Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

codyb wrote: post #186

deialtrous wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to consider support for candidates that at least acknowledge that there is a problem There are none. Every candidate for every major party in almost all western nations is openly pro-growth. Saying "we'll tax CO2 emissions while importing millions of people and destroying ever more of the little remaining natural ecosystems on the planet" is not acknowledging the problem: overpopulation. >Consider a carbon tax. That…

Logged in to downvote this. What bullshit. CO2 is absolutely a problem, and promoting birth control does not get you called a nazi klansmen. What are you going on about?

Please explain how CO2 is causing people to burn forests, wiping out ecosystems and killing millions of animals. You know, the subject of discussion.

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

#192

Post by thousandautumns » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

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.

Hunting is not what is wiping out animal populations. In fact, for many commonly hunted animals, like deer and many forms of fowl, human hunters are a necessary part of maintaining ecological balance.

Fishing and deforestation are another story.

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

#193

Post by jlawson » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #169

bryanlarsen wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a much better record of cleaning up the environment than we do have in human culling. Compare the US of today with that of 50 - 100 years ago. The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels, lakes & rivers are potable, smog doesn't kill 10's of thousands of people per year, et cetera. IOW, local environmental problems have been solved. And we know how to solve them elsewhere in the world: economic growth…

>The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels The number of trees is not the issue. The ecosystem is. Huge plantations of SPF in rows that are all the same age and size does not make a natural ecosystem, and biodiversity is very low. >lakes & rivers are potable Public drinking water isn't even potable in many places, nevermind lakes and rivers. This is pure fantasy talk. >IOW, local environmental problems have…

Well, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot were actually trying to lower their target populations pretty explicitly. But grandparent is way off about the numbers.

The populations Hitler targeted lost about 50%; if he won the war they'd have done much worse.

Pol Pot killed 25% of Cambodians, not 1%.

Stalin also had a greater impact on his targets. When he created the Holodomor in Ukraine, he killed 10 million, which is much more than 1% of that population.

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

#194

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #184

deialtrous wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to consider support for candidates that at least acknowledge that there is a problem There are none. Every candidate for every major party in almost all western nations is openly pro-growth. Saying "we'll tax CO2 emissions while importing millions of people and destroying ever more of the little remaining natural ecosystems on the planet" is not acknowledging the problem: overpopulation. >Consider a carbon tax. That…

> but it also gets you labelled an evil racist nazi klansman But you are a racist [1]. I wonder how common it is to do these brief checks through the comments of users that seems just a bit off. Too often there's a pattern. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18331992

Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? I would really like a list so I know how to censor myself. It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect.

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

#195

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:48 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #193

deialtrous wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels The number of trees is not the issue. The ecosystem is. Huge plantations of SPF in rows that are all the same age and size does not make a natural ecosystem, and biodiversity is very low. >lakes & rivers are potable Public drinking water isn't even potable in many places, nevermind lakes and rivers. This is pure fantasy talk. >IOW, local environmental problems have…

Well, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot were actually trying to lower their target populations pretty explicitly. But grandparent is way off about the numbers. The populations Hitler targeted lost about 50%; if he won the war they'd have done much worse. Pol Pot killed 25% of Cambodians, not 1%. Stalin also had a greater impact on his targets. When he created the Holodomor in Ukraine, he killed 10 million, which is much more t…

He didn't say anything about targets though, he was talking about total population. Which is exactly the thing, none of them were trying to reduce the global population, so their lack of success in that endeavor is meaningless. The fact that the non-violent solution actually worked is very important, but is slipped in at the end after the red herrings about mass murder.

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

#196

Post by jlawson » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

kimmeld wrote: post #181

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 can we do to change this? Get people out of poverty. Educate people. https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_...

You can't get people out of poverty, you can create opportunities for them to get themselves out of poverty.

But what if some never do, for whatever reason?

Even if 99% of humans climb out of poverty and stop overpopulating, there must be a few on the end of the bell curve who never will, and that group will multiply exponentially until it eventually dominates the global population.

It doesn't matter why. Could be religion, or culture, or genes. But someone is on the end of that fertility curve. It only takes one man breeder and one woman breeder and they will, in a world of non-breeders, soon dominate the world population because of the explosive power of exponential math. So what then?

(As an example, Amish in America double their population every 20 years or so. We can calculate that they'll number >250 million within maybe 150 years.)

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

#197

Post by gldalmaso » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

mlcrypto wrote: post #55

Those animals weren't suited to reproduce in the modern era and were thus eliminated. End of story

So we are heading to a world populated only by rats, pigeons and cockroaches and you are fine with it?

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

#198

Post by jahaja » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #194

jahaja wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it also gets you labelled an evil racist nazi klansman But you are a racist [1]. I wonder how common it is to do these brief checks through the comments of users that seems just a bit off. Too often there's a pattern. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18331992

Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? I would really like a list so I know how to censor myself. It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect.

> Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"?

Kindergarden.

> It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect.

And rightly so after that comment.

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

#199

Post by jlawson » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #139

arbitrary_name wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not cut it as a response. The earth does not have capacity for us and all the living plants and animals. A healthy future should include biodiversity and not 9 billion people. Things are not getting better for most of the planet.

Huh. I've heard carrying capacity estimates range from 10 to 150 billion. http://outsideinradio.org/shows/2018/10/11/so-over-populatio... Maybe population theorists are wrong and you are right it's more like 5, or whatever your number is. It's just hard to know, since Malthusianism has such a terrible track record, adamantly predicting apocalypse for two hundred years. They continue to make failing predictions: https…

Carrying capacity is related to quality of life and technology. With very poor quality of life, Earth could probably carry quite a large number of people.

But why build such a world? Why is 100 billion people packed in tenements, living off hydroponic slop better than 2 billion experiencing nature, breathing free and having the option of traditional or modern lifestyles?

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

#200

Post by jlawson » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

mempko wrote: post #183

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…

Let's pretend the human population stopped growing 30 years ago. No new children. The USA and other rich nations use SO MUCH energy and resources we would still have seen this drop and still see global warming. Let's not make it about them, it's about us.

Extant hyper-fertile populations haven't caused the existing problem in the past. That's not what people are saying so there's no such blaming going on. The point is that they'll cause the impossible-to-solve exponentially-growing problem in the future.

USA population of 350m can cut down usage. It is at least possible without mass death. When there are 7 billion+ Africans at the end of this century, it'll be rather a much more brutal challenge.