[eminent101]

>The authors estimated that between 2000 and 2005, the loss of vultures caused around 100,000 additional human deaths annually, resulting in more than $69bn (£53bn) per year in mortality damages or the economic costs associated with premature deaths.

Isn't this a giant leap of faith to claim that the increase in the number of deaths must be caused by loss of vultures? Correlation is not causation! How did they rule out other confounding factors? How are they so sure that this increase is definitely due to loss of vultures? Some more details on the research methodology and these technical details would be nice!

[jna_sh]

You’re reading a summary of a working paper published in a mainstream news outlet. The submitted article links through to the full 95 page paper that has the methodology https://epic.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-Soc...

[tgv]

The paper looks impressive; I'm going to read it further. But in the abstract they cautiously say "Our results suggest the functional extinction of vultures ... increased human mortality" (emphasis mine).

[jna_sh]

Usage of “hedging” terms like this is normal practice in academic writing. For a variety of reasons, some social and political, some practical. The short explanation is that the current scientific process values humility.

[netsharc]

It's a scary realization that a lot of climate scientist, including the IPCC, give us the lower number that they can be more confident with, because the higher number will get people yelling "Crackpot!" at them. (the number being temperature rise, CO2 concentration rise, and all the bad things).

[ClumsyPilot]

They also assume CO2 capture and negative emission after 2050 which is pure fantasy and will not happen

[nottorp]

Too used to clickbait titles?

"You won't believe the disappearance of Indian vultures killed half a million people!".

Better?