• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
One of the areas that is poorly-covered in many educational curriculums is ecology and environmental science. This is unfortunate given ecological and environmental issues are of critical importance at this time. They aren't talked about much in the political arena either, nor in day-to-day conversation. I thought I would share the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) with you all as a way of exploring and learning more about these topics. While some of these research findings are a bit dated now ( the original study was initiated by the United Nations in 2001), if anything the picture has grown more unfavorable as world governments have been slow to act on the importance of ecosystem services, the impacts of climate change, and so forth. Here is a brief summary of the MA's main findings:
  1. Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.
  2. The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems.
  3. The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
  4. The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystem while meeting increasing demands for services can be partially met under some scenarios considered by the MA, but will involve significant changes in policies, institutions and practices that are not currently under way. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services.
The bottom line of the MA findings is that human actions are depleting Earth’s natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted. At the same time, the assessment shows that with appropriate actions it is possible to reverse the degradation of many ecosystem services over the next 50 years, but the changes in policy and practice required are substantial and not currently underway.

The reports gathered on this page are extensive and grounded in the scientific literature. Unlike the scientific literature, however, these reports are easily accessible to the general public! :D

Feel free to discuss anything related to the issues discussed in the MA. These are very complex issues with a lot of moving pieces. I can also try to answer questions best I can, as ecological/conservation/biodiversity issues are a focus of mine.
 

MD

qualiaphile
Since we are already at 1 C of warming and that the Paris agreements will most likely not happen, when do you think we will hit 4 C of warming? Governments that are democratic will not make any changes to help ecosystems as they are heavily run by corporations.

Also why haven't scientists taken a more aggressive stance on an issue that is glaringly obvious?
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
Since we are already at 1 C of warming and that the Paris agreements will most likely not happen, when do you think we will hit 4 C of warming? Governments that are democratic will not make any changes to help ecosystems as they are heavily run by corporations.

Also why haven't scientists taken a more aggressive stance on an issue that is glaringly obvious?
I've read that scientists who work as science popularizers tend to lose cred with other scientists
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Since we are already at 1 C of warming and that the Paris agreements will most likely not happen, when do you think we will hit 4 C of warming? Governments that are democratic will not make any changes to help ecosystems as they are heavily run by corporations.

Also why haven't scientists taken a more aggressive stance on an issue that is glaringly obvious?

I think you've answered your own question here. Governments which are heavily run by corporations - particularly those in the fossil fuel sector - could be pressured into pulling funding for scientific organisations or endeavours when the scientists in question publish findings that the fossil fuel companies view as threatening to their business interests.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Since we are already at 1 C of warming and that the Paris agreements will most likely not happen, when do you think we will hit 4 C of warming?

I'd have to do some digging on that issue, and while it's related to the topic, it's a little bit off to the side. Climate change is one factor driving the loss of biological diversity on this planet. It's generally agreed upon that the primary driving factor is habitat destruction, which then amplifies affects of climatic change because it fragments habitats such that species don't have anywhere else to move to.

UOTE="MD, post: 5079951, member: 37386"]Also why haven't scientists taken a more aggressive stance on an issue that is glaringly obvious?[/QUOTE]

Some are, but I'd wager the main reason is that the sciences are, ideally, apolitical because they are objective and impartial disciplines. Sciences aim to describe and chronicle what is going on in the world, not try to drive the world in some particular normative direction. The moment you cross that line into prescribing something for the world, you have crossed outside of science and into philosophy, religion, or politics.


I've read that scientists who work as science popularizers tend to lose cred with other scientists

There's some truth to that - as I said above, once you cross that line into prescribing something what you are talking about stops being science. For disciplines that involve some more normative actions, it becomes very important to know where the science ends and where policy and ethics begin. The taboo surrounding this has been waning, however. In the discipline I studied in graduate school, I moreso got the impression that at this point we have an ethical obligation to get political.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
There are already a great many people (at least here in the US) who believe scientists (whether they are in actuality or not) are advancing their own agendas: especially related to climate change, evolution, cosmology/Big Bang, etc.

Edit: Sheesh! I didn't realize how much my new avatar resembles Q's....I'm gonna have to change that...
 
Top