Doing Something About Biodiversity Loss
In 50k years we’ve gone from extinction as usual to a 1000x faster loss — will we reverse the trend by 2030?
That something will be done is certain. Whether studied action slows the pace of biodiversity loss (population decline to local extinction to species extinction) is to question, i.e. is to not assume the pace can or will be slowed by studied intent, let alone reversed. The context is the pace of planetary-wide destructive change over the last 60 years of environmental protection that has slowed the pace only in the imagination of some modern humans.
The problem of industrial waste in rivers catching on fire has been mitigated, and humans living in southern California can usually see the Channel Islands (unlike in the 1960s) due to less apparent air pollution (CO2 is invisible), but exporting production to China, India, Indonesia and elsewhere has not slowed the pace of planetary destruction.
If current rates of biodiversity loss have increased 1000x during the Anthropocene (distal beginning 75k years ago to proximal beginning 1950) to a likely 10k fold increase by the 22nd century, perhaps we modern humans don’t have a problem (i.e. we are the problem). Working to “solve” modern human problems works to make the meta-problem of modern human overshoot worse.
So while we may not know enough about biodiversity loss to know whether any policies intended to mitigate biodiversity loss (by decreasing the pace/rate of) are actually working, the idea that if we know more about biodiversity loss, then the goal to “halt and reverse” biodiversity loss by 2030 (or any of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 when all are intended to be achieved) does not mean that doing so is even possible.
An article review in Futurity (“Futurity is your source of research news from leading universities”) led to the article being reviewed (Global Monitoring for Biodiversity: Uncertainty, risk, and power analyses to support trend change detection).
Abstract
Global targets aim to reverse biodiversity declines by 2050 but require knowledge of current trends and future projections under policy intervention. First, given uncertainty in measurement of current trends, we propose a risk framework, considering probability and magnitude of decline. While only 11 of 198 systems analyzed (taxonomic groups by country from the Living Planet Database) showed declining abundance with high certainty, 20% of systems had a 70% chance of strong declines. Society needs to decide acceptable risks of biodiversity loss. Second, we calculated statistical power to detect trend change using ~12,000 populations from 62 systems currently showing strong declines. Current trend uncertainty hinders our ability to assess improvements. Trend change is detectable with high certainty in only 14 systems, even if thousands of populations are sampled, and conservation action reduces net declines to zero immediately, on average. We provide potential solutions to improve monitoring of progress toward biodiversity targets.
Is the problem that we don’t know enough “to decide acceptable risks of biodiversity loss,” e.g. how many species can go extinct per day? And then there is the problem that “current trend uncertainty hinders our ability to assess improvements.” The context is the belief that the goal of reversing biodiversity loss by 2050 (if not 2030) will require more support (money) for studies that can quantify whether the goal is achieved before or by 2050.
The authors of the paper have solutions: “We provide potential solutions to improve monitoring of progress toward biodiversity targets.” If governments commit to funding improved monitoring of progress toward biodiversity targets, then policy makers will have more information. Governmental and NGO leaders, the thought leaders of the world in media and academia, can then share the information with we modern humans who value the life of one single human (or even a group of 50 koalas) above that of entire species of (not so cute) animals or plants (with no known value to humans).
I expect that more funding will be forthcoming, and that the pace of planetary destruction will not (significantly) slow (1/17 of the UN SDGs will be achieved by 2030 and biodiversity loss will not be reversed even by 2050 — such goals merely help modern humans to feel better about keeping on keeping on kicking multiple cans down the road to grow the economy — to extinction).
Maybe we really don’t need more information. Maybe we are failing to use what we know, i.e. that we have a form of civilization problem.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
To Reverse Biodiversity Loss, Turn 80% of the Planet Into a Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
For life on Earth, the Anthropocene is an existential threat (biodiversity loss regionally and species extinction, i.e. the greatest mass extinction event since the late Cretaceous, one that could rival that the Permian).
Consider that the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, an area that covers approximately 2,600 km2 (1,000 sq mi), is the only area on the planet to have shown significant ecological recovery, a dramatic increase in biodiversity, in the last 37 years.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Reality Check
We of the Anthropocene are presiding over a mass extinction event, unintended, but as if intended. If the goal of ending the increase in the rate of biodiversity loss is “achieved” by 2030, it will not be by intent.
But it could happen. On October 29, 2029 there is a financial adjustment in the stock market (collapse to a Greater Depression). Economic activity ends (nobody who votes voted for it to happen). By mid 2030, a few scientists working on their own dime, note that the pace of species extinction and contraction of the number of species in the average biome has ended. A dedicated UN official, still in the UN bunker, is notified, and several people gather in a small room to celebrate meeting their goal.
Oh, but the extinction rate, as determined early in 2029 — thanks to billions in funding, was determined to be 3,500 times the pre-Anthropocene extinction rate. So in 2030 the extinction rate was only 3,450 times higher than the rate of new species evolving. For some reason, the few unpaid biodiversity scientists were not celebrating.
Oh, but what if in 2039, when the economy was beginning to recover, a plague among humans spreads (95% mortality) and all economic activity ends apart from marauding. By 2050, the rate of species extinction equals that of 2000, and by 2100 the human population is 7 million and the rate of species extinction (due to negative climate change feedback delays) is only down to that of 1900.
But in 500 years there are still 7 million humans and global recovery of the biosphere is well underway, such that by 2600 the rate of new species evolving equals that of those going extinct.
In a small room, some ecologists celebrate and most renormalizing humans at least know why, and why human population cannot exceed 7 million for at least another 5 millennia when increasing it to 8 million will experimentally be tested with a plan for contracting it if results of environmental degradation are measurable (e.g. the rate of new species evolving ceases to increase as it must if the biosphere is to partially recover in 50k years — full recovery in maybe only 10 million years if renormalized humans assist in recovery which would otherwise take 20 million years if all humans had gone extinct by 2100).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
[Note: MHEM includes members who celebrate Modern human life and favor the extinction of all life on the planet that humans do not value. A minority faction views the condition of being a Modern human the way AA members view the condition of being an alcoholic — i.e. non-viable. The author is obviously one the the “or-noters” who seek to “just say no” to the Anthropocene.]
For involuntary change, join MHEM. The belief that you are a free agent, with free will to choose your future (or get modern humans to choose their future), is error floating on a sea of ignorance in a thick fog of illusion.
