Even though this report identifies human overpopulation as a significant factor in the loss of biodiversity, what specific recommendation is glaringly absent in the report? And why?

There's no question that we should choose adoption over further biological procreation. Guys, get snipped (a vasectomy). We need to reduce the population humanely and let the Earth recover immediately.

If this story doesn't lead to mass suicide, something is truly wrong with our species.

So much for the humans as custodians/managers of Nature.
Humans are the global pest/vermin. Realizing this and ditching the supremacy myth (which infects both theistic religions and secular ones) would help.

BTW--the word "humanely" is an example of the supremacy myth--because it implies to be compassionate is to be human, and yet to be wicked is to be inhuman(non human). But the greatest acts of cruelty and sadism are committed by only one species. Dogs have perished in fires trying to save cats, cats have made friends with mice, even wild species have been filmed and documented engaging in what can easily be called altruistic acts--but they dont match that with acts of extreme barbarism, unlike humans.
So to be inhumane should be to be compassionate, and to be humane should be to be cruel.
Simple stuff.

"Between 1960 and 2000, the human population of the world has doubled. Yet during the same period, the animal populations have declined by 30 per cent. It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans."

"If this story doesn't lead to mass suicide, something is truly wrong with our species."

The underlying assumption is that we must drastically cut human numbers. The facts are that we must enact a program of awakening. In a matter of days, we could be on the rebound. How?

Remove the blinders that define present day human corporate military society and the lie that it rests upon: humans are dominators, hunters, omnivore/carnivore.

The ecological fact of the matter is that humans are herbivores! This simple fact (and its behavioral embrace) would free up untold lands for habitat recovery.

Do you realize that 1/50th as much land is required for a practicing human herbivore diet as is required for a person practicing a Western style meatarian diet?

We do not need to prune human numbers. WE NEED TO END the fundamental iggnorance that supports human ecological insanity!

http"//allinharmony.org

"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

William C. Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of Cardiology

STOP THE WAR MACHINE THAT IS GEARING UP FOR MASS HUMAN GENOCIDE! Choose the path of understanding! Killing anyone is absolutely unnecessary and as it turns out, not even supported by human ecological nature.

The planet will support us all quite well, but first we have to respect its laws of interaction for our own species.

It's unlikely that awareness and concern can be raised to the appropriate level to actually improve the situation, and even if it was, it's simply not convenient, economical or profitable for people, corporations, or governments to support efforts to conserve these species. Cost, profit, and efficiency are all that matter in capitalist markets -- to the decimation and destruction of anything standing in the way. Economists might call this a "tragedy of the commons" but it is far graver than that.

The best solution to this problem is a plague or pandemic to reduce the number of humans on the planet by 70% or greater so that nature can recover.

There is nothing else that anyone reading this forum could propose that has any realistic chance of ever being adopted globally by all people, companies, and government to save these species. Oh, you might save a few here or a few there, through some program or other, but overall decimation of habitats and species would continue.

I think the humans must die. 70% or more of them. Now some might think this is crazy -- but I would just think of it as natural selection in action -- and it would solve many more problems than just this one.

Don't agree ? Then don't attack me, post an alternative proposal that would actually work.

rtb: The "elite" plan is to provide the equivalent of a targetted plague or pandemic. Unfortunately, their may be a certain amount of unplanned fallout.

Empower women and girls to have control over their own reproductive health and the birth rate will drop below replacement levels. I agree it is human overpopulation that threatens the planet and everything on it but think there's another way to achieve reduction. First end the Bush gag rule and fully fund UN population efforts. Celebrate people who remain childless - not those who have 18 children!

Meanwhile all the other environmental causes can still be supported.

We do not need to prune human numbers. WE NEED TO END the fundamental IGNORANCE that supports human ecological insanity!

http://allinharmony.org

correction for mistakes in previous comment

Individuals are sufficent to stop species losses.

Individuals armed with understanding will make the choices that will arrest species losses and every other calamity brought about by our ecological insanity.

Governments are not required. The internet itself is sufficient. Spread the word. Save yourselves and all others!

Today is a good day to save a planet! It's easy and it is in your hands.

http://allinharmony.org

There has been a lost of the local everything.
I think people who move their families about in a range greater than a few hundred miles don't see themselves as the "natives" of the new area they live and settle in. They can be blinded by the concentration of material goods available to them that do not originate in their region or have a religion that does not address the local history, fawn and flora of their current residence. Or they just don't understand how their local resources relate to their lives. We are living during what I call the Tipping Point Era. The tipping point will not occur on some designated day but will happen in what will seem like a day to the geological time line of the planet. There are so many solutions and there are so many people in need of these solutions. I can only see a combination of traditional consumption habits, out of place religious beliefs and a basic lack of ecological knowledge as the major road block to what could at least be a slowing of the decline of our current life support systems on the planet.

"rtb: The "elite" plan is to provide the equivalent of a targetted plague or pandemic. Unfortunately, their may be a certain amount of unplanned fallout."

This is true but the war machine will continue to play a huge role as well as all the police state surveillance and control structures. Sad, very sad. Because these measures will not only not achieve the desired result, they will accomplish more of the same... a more complete cessation of the natural order that was designed to support life.

Embrace your natural ecology (humans are herbivores)… and let the dictates of nature be once again respected by the human family.

"... but the war machine will continue to play a huge role ..."

Unquestionably. Even unnatural "elite" plagues require carriers and vectors.

We are so toast.

BTW, my wife & I chose years ago to have no children due to the overpopulation issue. We live in a net-zero energy home and have a very low carbon footprint. We are vegetarians and do everything we can to live lightly on the planet.

Humanity has not evolved quick enough to keep up with its own technology. It's our profligate use of fossil fuels that has enabled the population explosion and led to most of the ills we face today.

It's hard to accept that we will be the cause of our own demise, while taking many other life forms along with us. How utterly stupid and unnecessary.

Besides religions that prohibit birth control in order to rule our bodies as well as our minds, the US mantra of growth as the solution to everything also implies global population growth to provide ever cheaper labor.

SocratesNV -- Likewise. My husband and I decided: no children (I tied my tubes at 22). Vegetarian. A small highly insulated solar-paneled house. Xeriscaped, except for our food garden. We make do with one car (oh, how terrible to be poor Americans, right?) and it's a small economy model. But we are only two among the vast landscape of SUV-loving, meat-gorging, lawn-and-pool-loving Americans. The average American eats 275 pounds of meat per year, which means that somewhere somebody is eating our meat and your meat too.

The instinct to procreate wins out over the use of the intellect in most people, even people of intelligence. Given that we sit atop the food chain, nothing preys on us so there's nothing to stop our growth. Even in Third World countries, with malaria and polio and other horrible diseases such as AIDS and dengue fever and ebola, the death rate hardly cuts into the formidable birth rate. Life breeds more intensely when threatened. Even people sickened by parasites and insufficient food can still reproduce, and they do. And there are no checks in the Western societies, where having children is seen as a right, not a privilege. A big mistake, in my opinion. But then I think we should be shooting for very few children of very high quality, and not for bumper crops that get little attention beyond the fact that they exist (as in being 1 of 18, e.g.).

A quantum shift in humanity's thought process is going to happen soon given all the "energy" that is building up. With each day we come closer to a precipitous climax. This seems obviously evident. Many systems are out of balance, but a new balance will be achieved (with or without humanity).

Many can envison a future that is so much better. A future based on learning from the past. A future that is truly equitable and where humanity recognizes we are only part of the "tree of life". Because this future can be envisioned, I'd argue that such a future is possible. Sadly, at the present time, such a future seems unlikely, but who knows. With quantum changes what was once believed impossible can become reality and this can happen in the blink of an eye. I'd rather try to be the change I want to happen than contribute to self-fulfilling dismal prophesizing. Nobody knows the future for sure.

I think there is plenty to go around and the earth can easily support the current human population if we learn how to fit in. On the other hand, if we continue to cause other species to go extinct, then so too will be our fate because we our connected with these other species and we need them more than they need us.

Peace,
Ken

buffalo ken -- thank you !

the paradigm shift is always available to us, but to access it we must disengage from what seems to be happening . . .

unlearning is the hardest part, but also the most rewarding . . .

'reality' is a holodimensional construct playing now in the theater of physicality,
to change the scenery, change the awareness with which you perceive it . . .

This article affirms what has become quite apparent over the years. I remember the passage of the ESA, and thought at that time that perhaps there was still a chance at reversing some of the damage, but even that effort was simply based on utilitarian self-interest arguments. Unless we can radically change the way we understand ourselves as part of, not separate and better than, a planet that includes other living beings who experience life in ways that are unique but differenct than our own, then we are doomed.

The escalation of human caused destruction over the past few decades has doomed so many other animals, and the discussion still focuses on "resources." We must extract oil because it is a more important resource than polar bears, for example. This kind of thinking is what has done us in. It is not just that this is "short-sighted." It is grounded in wrong understanding of the planet, one that elevates our own species above and separate from all others.

"Given that we sit atop the food chain, nothing preys on us so there's nothing to stop our growth."

This is simply a major fallacy of our very ecologically fallacious culture. There is NO 'top' to the food chain!

In fact, evolutionary tendency is from carnivorous to omnivorous where we see some plant eating capabilities, to exclusive plant eating capabilities and then further specialization (such as the bovine specialized stomach) adding an ability to digest much more commonly available foodstuffs, grasses.

If one looks with an accurate ecological lens, one sees that ecology itself moves towards dietary specializations that can support great herds, meaning larger and larger population numbers… and it turns out, these greater numbers are necessary to a number of other specialized ecological functions including soil conditioning.

The assumptions regarding human behavior and our place in the evolutionary history of the earth's biosphere (that are so often repeated) are simply wrong. I do not care if these are assumed and repeated by professors of environmental science, they are still absolutely wrong and born of culturally induced assumption and not accurate science based upon an acquaintance with nature.

Humans are herbivores: http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Furthermore, had all of us not been reared in a elitist dominator culture, we would NEVER have thought to fish! Over-fishing depends to the notion that fish is an appropriate food for humans, which it is not! And has only been promulgated by cultures and vestiges of vanquished cultures that taught an errant hierarchical model for social organization, the purpose of which was fundamentally to justify rule by an elite class supported by a violence-enabled class, the warrior cult.

So, ALL meat-eating and the myths that support it (in human societies around the world), stem from the 'corporate/military' (temple-based) model for society.

Is it any wonder that we have adopted a (completely non-scientific) cultural fallacy such as 'top of the food chain'?

The door out of the insanity (killing spree) is to decide to participate (ecologically speaking), because our attempts to dominate nature are being answered with a 'no thank you' from the rest of life.

Many years ago I stopped using pesticides and herbicides on my place. Now the garden is only organic and the seeds are saved from year to year. I also began a small feeding program for birds and other animals. It began with plants found growing locally that were indigenous to this area. I also created wildlife habitat at the edges of woods and fields. I have consistently improved these efforts over the years. Today I have a thriving community of indigenous plants and animals. Birds that had disappeared are now back, such as the red headed woodpecker and others. New species that I had not seen in the area before are showing up as well such as the scarlet tanger. My experience suggests that done consistently, islands of prepared habitat and consistent feeding can reverse some of the negative effects causing extinctions. The bees are back strong this year as well, feeding on the indigenous trees and plants that I provided. Individually we can do something about this.

It is not impossible to get humans to limit reproduction. I lived in Singapore, a small city state of around 3 million population, in the 70s, when they instituted a whole series of programs designed to make their nation prosperous and sustainable. As a model on a small scale for the world, their approach, and its successes, should be studied by those looking at how our world might address the population challenge.

Their new government recognize early on that, as a small nation with limited land or resources, they would have to establish a 'voluntary' commitment to limit population growth if they were to have any chance of prospering in the long term. Using a combination of societal education and government policy to establish the idea that two children was fine, and that more was bad for the country's future prosperity and viability, they quickly succeeded in gaining almost complete acceptance for this seemingly impossible proposition. Policies included making education, medical care, and other social supports for child raising free (for the first two children). However, if a third child was added to the family, the family would be responsible for all costs of raising the child, and would not find a place in child care facilities or in local schools for that child. Very quickly, both in their acceptance of the context that population growth would harm the country's prosperity in the long run, and the policies making it costly and troublesome for raising and educating additional children, it became accepted in Singapore that two was the right number. I did not find anyone I met while there who thought it anything but a reasonable and necessary part of their contribution to building a sustainable future. We should be so smart!

While this is only a tiny slice of our world, they have demonstrated that this can work. It was on the basis of Singapore's success that China has attempted to reduce population by instituting their restriction to one child (a more difficult challenge that has seem some serious human rights abuses). We humans are rational creatures, and our best reason should be appealed to in this time of resource shortages, species extinctions and environmental devastation. Whether we conclude that the right number is one (to bring about population reduction) or two ( to maintain the population), we need to begin figuring out what combination of education and policies can make everyone accept what is right for our long term prosperity and sustainability. Without a self-conscious effort to educate ourselves about this crisis, and then calling on our governments to institute policies that support our conclusions, we are headed for a terrible collapse caused by the unthinking fecundity of our species and our irrational commitment to our right of choice in this matter. If not, we will also be on the list of extinct species we are now causing.

Corporate interests
Earnings targets
Quarterly earnings
Growth
Productivity
GDP

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBtT9NfWtbE

The problem lies in the pseudo-science of economics. The standard of living of human beings is governed by production and production is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Consideration of these laws makes it necessary to consider all production as joint-production creating both pollution and objects of manufacture. We take the objects of manufacture as "profits," and leave to nature all the pollution. The decline of the animal kingdom is the first casualty.
Unless economics is altogether re-written, abolishing the delusional concept of profit, political actions necessary to save the planet cannot come about. Compromise is out of the question, nature is insensible to image and "spin."
If carbon emissions are not halted immediately so that atmospheric precipitation and botanical respiration can cut worldwide atmospheric carbon by 10%, the planet will die.

All of Earth is now one, big Mayan civilization. And we know how well that turned out...

"IF this story doesn't lead to mass suicide, something is truly wrong with our species."

BEEKEEPER OPENS THE, BLOGs.

So very interesting instead of putting that energy into trying to help with the necessary steps to sop climate change and global warming the man gives up!. What that means for most of you out there is: stop looking at your 401k and use it for selfless work for the globe. This is the immediate response of so many. Instead it should be a call to activism to stop the madman in the Whitehouse and his cohorts like McCain.

Radical change is necessary in Washington to begin with!

I was checking out my favorite, and one of the most power environmental statements ever made- "Whatever befalls the earth- befalls the sons of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life- he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."- Chief Seattle.

Funny thing is... there seems to be an enormous propaganda campaign to discredit this statement... claiming that it was written by a 'hollywood screenwriter' and not Chief Seattle and therefor isn't true. Frankly, I could care less. It's still one of the most powerful pro-environmental statements of all time. And that's why they want to blast it.

The internet is awash in 'research' trying to discredit the statement. But the most telling single webpage is the Snopes deconstruction attack. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/seattle.asp

When you look at their 'sources' at the bottom of the page... you can see what they have is attacks by The Seattle Times, New York Times, Newsweek, San Diego Tribune, and the Sunday Telegraph- most all from within the same 1 year period.

Checking the sources further... the one that really pops out is the San Diego Tribune, owned by Copley Press:
(from wikipedia)
"Allegations of collaboration with CIA and FBI"

In the late 1970s, reports began surfacing in the American media that the Copley Press was being used as a front by the Central Intelligence Agency. Reporters Joe Trento and Dave Roman claimed that James S. Copley, who served as publisher until 1973, had cooperated with the CIA since its founding in 1947. They also reported that a subsidiary division, Copley News Service, was used in Latin America by the CIA as a front. Further, they said that reporters at the Copley-owned San Diego Union and Evening News spied on antiwar protesters for the FBI. They alleged that at the height of these operations, at least two dozen Copley employees were simultaneously working for the CIA. James S. Copley was also accused of involvement in the CIA-funded Inter-American Press Association.[3][4][5][6]"

Well.. the other sources I don't think I need to describe them much here... they are all Warmongers who either played powerful rolls in bringing the Bushes to power, or in duping the country into war.

So obviously... Mr. Big Mili-Oily-Tary-Monopoly doesn't like Chief Seattle's passionate environmental speech and has used his CIA goons to trash the most powerful statement of environmental harmony ever.

My solution to the environmental problem and extinctions- first we must blast the Propagandists and show their true colors. It wont be easy... since they have monopolized the media.

extract from 'a world without us' by alan weisman: 'worldwide, every four days human population rises by 1 million'. since we can't really grasp such numbers, they'll wax out of control until they crash, as has happened to every other species that got too big for this box'

i could add more, but this paragraph nails our problem in a nutshell.........and i for one, cannot see us doing anything about this scenario before we crash. it's too far out of control to control..........

Latest and best book on extinctions of the human kind......

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward

It is well worth the read. We're already pretty much underway with the feedbacks. Biodiversity decline is just one of the ways to tell where we are going.

Technology is not the answer nor is great leadership.

At a point nearer than we think rationing will begin.

First water, then fossil fuels resulting in electricity rationing. Plan to live as we have made the Iraqi's live.

2 hours a day, going to the well, and walking everywhere. Welcome to Bushworld.

All of you posting population facts are simply talking out of your arses!

It is not known whether the optimum number of humans (ecologically speaking) is none, 10 billion, 5 billion, 100 million, or 20 billion.

Until humanity decides to address its ecological nature and act accordingly, human wisdom remains an unrealized possibility. And without ecological understanding, data (including human population figures) is simply data, non-contextualized and presently useless!

Every person here speaking to population concerns has failed to address the social organizations that are dictating how populations aggregate. And that is why we cannot speak reliably to numbers.

For instance, what if there are 100 million rabbits in the Americas? Would that be significant? Why?

Now, do you think it matters whether they are ALL living in research facilities and being fed corporate produced foodstuffs or whether they are living in parks and other more natural places?

Humanity MUST first rediscover its place in nature. And like the rest of nature, by integration, we will discover what our population numbers can (even should) be… even broken down on a region by region basis.

Let's add another fact (and there are many). Did you know that meat-eaters have puberty up to four or more years earlier than those practicing their ecologically defined exclusive plant-based diet?

Do you remember that the Chinese 'overpopulated' not because of natural interest in children but because of Mao's programs that insisted upon it? Ever consider how important this precursor to the present slave culture was?

Singapore? That is another discussion. I do not agree that such a police state with wide-spread slavery should be a model for anything... Sheesh!

Frankly, that is the point! You have NO models. And the closest ones are the ones under greatest attack, the indigenous communities in places like the South American rainforest.

Years ago, before all the violence erupted, I visited Sri Lanka. There were lots of people… and trees so heavy with fruit it was amazing… coconuts, bananas, etc.

At night we snuck out of our room (there were guards at the door since my husband at the time was a visiting VIP), and went for a walk on the beach… and stumbled upon many who had made their beds in the sand… the same people who would sit on the expansive verandas and play chess and drink tea during the day… people were friendly, tolerant, educated and living in a lush environment where anyone could pick what they needed to eat.

Maybe you don't want to sleep in the sand but they would have had a veranda too had it not been that even this place in those days was an elitist state organized for a privileged class… but, vestiges of what could have been were still evident… I am certain that today, much of that has been lost. And the eradication of lush habitats for all animals, including humans is an ancient program for extending and maintaining control.

Today the program is approaching total control over the most basic necessities of life…including total control of all crops (and water) and the eradication of everything (edible) that is not under corporate control.

FAKEDEMOCRACY

GOOD POST BUT ITS MEDIA CONTROL:

The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda
by John Pilger

"As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called "professional journalism" was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishment-objective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, "entirely bogus".

For what the public did not know was that in order to be professional, journalists had to ensure that news and opinion were dominated by official sources, and that has not changed. Go through the New York Times on any day, and check the sources of the main political stories-domestic and foreign-you'll find they're dominated by government and other established interests. That is the essence of professional journalism. I am not suggesting that independent journalism was or is excluded, but it is more likely to be an honorable exception. Think of the role Judith Miller played in the New York Times in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, her work became a scandal, but only after it played a powerful role in promoting an invasion based on lies. Yet, Miller's parroting of official sources and vested interests was not all that different from the work of many famous Times reporters, such as the celebrated W.H. Lawrence, who helped cover up the true effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945. "No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin," was the headline on his report, and it was false."

I read with interest the comments above. We all know what many are saying is true, those who have watched for years the developing oligarchic plutocracy of the USA. The United States is a right wing fascist country preaching freedoms while using every conceivable method, historically used by all dictatorships regardless of stripe to repress the self-determination of different peoples.

Unless the United States cleans its own house and joins the rest of the world to resolves differences globally there will be no way to deal with the threat of climate change which requires global cooperation.

The United States is looked upon by the rest of the world as the problem and not anywhere close to a solution. All fear the USA, including its own people. This is a recipe for global disaster, which continues unabated by the two party control of congress and exacerbated by the elements of global disunity that occupies the present White House.

As above we see the reflection of people's voices that reflect a large cross section of Americans, those still able to think for themselves without media or corporate brainwashing. It is a sad day for the world that looks toward America for true change, since there is no hope on the immediate horizon and the list of candidates is slim. If we look at those who truly think differently we see - since they ultimately reflect the will of the people- the odds for true change is rather slim. Simply look at the percentages for Kucinich, Ron Paul and Obama, that is when the media allows them to speak.

The public rarely enjoins the true issues or do the politicians the reasons are clear. Special interests and "free enterprise" capitalism it is what this country has devised as worth living and dying for. The basis for the consumer ideology is energy in association with an auto-centered economy closes the circle. It uses the media to direct the public flow of the so-called truth and we have a perfect example of it in this political campaign. It is why Exxon Mobile is out of control and the public is given platitudes rather than help.

The media is out of control this election has shown us just how far it has gone to dumb-down the public. The recent move by ABC to remove candidates from the debates who voiced radical dissent was outrageous. Media is determining the fate of the country and the world by being mouthpiece for special interests and the government and silencing dissent by marginalization.

Media censure is unheard, the FCC should rule for the public good but like the EPA its teeth are continually drawn. The media has no right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion under the rules used by ABC should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few, pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests. I hope that someone picks up on this thought. We have seen the obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly, in the form of Wolf Blitzer and the FOX rabid journalists/news readers, constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy to the exclusion of important issues.

Blitzer's bias is clear. He is quick to use every possible negative he can against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. His support for Clinton has been clear and inappropriate, for CNN to call itself"fair and balanced" news network is ridiculous. I quote Mr. Nichols: 
" The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions."

As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep created by media. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could still be and once was. The present "lack of experience" cry of Clinton is preposterous. Could anyone having been near the White house as long as Bush and done as badly for the USA? There is experience! However, even with the discovery of a job approval rating at about 28% the conservative media does not criticize. The rating of the American people speaks volumes about Bush's experience. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team! There is experience!

A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and made greed the single value of importance. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign. The Hillary political group and the entrenched political machines have virtually destroyed America. They represent the exclusive money and power clubs so disappointed by Obama's' win in NC. Hillary believed in and ran to defend and keep this form of government is America regardless of the consequences.

Clinton recently morphed to the Obama populist message, it was called, "finding her voice" while at the beginning of her stump showing the, Madeline Albright, bomb the children image. 
Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? I guess not since all the politicos have adopted this message including McCain? The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years. It is also necessary to give him a democratic congress to make certain that the programs that Americans want can be enacted.

Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems, and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio! Wolf Blitzer is one of the glaring examples of this criticism and shows clearly those distorted ideas with his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion dictated by his bosses.

Wolf Blitzer is a person who has no right to shape public opinion far from being the "fly on the wall" he espouses to be. We must remember flies morph from maggots. He displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in America to be news reporting. If Blitzer were billed as a CNN commentator, at least the public would not be hoodwinked to believe his reporting to be the truth, while it is his lack of concern for accuracy, rectitude and fairness that replaces his style of news is simply opinion. His love of his bosses "dream team concept", to somehow get the Clintons near the Whitehouse, if not in it is clear for all of us to see.

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_______________________________________________________________

The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what "change" would really do and mean to this country, as well as, the change in leadership necessary, they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush . . . No one, not even a dogcatcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for
Animals!

The future leaders, Obama or McCain, should discuss the problems America and the world faces in the coming election directly. The problem of public ignorance of the issues caused by the media is serious. In the heat of elections the media panders to the voter ignorance it has itself created. The emphasis, as we see on nightly, so-called news, is constant repetition of candidate's miscues. The result of the media sensationalism becomes, the wrong problem and the wrong message at a crucial time in world history. The emphasis should be instead on having the politicians address a credible platform of ideas based on the global climate change issues and American problems in association with global interaction in the world at this time is critical. Obama knows this!

There is not enough time left for civilization to focus on rubbish. The energy and environmental issues for example or food and health care are the problems the media should be focusing upon. But to use the Rev, Wright issue for one week, to try and hurt the candidacy of Obama is a travesty. The issues most pressing are once again avoided, those really important issues that must be put before the public and congress; the environment, continued funding of Iraq, energy issues, education, health care and so many others not dealt with, all impacting upon the economy, makes the failure of public dialog outrageous and dangerous! Moreover, the costs of addressing these issues could come from the wars end!

The issue of this election will impact on the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Still, if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle, as a result of regressive US election laws and media obfuscation. It is compulsory for everyone to vote in Australia it should be so in the USA as well. Few of the candidates are really talking about the major points, even those who are the most erudite. The environment in association with the economy or health care and elections reform, to name some, are kept out of public dialog as a result of the nonsense punditry hours on end. The world looks at America and its "star struck reality" in wonderment.

The political discussion rests on the complete lack of talking points in isolation, such as, Clinton's health package or the nonsense gasoline tax rebate and it's cost, rather than what is really at stake with energy issues, human survival. The candidates for the US presidency rarely talk about the complete interrelated package of the issues combined. Obama alludes to this deficiency in the media and public issues that are talking points. When he asks for this to occur it lands on deaf ears because the media and special interests do not want this to occur.

The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level with pundits arguing about one inconsequential issue or another rather than the truly important issues of our time. The American people are kept from hearing and understanding the relationship of the entire package of issues, which a true leader must address and deal with for the very survival of America in the world within a global economy. The costs for the war would pay for every single need from health care to American infrastructure repair and education, as well as the alleviation of world hunger and energy research, this is what's truly at stake.
Instead, the pundits hired by media for their simplistic nature, deals with Rev.Wright and American Flag lapel pins instead.

The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons --they represent the moneyed people who do not want the public to truly engage in moving radically toward change. It dos not matter that these related issues will affect their very lives and their future. In fact keep the population not able to move at all because their means of survival is being stripped. The old adage "if you want to keep em quiet keep um hungry" with an LBJ accent applies

The issues of climate change, energy issues and the global economy, not only American economy, is the dynamic we see played out with the mortgage crisis created by the "free market" system. All the above issues with people losing their homes as a result of Wall Street manipulation are tied to the above economic fundamental problems. The global economy is the first and major issue, which affects all other issues and is completely related to the economic changes, which must take place.

The media board rooms instruct their so-called journalists (news/opinion readers) to stay clear of those subjects that would attack advertising, consumption, tied together in the media collusion with special interests to maintain the consumer system killing the world. Media directors, in collusion with government and special interests do not want the changes that would result in the decline of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

All environmental problems are in one way or another associated with the Western world's consumption based lifestyle led by the USA. These issues are affected by consumer advertising much of it coming from the millions spent on false advertising of irrelevant product and campaign advertising. The media should be dealing with true American and global issues in this campaign affecting the very basis of the so-called American Dream, fast becoming the global nightmare. This is what the next president of the USA must address!

itsaNaziworldorder: Thanks for the information about humans as natural herbivores. I was skeptical at first, but am convinced. It certainly makes sense given all of the health problems associated with eating dead animal flesh.

Fakedemocracy: Does it really matter whether Chief Seattle said it or not? The truth of an argument doesn't depend on who says it. It's beautiful and true, and that should be enough.

All: I don't believe that humans can change their behavior soon enough to save themselves and the other inhabitants of our planet. I don't believe that we will suddenly wise up and realize our behavior must change. Where in human history is there evidence of such an awakening? Change will come when there is no alternative. We'll start using less petroleum when we can't afford to binge on it any longer. We'll stop eating meat when it's unaffordable. So many problems in human history might have been resolved if people understood how the compounding on a mass scale of apparently innocent individual behavior spelled doom. But it simply hasn't happend that way--yet. What hope is there that it will happen now? Climate change is a fact that we will have to adjust to. Those with fewer resources to adjust to it will suffer the most. The wealthy will find ways to insulate themselves from the worst of it. Meanwhile, I will work on voluntarily reducing my environmental footprint, but with the knowledge that it probably won't do any good. Can anyone PLEASE convince me that things will go differently?

"Can anyone PLEASE convince me that things will go differently?"

I'm working on it... and the more you work on it, the better you will get at being able (and positioned) to turn the tide... believe it or not, each person is potentially the one that can precipitate a landslide of change... we are aided by the fact that our change is mandated (and supported) by nature and so much easier to accomplish than not making the change.

Don't despair, gird yourself for the last mile and run like your life (and mine) depends upon it! Failure is Not an option!

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step"

But, this is a race so just plant your feet and head out... what you will need to learn will be apparent as you make the approach (or so I have always counseled myself in times of greatest despair and darkness).

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."

Edmund J Burke

So absent political actions what have you done personally and consistently around your own home to reverse this decline?

Life on Earth would thrive without man.

"You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this - Jonathan Loh

Not mentioned in the article, but perhaps y'all know, is that the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event was 65 million years ago.

Not 15,000 years ago during the last climate warming event. Not during any other interglacial period since C-T. This global extinction event is a direct result of man's influence upon his environment, including climate. Tell that to a climate change denier.

This global extinction event will be a geological event. In millions of years time, geologists will know this time line because it will be expressed in the geology. This time line will be relatively thin, perhaps only a few inches thick, and it will not only show that many/most of Earth species died off in a very short (geologically speaking) period of time, maybe 10,000 years, but it will also be full of exotic radioactive isotopes and organic compounds that do not otherwise exist anywhere else in the geological record.

Hopefully, homo sapiens will be among the extinct.

truth monger wrote: Life on Earth would thrive without man.

This is true, but it will be a different to what lives now, and has lived for millions of years. But frankly, I do not see why life on earth should regress to the level of complexity that existed on the Earth to say the Cambrian, or 400 million years ago.

To: it'sanaziworldorder and others -

Wrong, humans are omnivores, not herbivores. If you don't believe it google for Neanderthal,food or Cro-magnon,food. They were great hunters and made a lot of clever tools to do it with. Or simply look at the Lescaux caves in France. Plenty of hunting going on there.

It's true that most primates are herbivores, (although chimpanzees eat termites, which they catch with sticks),
but it's possible that humans developed further than they did because we ate meat and so provided our brains with protein, essential for a really smart brain.

(Although I won't insist that we're really smart -)

Sorry about that -

"So absent political actions what have you done personally and consistently around your own home to reverse this decline?"

Since species loss is directly tied to human resource abuses and destructions, my focus is to explain the underlying fallacies that bind us into the systems whereby we feel powerless to avoid participating in these abuses.

I attack it on many fronts. One obviously is to provide as much understanding to as many people as is possible.

I also use myself as an example, living according to my understanding as best I can given the limitations of my circumstances and make myself open/available to those who surround me; sharing my choices and the reasons for them.

It is an opportunity to have influence that is open to all.

So, my focus is not political but educational. I have prepared a hard hitting leaflet and distributed it at universities. If you would like a copy, let me know, I will email it.

The facts of the leaflet lay bare the fundamental fallacy of our non-ecological society… and it is formulated to be posted in medical centers, parks, libraries, etc.

I have written a number of programs, non-profit and for profit in attempts to make it easier (actually painless and fun) for communities to embrace ecological understanding.

I have written songs with my husband that contribute to ecological understanding. We have painted, and I have designed any number of artifacts to help communicate the ecological reality that is scrubbed from our corporate military worldviews.

I have written over a thousand postings (on Common Dreams and elsewhere) to help others grasp the importance of understanding human ecology.

I have contacted professors in many fields, activists, non-profits, etc.

I let my intuition guide me. Sometimes it wakes me in the night… I write, or draw.. or whatever is demanded… then execute, focus, listen, act… and I do expect to arrive… where we must all arrive… a member of a humanity once again grounded in the most basic fact of its own ecology; humans are herbivores with their very own unique (and wonderful) place in the earthly biosphere.

SocratesNV: "It's hard to accept that we will be the cause of our own demise, while taking many other life forms along with us. How utterly stupid and unnecessary."
Sounds like a terrorist/suicide bomber. Maybe if the terrorists can remove enough humans they may save the planet?

"I think there is plenty to go around and the earth can easily support the current human population if we learn how to fit in. On the other hand, if we continue to cause other species to go extinct, then so too will be our fate because we our connected with these other species and we need them more than they need us."

Excellent point Buffalo Ken, and better than declaring all a lost cause and doing nothing.

The truth is, no one knows the Earth's real carrying capacity. I think we can safely guesstimate that it can't support much more of us at the current rate of resource usage and waste. However, bending over and kissing our asses goodbye is a bit premature, IMO.

Thing is, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are peoples who have lived a certain way for many thousands of years, and have done so in a sustainable manner. I think it behooves us to learn from them and stop the insanity of our war on nature.

There is a movement afoot to reintroduce local small farming, micro-farming, back-yard farming. This movement also knows that big is not only NOT better, but rather, big is what ails us. We must get back down to human scale, and there are people out there whom we can learn from. The corporate model and the model of competition in everything - especially food - is a dead end (literally). The time of totalitarian agriculture must end. It is feeding the growth of everything - especially people. If we want human population to stop growing, we must go local or nothing we do short of genocide will stop it. That's the way nature is.

"Wrong, humans are omnivores, not herbivores."

"but it's possible that humans developed further than they did because we ate meat and so provided our brains with protein, essential for a really smart brain."

ALL life has protein. We do not actually digest animal proteins completely and that contributes to a number of debilitating conditions such as acidification and osteoporosis.

Next, MOST people were primary or exclusive plant eaters up until the advent of refrigeration. So the theory of the 'smart brain' is completely unsupported by the evidence. Also, there are many reports of elite insanity (those who consumed most of the meat)... and, dementia is also scientifically correlated with meat-eating.

The fact is, we were herbivores (being a member of the monkey family) and we still are: http://youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q (good comic video by Dan Piraro)

______

The Natural Human Diet

According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history, humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat.

Unlike natural carnivores, we are physically and psychologically unable to rip animals limb from limb and eat and digest their raw flesh. Even cooked meat is likely to cause human beings, but not natural carnivores, to suffer from food poisoning, heart disease, and other ailments.

People who pride themselves on being part of the human hunter tradition should take a second look at the story of human evolution. Prehistoric evidence indicates that humans developed hunting skills relatively recently and that most of our short, meat-eating past was spent scavenging and eating almost anything in order to survive; even then, meat was a tiny part of our caloric intake.

Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to all of these questions, congratulations, you're a normal human herbivore, like it or not. Humans were simply not designed to eat meat.

The above discussion from http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

ITSANAZIWORLDORDER

perhaps i should have quatified what i meant when i said it's too far out of control to control. there are far too many people now to educate (and convince) about the benefits of living with the earth and its fauna and flora. trying to get over 6 billion of us to suddenly change our ways overnight is a feat that personally i believe to be unachievable. and that is what it will take to stop the ravaging of our planet. overnight change.

as for the meat eaters reaching puberty four or more years earlier than herbivores, there are recorded incidents in italy of children less than two years old developing genitalia and breasts from being fed canned baby foods that included meat from calves etc.

CYON

i would love to convince you that things will go differently, but we have to face reality. the text of this article suggests that homo sapiens are responsible for the mass extinction currently taking place. and peoples' ignorance of the insects/animals/birds/fish/plants/trees etc that contribute to our well-being. we have somewhere along the line lost our relationship with nature and now depend far too much on technology. and yes, i am guilty of using that technology by way of this communication. but i maintain a profound link to all other aspects of the natural world. if all we had on this planet by way of technology was the internet and computers to communicate, i think we would be in far better shape than we are now..............

iammyself,

I agree. Thank you.

While we are undoubtedly losing species at an extremely rapid rate, and while I am as deeply concerned and distressed about the loss of biodiversity as it is possible to be, and while I understand the need to jolt humanity into action, this report is seriously disingenuous. At this point in our knowledge about life on Earth, science can not tell us with reasonable accuracy, even to within an order of magnitude, how many species exist on our planet. Individual trees in tropical rainforests can contain as many as 2000 insect species each, with 80% of those insects unknown to science. The total number of insect species in the world's tropical rainforests is TOTALLY unknown - and that's just talking about insects and tropical rainforests. What about microscopic forms of life, what about coral reefs? Before you can talk about the rate at which species are disappearing, you have to know how many species exist to start with, and we are still a LONG, LONG way from that point.

grandma wrote: Wrong, humans are omnivores, not herbivores. If you don't believe it google for Neanderthal,food or Cro-magnon,food. They were great hunters and made a lot of clever tools to do it with. Or simply look at the Lescaux caves in France. Plenty of hunting going on there.

Valid point, but this does not diminish in any way the fact that man is a herbivore.

So why the cave paintings? Could it be that man enjoyed killing, so much so that like today's man, he needed a trophy to display? We know that Neanderthals were socially competitive, and the ultimate bragging rights were secured by "bringing home the bacon".

Actually we all have the luxury of living in a part of the world where there still are animals living around us. And we have the luxury of being able to feel empathy for other creatures.

In the most densely populated parts of the world there is none of that sympathy for animals. There are no pets or companion animals. Even India with it's sacred cows, treats them abominably. Hindus don't eat them, they just sell them to Muslims when they are worn out.

In other countries people eat every blessed thing that walks, crawls, flies or swims. All life is only food. That is it's only value. So they don't care, this news is irrelevant to more than two thirds of the people in this world.

I was paddling around in a wetland in India. It was deathly quiet, not a single bird or amphibian, not a splash or ripple. My guide was bemused, how could I expect ducks, people would eat them? People in large parts of the world have just gotten used to animals being gone forever.

There are two problems. One these people do need to eat, so they need access to crop foods sufficient that they don't have to eat every dam duck in the pond. And they need to know that the duck is important to their local ecology as more than a source of protein. This is about is about education. Big job.

The good news is that people in those crowded parts of the world will probably be the first to come up with socially acceptable reasons for eating human flesh, (there is a sect of mystics in India who filch tidbits off cremation ghats for spiritual reasons - it's a start)and devise creative ways of cooking to diguise the origin of the mystery meat.

"The good news is that people in those crowded parts of the world will probably be the first to come up with socially acceptable reasons for eating human flesh, (there is a sect of mystics in India who filch tidbits off cremation ghats for spiritual reasons - it's a start)and devise creative ways of cooking to diguise the origin of the mystery meat.'

Actually, the 'socially acceptable' way was introduced into India by the Brahmins (who both defined 'socially acceptable' by virtue of superior acts of violence, and introduced human and animal sacrifice as a confirmation of power and the 'right to rule' -- just like it was being practiced in all other temple-based societies) who invaded from the North and introduced meat-eating to India!

Furthermore, there are sufficient 'leaks' in the system and sufficient evidence to assume that cannibalism is being practiced (just as it was in earlier times) in many places around the world. The temple elite were always cannibals. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that this practice has entirely ended.

All animals die and none know or care why they die. Only we know and care. The loss of species is not important except to us. When humans die off, and they will if species keep disappearing, the earth will go on and recover. It may take along time but none will be there to know or care how long it takes. Don't worry about the earth, worry about yourself. The earth is not in danger, we are. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee...