever shape or form. And since we see the first signs of life about 500 million years after the plant was formed, there's a good argument to be made that life doesn't need much more than a stable energy gradient and some basic building blocks to get started.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 7 hours ago||
Agreed. There are just too many unknowns. Certainly about how life started here(if indeed it did start here). But even more so about what's out there. There's so much we don't know even about the planets and moons in our own solar system, let alone other star systems. It's only recently we've become able to detect exoplanets in significant quantities at all, and we've still only scratched the surface really. And what we know about those planets is very limited. For most of them we don't know much except their distance to the star and estimated size. For a handful we have some information about their atmospheres, usually only enough to narrow it down to a couple of equally plausible models. It's hard for me to imagine us being able to conclusively detect life on an exoplanet. I think the best we'll be able to do in the next several decades is say we're pretty sure a planet's atmosphere contains chemical compounds for which there's no known abiotic origin. But there will be so much uncertainty there in terms of possible unknown abiotic origins that it would never feel conclusive.
gausswho 7 hours ago||
Maybe someone here can help me come up with a plan where I do my (futile?) part to mitigate this, if only temporarily.

Nearby me is a cloud forest in central America. The last time we had a strong El Nino, substantial amounts of endemic amphibians that live up in those forests lost the mist-melt puddles they depended on. If the drought we're experiencing continues as long as expected from this cycle, we're going to lose a lot of beautiful frogs forever.

Can I do anything about this? Find my favorite frog community on my favorite mountain and regularly lug a backpack of water up there? Run up a sprinkler system? Will it make a difference?

mohamedkoubaa 7 hours ago|
The political will to save a species only spikes after or during its extinction. If you could keep a small population alive in a greenhouse it could be used to revive them when they suffer an event and people start to care.
octol 8 hours ago||
This is what gives me pause about “killing all the mosquitoes”.
barbazoo 8 hours ago|
"killing all", can't imagine anything going wrong here at all, nope.
Danox 6 hours ago||
Without man/humankind nature would bounce back very well but it would take time.
goda90 9 hours ago||
This doesn't mean we shouldn't make every effort to re-wild places. It'll slow or even prevent the loss of at-risk species and introduce resilience to ecosystems against the onslaught of climate change.
bcjdjsndon 8 hours ago||
I guarantee trying to save dying species is just an emotional reaction with very little logic behind it. I know it feels sad to see them go, but that's life. We like nothing to suffer, but somebody's gotta be eaten alive from head to toe, right? THATS LIFE
bordercases 7 hours ago|||
Somebody's gotta be eaten alive. So why not you, bcjdjsndon?

I refuse to believe that humanity on a whole is that incapable. Or at least unwilling to try to do something different.

goda90 7 hours ago||||
There's plenty of logic to it, but it depends on your values. What do you value? If you care about your descendants or humanity in general, then undoing some of our destruction of habitats and the outsized impact of our predation/invasive species introduction is a benefit.
goatlover 7 hours ago|||
If the species are dying because of us then it's not just life, it's our behavior driving their extinction. Logic doesn't tell you what to value. You value whatever, then you reason about what you value, how to preserve it, etc.
anthonypasq 4 hours ago||
> If the species are dying because of us then it's not just life, it's our behavior driving their extinction.

call me crazy but i think human behavior is in fact a subset of "life"

djent 2 hours ago||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
blobbloblob 9 hours ago||
[dead]
bcjdjsndon 8 hours ago||
Isn't an ecosystem an arbitrary area somewhere on the planet? Weather is a massive effect on these so called ecosystems and it is global. You might say there is only one single global ecosystem
bordercases 7 hours ago|
Maybe you could ask an ecologist this question.
imchillyb 7 hours ago||
The system may return, but less diversity means less resiliency. The 'return' isn't a return to baseline. That system return is an attempt to attain a state of function that is no longer available. That leaves this returned system in a constant state of stress. Stress on any system reduces function, increases failure rates, and extends repair times greatly. When a stressed system attempts to heal, many factors inhibit or outright prevent healing from occuring.

That's all observation, reasoning, and logic. Merely observing what occurs in a system that loses or gains is enough data to make fairly striking conclusions. The systems never return to baseline. Not once. Not ever. We've never observed a return to baseline after a species is destroyed, nor if an invasive species enters the system.

Once balance is lost, it cannot be attained again. Will not be. Has not been. Observed data is clear about this pattern. There is no equilibrium. There is a system that is functioning and then there is a system that no longer functions. There are no return to function systems in nature. Humans have not observed a mechanism that would bring that about, nor observed the occurrence of such.

One failure leads to another, and to another. Cascading. That's what we observe over generations of data collection.

ram1500natrluvr 5 hours ago|
I recommend listening to Gerry Wilhelm (co-author of Flora of the Chicago Region) in this video by Crime Pays But Botany Doesn't:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDVcfSYcxc0

> (11:55) ...of our 500 native bees... the most... found... in a restoration... is under a hundred. So, more than 80% of our bees are confined to remnants. And... a garden... [only] 16 different species of bees... in the best prairie garden... If you look in our book under [a specific plant species], we have... well over a hundred insects listed for that plant... but only in remnants... You could plant [species] in your garden, you get the same old 15 bees... they're not as agile as we think.

> (21:00) (Comparing his 'restored' prairie to 'old-growth' remnant prairie) This isn't a remnant, never will be. Once a prairie is gone, it's gone.

> (34:15) (Again comparing his 'restored' prairie compared to 'old-growth' remnant prairie) It'll never have the insects that a remnant does, not even close. The insects require a whole lot more things, so if we don't save the remnants, the home of all of our remnant biodiversity... what was it, the guy going on telling everybody 'if you plant nature in your yard, it'll come back'... it's assuming that the insects are just going to come there. It doesn't happen. You have to save the remnants... Our generation needs to deploy great armies to identifying and preserving what little remnants we have left. Otherwise, there'll be no germ material out of which to build a tomorrow. It'll all be gone.

> (49:40) Our culture is so out of phase with reality... we just don't have any sense of the cascade of consequences that flow from... things that we think are just fine.

> (52:55) The average person today in Illinois can get born, can live, and die, and not see anything that was not made by man.

mempko 9 hours ago|
We are in the 6th mass extinction event. Want to feel bad? Look at the numbers of decline in the last 40 years, it's dramatic. Even in my lifetime it's been dramatic.
jdh76 9 hours ago|
I dont think its a big loss to the universe if humans go extinct. Humans didnt engineer the biochemistry of life or produce the atmosphere or the over rated buggy brain.
gls2ro 8 hours ago||
I fail to understand this line of thinking.

Even letting aside any survival mechanism we have there are two rational posibilities:

1. We are alone in the universe => super huge loss of complexity and consciousness

2. We are not alone but at Universe scale intelligent life seems rather scarce => still huge loss in diversity

OroPla 8 hours ago||
Welcome to nihilism, where nothing matters. On a grand enough scale, is there a difference between our universe existing and our universe not existing?
goatlover 7 hours ago|||
On a cosmic scale independent of human activity, sure. But things do matter to us every day. And things matter to other life forms we share the planet with.
esarbe 7 hours ago||||
Nope. Nothing will last. Everything is chance. Entropy will eat us all.

That's why it's important to find joy in the moment and ways to share that joy and happiness with those around you.

cindyllm 6 hours ago|||
[dead]
More comments...