Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#21

Post by ericmcer »

CalRobert wrote: post #19
dflock wrote: post #4

Not coincidentally, the human population has doubled in the same timeframe. Is everyone else screaming inside, or is it just me?

Only a few people, I think. It's like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and instead of panicking, just shrugged. There are probably fifty times a day I feel a deep seated dreadxiety about something I'm doing. Wearing synthetic fibre. Finding out a soap has triclosan in it. Using a disposable nappy. Eating an avocado. Eating fish (appropriately enough, eating said synthetic fibres in that fish). And yet I have co…

My personal favorite version of this experience: Seven years ago I was working at trader joes and trying out vegetarianism for environmental reasons. A lady would come in every few weeks and buy just massive quantities of ground beef, like 30-40lbs in one trip. I finally asked her what all that beef was for and she replied "I feed it to my dogs".

What can you even do? Thats probably the no-meat diet of 10 people being offset by one persons dogs.

The higher your personal standard is the more angry you will be at your fellow human, its best to just not think about it.

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#22

Post by madez »

CalRobert wrote: post #19
dflock wrote: post #4

Not coincidentally, the human population has doubled in the same timeframe. Is everyone else screaming inside, or is it just me?

Only a few people, I think. It's like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and instead of panicking, just shrugged. There are probably fifty times a day I feel a deep seated dreadxiety about something I'm doing. Wearing synthetic fibre. Finding out a soap has triclosan in it. Using a disposable nappy. Eating an avocado. Eating fish (appropriately enough, eating said synthetic fibres in that fish). And yet I have co…

Your actions are not meaningless. They are what one person can accomplish, and thats what everybody has to be content with when in doubt.

If you make the world better by being less bad, then chances are you are already doing what one human can do. That is fine and enough for one human, by definition.

When we aim for the stars we first must learn to walk, and be content with little steps for a very long time.

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#23

Post by ptero »

the_gastropod wrote: post #14
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more brutal than that. How many humans are we willing to kill (or watch them die) in order to do much about it? Most humans care some about animals, but they care more about humans. (Yes, I am well aware that the developed world could accept a lower standard of living, and that would help. I question whether it's enough. And yes, I am aware that that is not an excuse for the developed world to do nothing…

I dislike this line of thinking. There's plenty we can do to reduce our impact on the Earth. Things like eating less beef, walking/bicycling when traveling short distances, reducing single-use plastic consumption, etc. go a long way. In the U.S., we think plastic takeout containers, driving 1/2 mi to the convenience store, eating meat every meal are normal. They're not; these are all absurd things the future will loo…

> Things like eating less beef, walking/bicycling when traveling short distances, reducing single-use plastic consumption, etc. go a long way

I think the above things are useful, but I doubt that they would really go far -- the population growth of the past several decades is unlikely to be balanced by a few relatively minor adjustments you cite. I suspect technological advances like efficient vehicles (or synthetic beef as you put big emphasis on beef consumption) will help more than biking.

I am all for biking, but you are unlikely to reduce car use by more than 20-30% by it (bad weather, aging) while increasing miles per gallon (or a similar metric) has more upside potential.

In the end though I think we have too many people already and will have way more in 20 years; unless we address this somehow all of the above could be irrelevant. Just my 2c.

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#25

Post by bjoli »

JohnStudio wrote: post #2

Does anyone know the source of those stats? "steep decline of animal, fish and bird numbers was calculated by analyzing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species" Logistically speaking, I'd like to know how they tracked that. I've seen how caribou are tracking in Canada rather effectively ( http://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/the-wildlife/hunting-fishing-trapping... ) However, specifics of their research I'd find very…

Fish species used for food have been tracked in various studies, ranging from about 50-90% decline in 100 years in the 5ish studies I have read.

On my mobile with shitty 2g right now,but googling overfishing or fish pupolation is always recommended

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#26

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

What if say 200 years from now, we have a human population of 20 billion people where everyone lives like the current top 10% of people in the USA. There is long life-expectancy, very low childhood mortality. Low inequality.

There are however no wild animals on land. Every land animal is either a pet, livestock, or in a zoo or preserve. Except for the limited species above, every other land species is extinct (but their DNA is preserved).

Would the above scenario be one that is appealing to you. Is wildlife and ecological diversity a good apart from its human benefit? Is human good worth harming ecological diversity for?

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#27

Post by collyw »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #26

What if say 200 years from now, we have a human population of 20 billion people where everyone lives like the current top 10% of people in the USA. There is long life-expectancy, very low childhood mortality. Low inequality. There are however no wild animals on land. Every land animal is either a pet, livestock, or in a zoo or preserve. Except for the limited species above, every other land species is extinct (but th…

I am reading your post wondering how that could happen. Wildlife disappearing is not the problem is merely as symptom of the problem - too many people.

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#28

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

collyw wrote: post #27
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #26

What if say 200 years from now, we have a human population of 20 billion people where everyone lives like the current top 10% of people in the USA. There is long life-expectancy, very low childhood mortality. Low inequality. There are however no wild animals on land. Every land animal is either a pet, livestock, or in a zoo or preserve. Except for the limited species above, every other land species is extinct (but th…

I am reading your post wondering how that could happen. Wildlife disappearing is not the problem is merely as symptom of the problem - too many people.

We have much more people on earth than we had 500 years ago. We probably have much less wildlife than before. However, people now on average live longer, healthier lives than before. As humans, we are much, much better off than we were 500 years ago. Wildlife as a whole is probably worse off than it was 500 years ago. Thus, it is not an impossible scenario to have humans thriving, but wildlife in serious danger.

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#29

Post by lostmsu »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #26

What if say 200 years from now, we have a human population of 20 billion people where everyone lives like the current top 10% of people in the USA. There is long life-expectancy, very low childhood mortality. Low inequality. There are however no wild animals on land. Every land animal is either a pet, livestock, or in a zoo or preserve. Except for the limited species above, every other land species is extinct (but th…

Why wouldn't it? Certainly better, than attempts to artificially limit population.

Re: Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (2014)

#30

Post by lostmsu »

CalRobert wrote: post #19
dflock wrote: post #4

Not coincidentally, the human population has doubled in the same timeframe. Is everyone else screaming inside, or is it just me?

Only a few people, I think. It's like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and instead of panicking, just shrugged. There are probably fifty times a day I feel a deep seated dreadxiety about something I'm doing. Wearing synthetic fibre. Finding out a soap has triclosan in it. Using a disposable nappy. Eating an avocado. Eating fish (appropriately enough, eating said synthetic fibres in that fish). And yet I have co…

Get used to it. Everything comes to an end. All your favorite animals will, and humans will, and whatever comes after them.

I highly doubt consuming meat today affects lifestyle of most humans in 50 years noticeably.

Post reply on HN