Tipping point: Huge wildlife loss threatens the life support of our small planet

November 1, 2018 by Tom Oliver, The Conversation
Credit: Shutterstock

A report by the WWF published on October 30 reveals how our actions are degrading the natural world – the very basis on which our livelihood depends. The Living Planet Report 2018 shows that between 1970 and 2014, vertebrate – mammal, fish, bird, amphibian and reptile – population sizes have been reduced by 60 percent. South and Central America have been hit particularly hard, suffering population declines of 89 percent.

The report is one of the most comprehensive global analyses of biodiversity, yet it does have its limitations. It only tracks vertebrates, sampling is not standardised across different biomes, and it ignores genetic diversity.

It's also worth noting that other global studies have reported different figures for biomass decline. A study in Nature looking at plant and insect species, estimates declines in species abundance of around 11 percent, and a study from Germany found a 75 percent decline in flying insect biomass in the 27 years up to 2016.

These are large discrepancies and clearly this topic needs further exploration. However, all these studies support the conclusion that we are losing biodiversity at an alarming rate.

The big debate

There are two main strands of argument when it comes to the of wildlife. The first is that the loss of nature is a necessary and acceptable consequence of human progress. Historically, our wealth has increased through exploiting the natural environment, and it has allowed us to live richer lives with more freedom of opportunity.

Counter to this, the argument runs that we can only push so far before we threaten the life support systems of our small planet – the capacity of the biosphere to regulate our climate, pollinate our crops, purify our water and decompose our waste. The biologist Paul Ehrlich once made the analogy that losing species in an ecosystem is like progressively removing rivets from an aeroplane: the plane may fly on for a while, but eventually it will fall out of the sky.

Such concerns have led to attempts to quantify "safe limits" of biodiversity loss, or so-called planetary boundaries that we must not cross else we risk a catastrophic tipping point. Although a compelling concept, there remains serious issues in implementing it. One is the uncertainty in the extent of biodiversity loss, the other is in the impact these losses will have on human livelihoods.

Tipping point: huge wildlife loss threatens the life support of our small planet
While the figures may differ, most major studies reveal a deteriorating situation. Credit: thetruthdenied/Flickr

To make a comparison with climate change, many governments only committed to action after the likely economic impacts were quantified through meticulous analysis combining climate science and economics. Therefore, new approaches to more precisely quantify risk are urgently needed in order to galvanise action.

But even if we can ascertain the risks, will we actually be able to stop biodiversity loss?

We know with some confidence the risks of global warming, yet countries are struggling to stick to their Paris commitments, let alone the even greater emission reductions needed to avoid a warmer world.

Acting responsibly

I was recently involved in an interdisciplinary analysis of the global food system (one of the major culprits of biodiversity loss), which identified a range of mechanisms that keep our food system "locked" into an unsustainable trajectory.

People often feel powerless to change such global systems and point to factors at the level of government policy, such as the upcoming extension and renewal of the Convention for Biological Diversity.

Although wise governance is essential, many factors that contribute to a decline in biodiversity operate at the individual level, such as our dietary and consumer choices. Also, the structure of our institutions ultimately reflects our individual mindsets, so we have the opportunity to initiate positive change by acknowledging our dependency on nature. Rising levels of individualism, however, have encouraged an economy that provides for private interests at the expense of nature.

Through our purchases we can destroy the environment on the other side of the world, which is why the WWF report calls for better data to connect consumers to the consequences of their actions. On the positive side, our increasingly connected world could allow for social contagion of positive and responsible ways of acting. Small individual changes can cascade and cause a different kind of "tipping point" towards a more sustainable way of life.

If we really want to halt loss and ensure a safe course for current and future generations on Spaceship Earth, we need to think beyond government, and forget the selfish "I" – the solutions start with "us."

Explore further: Nature in steep decline due to human activities: WWF Living Planet Report 2018

Related Stories

A global conflict: Agricultural production vs. biodiversity

March 8, 2018

Smart land-use planning could ease the conflict between agricultural production and nature conservation. A team of researchers from the University of Göttingen, the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), ...

It pays to invest in biodiversity

May 18, 2018

In 2010, 193 countries stepped up to halt the global decline of biodiversity by 2020 as part of their commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Recommended for you

How plants evolved to make ants their servants

November 12, 2018

Plants are boring. They just sit there photosynthesizing while animals have all the fun. Right? Not so much. Take a look at the interactions between ants and plants—plants have evolved features specifically to make them ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

chromakey
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2018
Since doing nothing and watching Earth and human civilization falter in a dystopian environmental apolcalypse is not an option, we must now consider the options on the table. What extraordinary measures must be taken to curb the human population now, not next decade or next year, but now-- and save the Earth?
V4Vendicar
not rated yet Nov 01, 2018
According to John McCarthy of Stanford University, the world can comfortably support a population of 15 billion consuming resources at U.S.rates of consumption and waste production.

One of John's friends was Stanford Economist Julian Simon who argued for decades that the Earth's resources were essentially infinite.

Both of those fools are now dead, and the world is a better place for it. But their Ideology lives on in the Republican party.

First step. Eradicate the Republican party.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.