Mixing
Have we wiped out 60% of vertebrate populations since 1970?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
According to The Guardian (reporting an analysis by WWF) humanity stands on the verge of an ecological catastrophe as:
Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilisation.
While catastrophic declines in some species are well known (from overfishing, for example) this seems like a big claim. And even overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation.
So is the claim true?
zoology environment
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
According to The Guardian (reporting an analysis by WWF) humanity stands on the verge of an ecological catastrophe as:
Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilisation.
While catastrophic declines in some species are well known (from overfishing, for example) this seems like a big claim. And even overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation.
So is the claim true?
zoology environment
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
1
@matt_black: "Overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation." -- Do you have citations for that (not from the fishing industry)?
– DevSolar
2 hours ago
2
While the headline of the Guardian article mentions "animals" the body of the article makes it clear the claim is limited to veterbrates (animals with a backbone). Hat-tip to @DevSolar for mentioning insects in particular.
– Oddthinking♦
1 hour ago
1
@DevSolar added reference to overfishing claim.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
1
@matt_black: "...*not* from the fishing industry", and you link to seafish.org? :-D I also note that the linked article says a lot about how cod population had decreased, that the EU has taken action to protect it, and that the (much criticised) MSC has now "fully certified [North Sea cod] as sustainable" -- but nothing about how the cod population has developed. For all we know (from that source), the MSC has just buckled in to lobby pressure.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@DevSolar The story is well known. If you don't believe it, it would make a good question. But I've altered the reference anyway.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
According to The Guardian (reporting an analysis by WWF) humanity stands on the verge of an ecological catastrophe as:
Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilisation.
While catastrophic declines in some species are well known (from overfishing, for example) this seems like a big claim. And even overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation.
So is the claim true?
zoology environment
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
According to The Guardian (reporting an analysis by WWF) humanity stands on the verge of an ecological catastrophe as:
Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilisation.
While catastrophic declines in some species are well known (from overfishing, for example) this seems like a big claim. And even overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation.
So is the claim true?
zoology environment
zoology environment
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
edited 1 hour ago
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
asked 2 hours ago
matt_black
30.7k11125294
30.7k11125294
1
@matt_black: "Overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation." -- Do you have citations for that (not from the fishing industry)?
– DevSolar
2 hours ago
2
While the headline of the Guardian article mentions "animals" the body of the article makes it clear the claim is limited to veterbrates (animals with a backbone). Hat-tip to @DevSolar for mentioning insects in particular.
– Oddthinking♦
1 hour ago
1
@DevSolar added reference to overfishing claim.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
1
@matt_black: "...*not* from the fishing industry", and you link to seafish.org? :-D I also note that the linked article says a lot about how cod population had decreased, that the EU has taken action to protect it, and that the (much criticised) MSC has now "fully certified [North Sea cod] as sustainable" -- but nothing about how the cod population has developed. For all we know (from that source), the MSC has just buckled in to lobby pressure.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@DevSolar The story is well known. If you don't believe it, it would make a good question. But I've altered the reference anyway.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
@matt_black: "Overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation." -- Do you have citations for that (not from the fishing industry)?
– DevSolar
2 hours ago
2
While the headline of the Guardian article mentions "animals" the body of the article makes it clear the claim is limited to veterbrates (animals with a backbone). Hat-tip to @DevSolar for mentioning insects in particular.
– Oddthinking♦
1 hour ago
1
@DevSolar added reference to overfishing claim.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
1
@matt_black: "...*not* from the fishing industry", and you link to seafish.org? :-D I also note that the linked article says a lot about how cod population had decreased, that the EU has taken action to protect it, and that the (much criticised) MSC has now "fully certified [North Sea cod] as sustainable" -- but nothing about how the cod population has developed. For all we know (from that source), the MSC has just buckled in to lobby pressure.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@DevSolar The story is well known. If you don't believe it, it would make a good question. But I've altered the reference anyway.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
1
1
@matt_black: "Overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation." -- Do you have citations for that (not from the fishing industry)?
– DevSolar
2 hours ago
@matt_black: "Overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation." -- Do you have citations for that (not from the fishing industry)?
– DevSolar
2 hours ago
2
2
While the headline of the Guardian article mentions "animals" the body of the article makes it clear the claim is limited to veterbrates (animals with a backbone). Hat-tip to @DevSolar for mentioning insects in particular.
– Oddthinking♦
1 hour ago
While the headline of the Guardian article mentions "animals" the body of the article makes it clear the claim is limited to veterbrates (animals with a backbone). Hat-tip to @DevSolar for mentioning insects in particular.
– Oddthinking♦
1 hour ago
1
1
@DevSolar added reference to overfishing claim.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@DevSolar added reference to overfishing claim.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
1
1
@matt_black: "...*not* from the fishing industry", and you link to seafish.org? :-D I also note that the linked article says a lot about how cod population had decreased, that the EU has taken action to protect it, and that the (much criticised) MSC has now "fully certified [North Sea cod] as sustainable" -- but nothing about how the cod population has developed. For all we know (from that source), the MSC has just buckled in to lobby pressure.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black: "...*not* from the fishing industry", and you link to seafish.org? :-D I also note that the linked article says a lot about how cod population had decreased, that the EU has taken action to protect it, and that the (much criticised) MSC has now "fully certified [North Sea cod] as sustainable" -- but nothing about how the cod population has developed. For all we know (from that source), the MSC has just buckled in to lobby pressure.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@DevSolar The story is well known. If you don't believe it, it would make a good question. But I've altered the reference anyway.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@DevSolar The story is well known. If you don't believe it, it would make a good question. But I've altered the reference anyway.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
What is the claim?
Are you asking about total biomass, biodiversity, regional populations, ...?
Are you asking about specific areas / countries, or worldwide (which will be hard to exactly quantify)?
Are you asking about whether we have wiped out at least 60%, or are you asking whether a ballpark figure of about 60% is plausible?
And are insects exempt from the question as they (the most numerous class of animal life on earth, and basis of the food chain for most other species) are not even mentioned in the claim?
That being said:
Plausible.
Hallmann et al., "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas"
BfN (German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) states in reference to the report Birds in Germany 2014 that (translation mine)...
...German breeding birds that are feeding on small insects and arachnids were affected by almost 50% species extinction.
WWF Living Blue Planet Report 2015, page 18:
The index for deep-sea fish populations for the North Atlantic
(Figure 13) is based on 77 populations of 25 species, and indicates a
72 per cent decline over the last 40 years. In the last two decades the
index is more or less stable, but not showing signs of recovery.
(Source: "The Living Planet Index database. WWF and the Zoological Society of
London. Downloaded 3 March 2015. www.livingplanetindex.org")
(Community wiki so additional references can be added.)
One of the problems I have with the story is that it doesn't clearly specify exactly what 60% means or answer the question 60% of what?. Hence the need for good analysis to unpick the campaigning hype from the real data.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@matt_black: You will find plenty of references to populations reduced by less, e.g. 30%. You will find references to a select few populations that have increased. You will find references to species that have been rendered extinct. And then there's the plethora of species and populations we do not even have data about. Of course "60%" is not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation, it is a rough guesstimate plausible from various statistical data. What are you looking for that would satisfy your question in the affirmative?
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black 60% reduction in population = population today is 60% smaller than population at date X in the past. Example: in 1970 there were 1,000 individuals, today there are 400 individuals of the same species, that's a 60% decline. I don't see what's unclear about that claim.
– gerrit
1 hour ago
@gerrit: Are several dozen chickens less outweighed by one bull more? Are five species extinct outweighed by a five-fold multiplication of another? Would a lifeless continent of Africa be outweighed if Australia would just flourish that much more? Are we only talking about specific populations that have been watched non-stop from 1970 till today, or does it suffice to have measured one population of "birds" in 1970 and another in roughly the same place today? ("Population" is a rather specific term for biologists.) The claim is not about one specific number but a general trend.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
To get a littler closer to the horse's mouth -- the news article is about the Living Planet Report 2018 as published by the WWF (the wildlife people, not the wrestling people.)
On page 7 of that report we have:
The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate species around the world. The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014.
Note that the report itself doesn't causally ascribe this to humans.
This particular claim in the report isn't footnoted but perhaps a more intrepid researcher could track it down further.
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
What is the claim?
Are you asking about total biomass, biodiversity, regional populations, ...?
Are you asking about specific areas / countries, or worldwide (which will be hard to exactly quantify)?
Are you asking about whether we have wiped out at least 60%, or are you asking whether a ballpark figure of about 60% is plausible?
And are insects exempt from the question as they (the most numerous class of animal life on earth, and basis of the food chain for most other species) are not even mentioned in the claim?
That being said:
Plausible.
Hallmann et al., "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas"
BfN (German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) states in reference to the report Birds in Germany 2014 that (translation mine)...
...German breeding birds that are feeding on small insects and arachnids were affected by almost 50% species extinction.
WWF Living Blue Planet Report 2015, page 18:
The index for deep-sea fish populations for the North Atlantic
(Figure 13) is based on 77 populations of 25 species, and indicates a
72 per cent decline over the last 40 years. In the last two decades the
index is more or less stable, but not showing signs of recovery.
(Source: "The Living Planet Index database. WWF and the Zoological Society of
London. Downloaded 3 March 2015. www.livingplanetindex.org")
(Community wiki so additional references can be added.)
One of the problems I have with the story is that it doesn't clearly specify exactly what 60% means or answer the question 60% of what?. Hence the need for good analysis to unpick the campaigning hype from the real data.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@matt_black: You will find plenty of references to populations reduced by less, e.g. 30%. You will find references to a select few populations that have increased. You will find references to species that have been rendered extinct. And then there's the plethora of species and populations we do not even have data about. Of course "60%" is not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation, it is a rough guesstimate plausible from various statistical data. What are you looking for that would satisfy your question in the affirmative?
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black 60% reduction in population = population today is 60% smaller than population at date X in the past. Example: in 1970 there were 1,000 individuals, today there are 400 individuals of the same species, that's a 60% decline. I don't see what's unclear about that claim.
– gerrit
1 hour ago
@gerrit: Are several dozen chickens less outweighed by one bull more? Are five species extinct outweighed by a five-fold multiplication of another? Would a lifeless continent of Africa be outweighed if Australia would just flourish that much more? Are we only talking about specific populations that have been watched non-stop from 1970 till today, or does it suffice to have measured one population of "birds" in 1970 and another in roughly the same place today? ("Population" is a rather specific term for biologists.) The claim is not about one specific number but a general trend.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
What is the claim?
Are you asking about total biomass, biodiversity, regional populations, ...?
Are you asking about specific areas / countries, or worldwide (which will be hard to exactly quantify)?
Are you asking about whether we have wiped out at least 60%, or are you asking whether a ballpark figure of about 60% is plausible?
And are insects exempt from the question as they (the most numerous class of animal life on earth, and basis of the food chain for most other species) are not even mentioned in the claim?
That being said:
Plausible.
Hallmann et al., "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas"
BfN (German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) states in reference to the report Birds in Germany 2014 that (translation mine)...
...German breeding birds that are feeding on small insects and arachnids were affected by almost 50% species extinction.
WWF Living Blue Planet Report 2015, page 18:
The index for deep-sea fish populations for the North Atlantic
(Figure 13) is based on 77 populations of 25 species, and indicates a
72 per cent decline over the last 40 years. In the last two decades the
index is more or less stable, but not showing signs of recovery.
(Source: "The Living Planet Index database. WWF and the Zoological Society of
London. Downloaded 3 March 2015. www.livingplanetindex.org")
(Community wiki so additional references can be added.)
One of the problems I have with the story is that it doesn't clearly specify exactly what 60% means or answer the question 60% of what?. Hence the need for good analysis to unpick the campaigning hype from the real data.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@matt_black: You will find plenty of references to populations reduced by less, e.g. 30%. You will find references to a select few populations that have increased. You will find references to species that have been rendered extinct. And then there's the plethora of species and populations we do not even have data about. Of course "60%" is not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation, it is a rough guesstimate plausible from various statistical data. What are you looking for that would satisfy your question in the affirmative?
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black 60% reduction in population = population today is 60% smaller than population at date X in the past. Example: in 1970 there were 1,000 individuals, today there are 400 individuals of the same species, that's a 60% decline. I don't see what's unclear about that claim.
– gerrit
1 hour ago
@gerrit: Are several dozen chickens less outweighed by one bull more? Are five species extinct outweighed by a five-fold multiplication of another? Would a lifeless continent of Africa be outweighed if Australia would just flourish that much more? Are we only talking about specific populations that have been watched non-stop from 1970 till today, or does it suffice to have measured one population of "birds" in 1970 and another in roughly the same place today? ("Population" is a rather specific term for biologists.) The claim is not about one specific number but a general trend.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
What is the claim?
Are you asking about total biomass, biodiversity, regional populations, ...?
Are you asking about specific areas / countries, or worldwide (which will be hard to exactly quantify)?
Are you asking about whether we have wiped out at least 60%, or are you asking whether a ballpark figure of about 60% is plausible?
And are insects exempt from the question as they (the most numerous class of animal life on earth, and basis of the food chain for most other species) are not even mentioned in the claim?
That being said:
Plausible.
Hallmann et al., "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas"
BfN (German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) states in reference to the report Birds in Germany 2014 that (translation mine)...
...German breeding birds that are feeding on small insects and arachnids were affected by almost 50% species extinction.
WWF Living Blue Planet Report 2015, page 18:
The index for deep-sea fish populations for the North Atlantic
(Figure 13) is based on 77 populations of 25 species, and indicates a
72 per cent decline over the last 40 years. In the last two decades the
index is more or less stable, but not showing signs of recovery.
(Source: "The Living Planet Index database. WWF and the Zoological Society of
London. Downloaded 3 March 2015. www.livingplanetindex.org")
(Community wiki so additional references can be added.)
What is the claim?
Are you asking about total biomass, biodiversity, regional populations, ...?
Are you asking about specific areas / countries, or worldwide (which will be hard to exactly quantify)?
Are you asking about whether we have wiped out at least 60%, or are you asking whether a ballpark figure of about 60% is plausible?
And are insects exempt from the question as they (the most numerous class of animal life on earth, and basis of the food chain for most other species) are not even mentioned in the claim?
That being said:
Plausible.
Hallmann et al., "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas"
BfN (German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) states in reference to the report Birds in Germany 2014 that (translation mine)...
...German breeding birds that are feeding on small insects and arachnids were affected by almost 50% species extinction.
WWF Living Blue Planet Report 2015, page 18:
The index for deep-sea fish populations for the North Atlantic
(Figure 13) is based on 77 populations of 25 species, and indicates a
72 per cent decline over the last 40 years. In the last two decades the
index is more or less stable, but not showing signs of recovery.
(Source: "The Living Planet Index database. WWF and the Zoological Society of
London. Downloaded 3 March 2015. www.livingplanetindex.org")
(Community wiki so additional references can be added.)
answered 1 hour ago
community wiki
DevSolar
One of the problems I have with the story is that it doesn't clearly specify exactly what 60% means or answer the question 60% of what?. Hence the need for good analysis to unpick the campaigning hype from the real data.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@matt_black: You will find plenty of references to populations reduced by less, e.g. 30%. You will find references to a select few populations that have increased. You will find references to species that have been rendered extinct. And then there's the plethora of species and populations we do not even have data about. Of course "60%" is not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation, it is a rough guesstimate plausible from various statistical data. What are you looking for that would satisfy your question in the affirmative?
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black 60% reduction in population = population today is 60% smaller than population at date X in the past. Example: in 1970 there were 1,000 individuals, today there are 400 individuals of the same species, that's a 60% decline. I don't see what's unclear about that claim.
– gerrit
1 hour ago
@gerrit: Are several dozen chickens less outweighed by one bull more? Are five species extinct outweighed by a five-fold multiplication of another? Would a lifeless continent of Africa be outweighed if Australia would just flourish that much more? Are we only talking about specific populations that have been watched non-stop from 1970 till today, or does it suffice to have measured one population of "birds" in 1970 and another in roughly the same place today? ("Population" is a rather specific term for biologists.) The claim is not about one specific number but a general trend.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
One of the problems I have with the story is that it doesn't clearly specify exactly what 60% means or answer the question 60% of what?. Hence the need for good analysis to unpick the campaigning hype from the real data.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@matt_black: You will find plenty of references to populations reduced by less, e.g. 30%. You will find references to a select few populations that have increased. You will find references to species that have been rendered extinct. And then there's the plethora of species and populations we do not even have data about. Of course "60%" is not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation, it is a rough guesstimate plausible from various statistical data. What are you looking for that would satisfy your question in the affirmative?
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black 60% reduction in population = population today is 60% smaller than population at date X in the past. Example: in 1970 there were 1,000 individuals, today there are 400 individuals of the same species, that's a 60% decline. I don't see what's unclear about that claim.
– gerrit
1 hour ago
@gerrit: Are several dozen chickens less outweighed by one bull more? Are five species extinct outweighed by a five-fold multiplication of another? Would a lifeless continent of Africa be outweighed if Australia would just flourish that much more? Are we only talking about specific populations that have been watched non-stop from 1970 till today, or does it suffice to have measured one population of "birds" in 1970 and another in roughly the same place today? ("Population" is a rather specific term for biologists.) The claim is not about one specific number but a general trend.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
One of the problems I have with the story is that it doesn't clearly specify exactly what 60% means or answer the question 60% of what?. Hence the need for good analysis to unpick the campaigning hype from the real data.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
One of the problems I have with the story is that it doesn't clearly specify exactly what 60% means or answer the question 60% of what?. Hence the need for good analysis to unpick the campaigning hype from the real data.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
@matt_black: You will find plenty of references to populations reduced by less, e.g. 30%. You will find references to a select few populations that have increased. You will find references to species that have been rendered extinct. And then there's the plethora of species and populations we do not even have data about. Of course "60%" is not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation, it is a rough guesstimate plausible from various statistical data. What are you looking for that would satisfy your question in the affirmative?
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black: You will find plenty of references to populations reduced by less, e.g. 30%. You will find references to a select few populations that have increased. You will find references to species that have been rendered extinct. And then there's the plethora of species and populations we do not even have data about. Of course "60%" is not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation, it is a rough guesstimate plausible from various statistical data. What are you looking for that would satisfy your question in the affirmative?
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@matt_black 60% reduction in population = population today is 60% smaller than population at date X in the past. Example: in 1970 there were 1,000 individuals, today there are 400 individuals of the same species, that's a 60% decline. I don't see what's unclear about that claim.
– gerrit
1 hour ago
@matt_black 60% reduction in population = population today is 60% smaller than population at date X in the past. Example: in 1970 there were 1,000 individuals, today there are 400 individuals of the same species, that's a 60% decline. I don't see what's unclear about that claim.
– gerrit
1 hour ago
@gerrit: Are several dozen chickens less outweighed by one bull more? Are five species extinct outweighed by a five-fold multiplication of another? Would a lifeless continent of Africa be outweighed if Australia would just flourish that much more? Are we only talking about specific populations that have been watched non-stop from 1970 till today, or does it suffice to have measured one population of "birds" in 1970 and another in roughly the same place today? ("Population" is a rather specific term for biologists.) The claim is not about one specific number but a general trend.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@gerrit: Are several dozen chickens less outweighed by one bull more? Are five species extinct outweighed by a five-fold multiplication of another? Would a lifeless continent of Africa be outweighed if Australia would just flourish that much more? Are we only talking about specific populations that have been watched non-stop from 1970 till today, or does it suffice to have measured one population of "birds" in 1970 and another in roughly the same place today? ("Population" is a rather specific term for biologists.) The claim is not about one specific number but a general trend.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
To get a littler closer to the horse's mouth -- the news article is about the Living Planet Report 2018 as published by the WWF (the wildlife people, not the wrestling people.)
On page 7 of that report we have:
The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate species around the world. The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014.
Note that the report itself doesn't causally ascribe this to humans.
This particular claim in the report isn't footnoted but perhaps a more intrepid researcher could track it down further.
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
To get a littler closer to the horse's mouth -- the news article is about the Living Planet Report 2018 as published by the WWF (the wildlife people, not the wrestling people.)
On page 7 of that report we have:
The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate species around the world. The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014.
Note that the report itself doesn't causally ascribe this to humans.
This particular claim in the report isn't footnoted but perhaps a more intrepid researcher could track it down further.
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
To get a littler closer to the horse's mouth -- the news article is about the Living Planet Report 2018 as published by the WWF (the wildlife people, not the wrestling people.)
On page 7 of that report we have:
The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate species around the world. The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014.
Note that the report itself doesn't causally ascribe this to humans.
This particular claim in the report isn't footnoted but perhaps a more intrepid researcher could track it down further.
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
To get a littler closer to the horse's mouth -- the news article is about the Living Planet Report 2018 as published by the WWF (the wildlife people, not the wrestling people.)
On page 7 of that report we have:
The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate species around the world. The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014.
Note that the report itself doesn't causally ascribe this to humans.
This particular claim in the report isn't footnoted but perhaps a more intrepid researcher could track it down further.
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
answered 14 mins ago
Roger
2094
2094
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Roger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1
@matt_black: "Overfishing has been contained and even reversed by tighter regulation." -- Do you have citations for that (not from the fishing industry)?
– DevSolar
2 hours ago
2
While the headline of the Guardian article mentions "animals" the body of the article makes it clear the claim is limited to veterbrates (animals with a backbone). Hat-tip to @DevSolar for mentioning insects in particular.
– Oddthinking♦
1 hour ago
1
@DevSolar added reference to overfishing claim.
– matt_black
1 hour ago
1
@matt_black: "...*not* from the fishing industry", and you link to seafish.org? :-D I also note that the linked article says a lot about how cod population had decreased, that the EU has taken action to protect it, and that the (much criticised) MSC has now "fully certified [North Sea cod] as sustainable" -- but nothing about how the cod population has developed. For all we know (from that source), the MSC has just buckled in to lobby pressure.
– DevSolar
1 hour ago
@DevSolar The story is well known. If you don't believe it, it would make a good question. But I've altered the reference anyway.
– matt_black
1 hour ago