Tag Archives: humans

New Study Finds That Humans Should Kill Smaller, Younger Animals

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When it comes to food, humans gravitate to the biggest item on the menu: overstuffed turkeys, 1,000-pound sturgeons, the fattest burger. But a new study in Science shows how our obsession with taking down the biggest prey is damaging the world’s wildlife.

Looking at 282 marine species and 117 terrestrial mammals, researchers at the University of Victoria found that human hunters and fishers overwhelmingly target adult animals over juveniles. Driven by the prestige and financial payoff of a trophy kill or gargantuan catch—and an aversion to killing young animals that might be seen as cute—humans consume up to 14 times the amount of adult animal biomass as other predators. And that’s contributing to the swift decline of populations of large fish and land carnivores, the researchers say.

Thanks to advanced hunting tactics and tools that allow us to kill without getting too close, humans have long been able to take down massive prey (e.g., the Ice Age mammoths). But with modern advancements such as guns and the automated dragnets of industrial-scale fishing, we’ve turned into “super-predators,” the researchers write. That’s just one reason, along with the ravages of climate change and habitat destruction, we’re currently in the process of losing one in six species on Earth.

These findings go against the assumption that it’s better to target mature animals and spare younger ones. “Harvesters typically are required by law to release so-called under-sized salmon, trout, or crabs, or to set their rifle scopes on the 6-point elk and not the calves,” explained Chris Darimont, one of the study’s authors, in a call with reporters. Those regulations are in line with the paradigm of “sustainable exploitation,” the idea that killing off big adult animals that dominate a habitat will allow the young to flourish and reproduce.

Humans exploit large prey at far higher rates than other predators. P. Huey/ Science

The authors argue that this approach causes undesirable reverberations in the food web and, eventually, the gene pool. While the loss of the largest predators may be a boon to their prey in the short-term, ballooning populations of herbivores can devastate vegetation and have been linked to festering illnesses. While humans may raise increasingly large domesticated animals—whether by pumping cows with steroids or breeding only the fattest hogs—exploiting the largest animals in the wild can lead to tinier animals. For example, as bigger, stronger fish are plucked from the oceans, survival of the fittest undergoes a strange inversion: Smaller fish are more likely to reproduce in their absence, producing fewer, smaller offspring that are less resistant to further threats.

The authors suggest that human hunters start thinking small. In the case of fisheries, they suggest focusing on smaller catches—a process of narrowing entrances into traps and nets and using hooks to allow larger fish to evade capture. To preserve top carnivores on land, Darimont and coauthor Tom Reimchen say that tolerance—and a decreased emphasis on prized trophy kills—is the best way to bolster dwindling populations.

Source:  

New Study Finds That Humans Should Kill Smaller, Younger Animals

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Study Finds That Humans Should Kill Smaller, Younger Animals

The forecast for the next century? Scary with a chance of dying

The forecast for the next century? Scary with a chance of dying

By on 23 Jun 2015commentsShare

Time for a quiz! Climate change will increase the size and frequency of which of the following?

A) Droughts B) Floods C) Hurricanes or D) Blizzards.

Sorry — trick question! A new study in medical journal The Lancet adds more credence to the theory that climate change will bring more of E) All of the above — and what’s more, that many more people will be directly endangered by these natural turbo-disasters. Since most climate assessments look at models averaged over the whole globe — including huge unpopulated swaths like, say, the Pacific Ocean (no shade to whales) — this study offers new insight by focusing on where (and how) actual humans are living.

The New York Times explains:

The report, published online Monday, analyzes the health effects of recent episodes of severe weather that scientists have linked to climate change. It provides estimates of the number of people who are likely to experience the effects of climate change in coming decades, based on projections of population and demographic changes.

The report estimates that the exposure of people to extreme rainfall will more than quadruple and the exposure of people to drought will triple compared to the 1990s. In the same time span, the exposure of the older people to heat waves is expected to go up by a factor of 12, according to Peter Cox, one of the authors, who is a professor of climate-system dynamics at the University of Exeter in Britain. …

Says Cox: “We are saying, let’s look at climate change from the perspective of what people are going to experience, rather than as averages across the globe,” he said. “We have to move away from thinking of this as a problem in atmospheric physics. It is a problem for people.”

Wait just one second: Is this a study that focuses on the actual, meaningful impacts that climate change will have on the lives of humans, as opposed to the parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere? Yes, please, scientists!

Source:
Risk of Extreme Weather From Climate Change to Rise Over Next Century, Report Says

, New York Times.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link: 

The forecast for the next century? Scary with a chance of dying

Posted in Anchor, Brita, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The forecast for the next century? Scary with a chance of dying

No, We Won’t Leave You Alone

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In response (I assume) to my nasty post about libertarians a few days ago, Cameron Belt tweets:

leaving people alone, what a radical idea!

This is pretty standard libertarian stuff, and on a personal level I’m sympathetic. I’m not quite a hermit, but I really do like to be left alone most of the time.

But for some reason it got me thinking. I wonder if the people who repeat this bromide understand just how radical an idea it actually is. Humans are, and always have been, social, hierarchical creatures. In every society since civilization began,1 it’s been all but impossible to be left alone. It’s such an unusual thing, in fact, that those who manage to spend a lot of time in solitude are often spoken of with reverence and awe. Spending even a few days in solitude is powerful enough that it’s been a rite of passage in a surprising number of cultures.

But for the other 99.9 percent of us, the norm is to be among, dependent, and answerable to other people. Family members, priests, bosses, governments, neighbors, police, creditors, merchants, and hundreds of others. In any society with more than about two people this is, and always has been, how humans organize themselves. We are gossipy and we are bossy. We are busybodies, we are rulemakers, we are rebels, we are moral scolds, and we are friends. (And enemies.)

So yes: leaving people alone really is a radical idea. Probably unworkable too, but that’s secondary. We are all merely hairless primates and we just aren’t going to mind our own business. Best get used to it.

1Yes, yes, I’m sure there’s an exception somewhere. Spare me.

Link to original: 

No, We Won’t Leave You Alone

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, We Won’t Leave You Alone

Shocking video footage shows scientists having feelings

Shocking video footage shows scientists having feelings

By on 16 Mar 2015commentsShare

Inside every scientist, there’s a thinking, feeling human being, who experience a full range of emotions — happiness, sadness, worry, fear, weird midnight cravings for junk food. And, as it turns out, the human beings inside climate scientists have a lot of feelings. (re: the fate of humanity.)

You can see some of those feelings first-hand at the More Than Scientists Project, home to more than 200 short videos of climate scientists confessing that they do, in fact, have emotions:

[…] We aren’t just scientists inside labs and academia. We are people like you, with hopes and dreams and loved ones. We are mothers, fathers, farmers, fishermen, hikers, hunters, …

… And we’re concerned.

The site is the brainchild of the Climate Change Education Project, a Seattle-based nonprofit. Most of the scientists currently featured are from the University of Washington, MIT, or Harvard, but scientists anywhere are welcome to contribute their own videos.

They all have something unique to say, because, well, each one is a unique individual (mission accomplished, More Than Scientists Project!). Some talk about what inspired them to go into climate science; others talk about how concerned they are for their children’s futures; many touch on their frustration with the false debate over climate change; one dude talked about home brewing, and how he worries about the effects climate change will have on our ability to grow hops (he’s a grad student, obviously).

Here’s a sample:

Dargan Frierson, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, spoke about a hurricane that devastated his home state of North Carolina back in 1999:

That was something that really changed the way I thought about the power of the weather. I just didn’t want to see more of that stuff happening to people, you know? It was kind of traumatic. [I] saw images on the news from just around where I was going to school of farm animals – just thousands of farm animals – that had been drowned in that storm. It was really disturbing to see, you know, what kind of damage can be done by the earth around us, and we know that there are gonna be worse and stronger hurricanes with climate change.

Ana Ordóñez, a graduate student in the University of Washington’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, kept it pretty real:

I know for a lot of people, when you first really start thinking about climate change and what a big issue it is, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. If you don’t, that’s great. I wish I could feel that way a lot of the time.

Josh Lawler, an associate professor in the University of Washington’s School of Forest Resources, spoke more broadly about the bleak future we’re in for if we don’t adequately address climate change:

I’m afraid that if we don’t do anything, we’re going to see some pretty uncomfortable changes, and it’s gonna be far worse in some places in the world than others. I mean, there are gonna be food shortages and there are gonna be mass migrations and there are gonna be large disasters […], and all those things will affect our economies, and they’ll effect health — human health. So I think the picture that’s painted – that the scientists paint and that the models paint — if we don’t do anything now, if we don’t curb our emissions quickly, and if we don’t sequester carbon, [is] pretty grim. Humans will survive, and most of the natural world will survive in some state or another, but I think it’ll be a bad time for people.

Yikes.

The website’s worth a look. The videos range from 20 seconds to about two minutes long, and they all give a pretty candid look at who these people are, why they do what they do, and how they’re feeling about the future. (Um, in short, not great.)

Source:
“More Than Scientists” seeks to show human side of climate experts.

, The Daily Climate.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Original post – 

Shocking video footage shows scientists having feelings

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shocking video footage shows scientists having feelings

This Chart Shows That Americans Are Way Out of Step With Scientists on Pretty Much Everything

Mother Jones

Here’s one big reason why the US has been so slow to take aggressive action on climate change: Despite the wide consensus among scientists that it’s real and caused by humans, the general public—not to mention a disconcerting number of prominent politicians—remains divided.

It’s not just climate change. On a range of pressing social issues, scientists and the public rarely see eye-to-eye. That’s the result of a new Pew poll released today that compared views of a sample of 2,000 US adults to those of 3,700 scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the group that publishes the journal Science.

The biggest split was over the safety of genetically modified foods: 88 percent of scientists think GMOs are safe, compared to only 37 percent in the general public. Interestingly, college graduates were split 50-50. The gap between scientists and the public is smaller on the question of whether to mandate childhood vaccines. But it’s still there. Eighty-six percent of scientists and 68 percent of all adults think vaccines should be required.

The poll didn’t attempt to explain the gaps between scientists and the general public. On some issues there are clearly factors beyond pure science, like ethics and politics, that influence opinions. For example, scientists show more support for nuclear power, but less support for fracking, than the public. As our friend Chris Mooney has reported many times, these outside factors tend to creep into peoples’ opinions even on objective questions like whether humans have evolved.

Lee Rainie, Pew’s director of science research, added that trust in scientists can be a big factor. On GMOs, for example, 67 percent of the public believe scientists don’t fully understand the health risks. And on issues like climate and evolution, the public believes there to be more disagreement within the scientific community than there actually is, he said.

More interesting findings are below:

Pew

This article – 

This Chart Shows That Americans Are Way Out of Step With Scientists on Pretty Much Everything

Posted in alo, Anchor, bigo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Chart Shows That Americans Are Way Out of Step With Scientists on Pretty Much Everything

West Virginia will let schools teach the truth about climate change after all

West Virginia will let schools teach the truth about climate change after all

By on 15 Jan 2015commentsShare

For a little while there, it looked like West Virginia was getting ready to teach its students to doubt the overwhelming majority of scientists who say climate change is a real thing. Now, maybe not. Yesterday, after an outcry from science education advocates, the state school board reversed course.

To start from the beginning: The state’s school board voted in December to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards, a framework that 26 states, including West Virginia, helped develop for nationwide use. The standards require students to look at and analyze evidence that humans are causing global warming. But one climate skeptic on the board feels this aspect of the curriculum is misleading; it “presupposes that global temperatures have risen over the past century, and, of course, there’s debate about that,” he told The Charleston Gazette. Hmm.

So, at his urging, the school board revised the standards to sow doubt about whether things are getting warmer (there is no scientific debate about this — they are) and whether humans are causing it (there is almost no scientific debate about this either — we almost certainly are). Students were to learn about Milankovitch cycles — changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun, one explanation for global warming popular among the mostly non-scientist community that doesn’t believe humans are responsible. (In fact, instead of explaining warming, Milankovitch cycles actually suggest that the earth’s temperatures should, at the moment, be stable or cooling.)

When the news broke that the standards had been quietly altered, it was met with a general outcry from educators inside and outside of the state, as well as parents. West Virginia University’s faculty senate voted unanimously to request that the school board reverse the changes. Many of those who spoke up were particularly upset that the public, including the teachers who would be discussing climate change in their classrooms, didn’t have a chance to weigh in.

“The West Virginia School Board made these final changes unilaterally,” said Elizabeth Strong, the president of the West Virginia Science Teachers Association. “The science was compromised by these modifications to the standards, specifically by casting doubt on the credibility of the evidence-based climate models and misrepresentation of trends in science when analyzing graphs dealing with temperature changes over time.”

National education groups were also not impressed. “They are taking the standards, they are calling it the next-generation science standards, and they are changing the composition of the science to match their own personal views,” Minda Berbeco of the National Center for Science Education told The New York Times. “That defeats the purpose of having standards developed by scientific advisory boards.”

The outcry, apparently, had the desired effect. After a public comment period on Wednesday, the school board reversed course and went back to the original, unaltered standards. Ryan Quinn, who has great coverage of the whole saga at The Charleston Gazette, reports that the state school board president “said she didn’t want to go against the work that West Virginia teachers did in vetting the standards and called the controversy a learning opportunity.”

Now the standards will be opened up for a 30-day public comment period and the board will take a final vote on the matter in March. Whatever the board settles on will go into effect during the 2016-2017 school year — and right now, signs indicate that they’ll stick with this latest decision to not muddy science in the science classroom.

Source:
W.Va. state school board moves back toward original climate change standards

, The Charleston Gazette.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

sponsored post

Use energy wisely and save money

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Credit:

West Virginia will let schools teach the truth about climate change after all

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on West Virginia will let schools teach the truth about climate change after all

The Anthropocene is here, whether geologists make it official or not

Age of Us

The Anthropocene is here, whether geologists make it official or not

18 Oct 2014 7:00 AM

Share

Share

The Anthropocene is here, whether geologists make it official or not

×

Humans rule the world, for worse or for worse. This week, a 30-strong team of geologists, ecologists, and climate scientists from around the globe are meeting in Berlin to discuss whether we’ve entered into a new geologic “epoch of humans.” Their question, in Greek-inspired sciencese (scienglish? scienceGreek?): Is it time to declare the Holocene officially over and the Anthropocene underway?

Our question, in plain English: Does it even matter what these highbrows decide? The sixth mass extinction, a remarkable build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxiderapid sea-level rise, and the halving of the world’s wildlife populations — all human-caused — prove that the Anthropocene is upon us.

Popular discourse and scientists of every stripe aren’t waiting around for a royal decree from the egghead society to declare the Age of People a real phenomenon. CBS News reports that more than 500 scientific studies published this year alone have referred to the current time period as the Anthropocene. Grist has published dozens of stories about the Anthropocene concept, dating back to this 2008 think piece.

The big bureaucratic body that makes decisions about geologic time periods — the International Commission on Stratigraphy — responded to the overwhelming adoption of a term they’ve not formally approved by setting up this Anthropocene Working Group and giving it until 2016 to hash out a proposal.

So who’s in this little club? Twenty-nine men and one woman, which prompted this from the Twittersphere:

What these mostly white men are debating is whether humanity is leaving an impact on the earth that will affect the geologic record as much as other events that have marked new chapters in the planet’s history. If the ICS ultimately approves such an amendment to the geologic time scale, then somewhere a golden spike will be driven into a particular exposed rock layer to mark the epochal transformation.

Making it all official would be cool, but we don’t need their gilded nail to identify where humans took over the globe. That point in time will be distinguished by a layer of substances practically nonexistent in the pre-industrial geologic record: plastic particles, plutonium and other radioactive isotopes, as well as polyaromatic hydrocarbons and lead released by fossil fuel burning.

It would be a downer note to leave the story on that note. Instead, a poignant response to ecological-economic thinker Kate Raworth’s “Manthropocene” tweet:

Source:
Anthropocene: is this the new epoch of humans?

, The Guardian.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Taken from:

The Anthropocene is here, whether geologists make it official or not

Posted in alo, Anchor, Aroma, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, New Chapter, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Anthropocene is here, whether geologists make it official or not

Pesticide Levels in Waterways Have Dropped, Reducing the Risks to Humans

Regulation has helped clean up agricultural and mixed-use waterways, but the ubiquity of some chemicals in household products has increased the threat to aquatic life in urban streams. Read more:  Pesticide Levels in Waterways Have Dropped, Reducing the Risks to Humans ; ; ;

Continued:  

Pesticide Levels in Waterways Have Dropped, Reducing the Risks to Humans

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pesticide Levels in Waterways Have Dropped, Reducing the Risks to Humans

What Does “Transformers” Say About America’s Failure to Combat Climate Change?

Mother Jones

Nothing. It says nothing. It’s a stupid movie about trucks fighting each other and stupid humans running around doing meaningless bullshit. As far as movies about trucks from space fighting each other go, it’s fine, I guess. The trucks fight quite well and the humans run around doing meaningless bullshit impressively. The humans are all very attractive, too, which is nice. None of it makes any sense, of course. The movie is awful. This is an objective truth. You’re probably going to see it eventually because that’s the way life works, but make no mistake, it’s deeply stupid.

This is the fourth film about robot trucks from space fighting each other and maybe the thrill has just died a bit? I think for the fifth one they should switch it up and have the robot trucks from space kiss each other while the humans run around doing meaningless bullshit. The humans and their meaningless bullshit are a key factor to the success of this franchise. They shouldn’t abandon that. But I personally would like to see something new. Something fresh. The trucks in the sweet embrace of love. Kissing, holding, touching, rubbing.

Anyway, have a great weekend.

Originally posted here: 

What Does “Transformers” Say About America’s Failure to Combat Climate Change?

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Does “Transformers” Say About America’s Failure to Combat Climate Change?

Friday Cat Blogging – 7 March 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last weekend’s rain has obviously traumatized Domino. Sunny skies may have returned to Southern California since then, but Domino has spent all week hiding in a blanket cave anyway, just in case the rain clouds return. Her humans failed her once, after all. There’s no telling when we’ll fail her again.

Read More:  

Friday Cat Blogging – 7 March 2014

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 7 March 2014