this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
599 points (98.7% liked)

News

23275 readers
3437 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] stembolts@programming.dev -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] Anise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] stembolts@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] stembolts@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

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.