cackling at the earth neednig to explode.

I'd say just remove the negative/terrible humans from the planet and we're good to go

How can you still say that when I even posted math to prove the misleading evidence. Your ignorance to the matter is astounding.

Do you not see the part, in all of these articles, where it says this is data accumulated from only 10,000 populations of only 3000 species?

Telegraph:
The authors compiled data on 10,380 animal populations, including 3,038 different species, as an index to judge how global wildlife is faring as a whole.

The Daily Mail:
The authors compiled data on 10,380 animal populations, including 3,038 different species, as an index to judge how global wildlife is faring as a whole.

Vox:
WWF scientists studied 10,380 representative populations of 3,038 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish from all over the globe. They then examined trends over time.

You can't just pick and choose from the data provided. There are a huge, huge number of factors that go unexplained in this model. Not to mention the fact that this is the aggregate total of populations, which in and of itself is sketchy; do you know how hard it is to count every elephant, tiger, tuna, and bird in the world? The entire study is done around sample sizes and the unaccounted for variation in the numbers backs this.

fff you obviously can't get data from all 10K populations. And even if you could, it's not practical. It's just a sample size which is reflective of a larger population. No one is concerned about your math

What a sensationalist headline
Animals have been going extinct before humans were introduced into the earth, it's called natural selection, competitive exclusion principle etc etc. either adapt or die, it's that simple.

Ugh, okay. Follow me here.
52% of the animals from 3000 species and 10000 populations are gone.

For this example, we'll say that the grand total amount of animals studied was 30,000,000 (10,000 animals per species)
Multiply that by 52% (.52)
This would mean that 15,600,000 animals are gone.


Take that same ratio, and apply it to my previous number of 89,000. 10,000 animals per species would make that number 890,000,000 for a grand total.
Take away the 15,600,000 and you are left with 874,400,000.

Take the 874,000,000 and divide it by the total amount of populations (890,000,000)
You get 98.4%

This means that even though 52% of the surveyed species are gone this makes up only 1.8% of all of the species in the world. It is extremely easy to manipulate statistics and the title of this thread does not by any means reflect what is actually being said in the article.

This is of course all hypothetical on my end, as I don't know all of the populations of each animal as you pointed out. That doesn't take away from the fact that saying half of all animals are gone when the data is only representative of an obscenely (comparatively) small body.

Edited for formatting
Second edit to provide added clarity
Third edit because of a spelling error that was bothering me
Fourth edit, because I am committed now; I downloaded the actual report and it doesn't disclose any population sizes, not the animals used. Still sketchy.

Yeah, but you still don't know how many have disappeared from the populations and species they didn't count. No one does.

Because that's not scary...

I want receipts

The Hunger Games teas or something?

we won't last long, i predict major wars for resources and famines/viral outbreaks to cut the population by a lot