Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 294 294

we have triggered a large die-off, and that we may become victims of it as well.

How are they lying about the effects, the author only suggests it's a possibility it would be our demise. It isn't proposed to a certainty. But keep burying your head in the sand, nothing we do could possibly hurt us on a large scale! More CAFOs, more intensive agriculture, more deforestation, more overfishing, and hey, more bush meat while we're at it! We're improving the planet for future generations by doing those things actually!

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 294 294

The fact that you read some alarmist predictions that turned out to be false in the 70's doesn't mean that all reporting on the decline of species diversity is bunk.

I have learned most people prefer fear to reason and this is just proving my point.

So any predictions for the future that seem too negative are deemed FUD, even without real hard evidence to counter it, because you once read some FUD? Your logic has some holes in it.

Comment No. (Score 3, Interesting) 294 294

So because the world you live in hasn't changed significantly ('Still got chicken and cities!'), the idea that biodiversity is on a fast decline is wrong... even though the article asserted it started long before the 1970's. So yes, it did "come to be". Please give us some references that there hasn't been a massive loss of biodiversity over the last 100 years. You can't because there has been. Are you really naive enough to think we can't have any effects on the biosphere, because look we're all still here? We do have finite resources and an ever expanding population.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen