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

Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 380 posts

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#71

Post by eeZah7Ux »

quantum_magpie wrote: post #70
montenegrohugo wrote: post #10

Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be f…

There has to be political will to completely ban all fishing, hunting and deforestation. Allow rangers and coast guard to kill on sight all violators. At the moment I see no other option to restore wildlife on this planet.

...and animal farming. It's completely unsustainable as well.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#72

Post by tashoecraft »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #71
quantum_magpie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be political will to completely ban all fishing, hunting and deforestation. Allow rangers and coast guard to kill on sight all violators. At the moment I see no other option to restore wildlife on this planet.

...and animal farming. It's completely unsustainable as well.

Do be careful with that, whilst I agree that we need to drastically reduce our meat consumption, getting rid of all meat consumption with out some kind of super advancement in other fields will be far worse for the environment. In some place plant based food is more sustainable, in other animal based is.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#73

Post by eeZah7Ux »

montenegrohugo wrote: post #21
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s not sustainable? The human population doubling again? Or maintaining the current population? Clearly we have to address climate change but it’s not a growing population that is unsustainable, if anything the progress over the past 50 years has indicated the exact opposite.

Human population by itself is not the measure we should worry about. With enough technological progress, the earth could reasonably sustain 100+ billion people. The problem lies in the doubling of human population in little more than a generation. The problem lies in that we are not being sustainable with this. We are depleting resources whilst polluting and rapidly changing our environment. For the moment, we only h…

That's correct. The concept of overpopulation is quite misleading because it blames the sheer number of people regardless of the extreme inequality in consumption and pollution.

"World’s richest 10% produce half of carbon emissions while poorest 3.5 billion account for just a tenth"

Source: https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/...

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#74

Post by dao- »

trentnix wrote: post #49
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN doesn't really do sarcasm. There is an interesting point here though, we will never get a grip on this problem whilst the primary focus of politicians is growth. The idea that you can fix this without some lifestyle sacrifice is probably false. If we want a sustainable future it won't include foreign holidays, personal cars, juicy steaks and shiny toys.

And by what conditions would the problem be judged as fixed? I’ll believe it’s a real crisis when the people insisting it is actually live like it is. But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle sacrifice”, I remain skeptical. If such a sacrifice i…

I stopped eating meat five years ago and made the decision not to get a car. It's a start but it's not enough. I'd welcome the government forcing more change on me, but more importantly I want the government to encourage if not enforce change on a larger scale (like the EU banning old-school light bulbs some years ago), because that's what governments are there for. I can't do that on my own and the looming ecological disaster is too severe to sit back and hope that enough people will wake up before it's too late.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#75

Post by trentnix »

trentnix wrote: post #67
TeMPOraL wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it ever proven wrong? Or just delayed by a bunch of last-minute technological breakthroughs? Also, the problem is still here even if we maintain current population levels. It's here even if we do nothing, and in reality, we have 2/3 of the world desperately trying to grow their quality of life, which involves growing their energy use.

Proven wrong? Yes! ehrlich said the human lifespan in 1981 would be 42. He assured us that, if we didn’t do something , there would be mass famine and billions dead and all manner of horror that never came to pass. It is not all that impressive to note that more consumers than producers creates a scarcity problem. That’s the entire driver behind Malthusian fear-mongering. But over and over and over those that stoke t…

Actually, I'm wrong about one thing: Ehrlich didn't warn us that catastrophe was inevitable if we didn't do something. He said catastrophe was inevitable period:

  The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#76

Post by c048 »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #35
cbkeller wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geologist here! The report in question [1] and supplement [2] seem pretty think-tank-y, but I would say they pass the sniff test to first order (if we have a biologist or ecologist around, they could probably say better). The focus on animals makes it relatively plausible -- these are charismatic and easy to observe, but a lot of the ecological heavy lifting / biogeochemical nutrient cycling is really carried out by…

>> Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction. >This is pretty well accepted among geologists and paleontologists Do they believe humanity will be one of the survivors?

Sigh.

a) This is not in their field of expertise. b) If there is any species that has the best chance of survival, it's humanity.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#77

Post by JustSomeNobody »

montenegrohugo wrote: post #10

Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be f…

At least in the U.S., politics is a football game complete with cheerleaders and game stats. It's my side vs their side. Even the most intelligent people get locked up in this battle. They don't bother looking at the candidates themselves, they just vote for their team.

I mean, I look around and so many people who voted for certain people to get rid of certain programs are the one's who would actually benefit from those programs. It boggles the mind.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#78

Post by travisoneill1 »

montenegrohugo wrote: post #10

Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be f…

Who cares if they acknowledge the problem but take no meaningful action? I give no credit for that. Anybody who can do math can see that the only solution is to manage the population but that will never happen outside authoritarian states like China.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#79

Post by ixtli »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #13
montenegrohugo wrote: post #10

Human Population has more than doubled in the same timespan (from 3.7 billion to 7.7 billion today). This is not sustainable. We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it. We are overfishing the oceans, cutting down entire forests to make way for pastures, warming up the planet and acidifying the plastic-filled ocean. Even insect populations are plummeting. The consequences of this will not be f…

What’s not sustainable? The human population doubling again? Or maintaining the current population? Clearly we have to address climate change but it’s not a growing population that is unsustainable, if anything the progress over the past 50 years has indicated the exact opposite.

Thank you! “Overpopulation” is a canard. Humans didn’t eradicate these animals: a specific group of rich people who’re able to deploy capital without the consent of the people did that.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#80

Post by TeMPOraL »

antisthenes wrote: post #64
TeMPOraL wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it ever proven wrong? Or just delayed by a bunch of last-minute technological breakthroughs? Also, the problem is still here even if we maintain current population levels. It's here even if we do nothing, and in reality, we have 2/3 of the world desperately trying to grow their quality of life, which involves growing their energy use.

You can never prove it wrong. It has to be wrong in perpetuity, because even if it is correct just once, it results in a wasted/depleted planet. And honestly, considering how much non-renewable resources we are using and the rate of warming, worrying about the population bomb is sort of like trying to get enough cardio exercise while you have acute appendicitis.

Those are connected, though. Energy use is a lagging indicator of population - which is why we're screwed even if population growth were 0, as we have a large part of the world still going through industrialization/development.
Post reply on HN