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

231–240 of 380 posts

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

#231

Post by deialtrous »

lifeformed wrote: post #204
deialtrous wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You plainly said that black people are genetically incapable of being held to the same ethical standards of white people. Come on dude, get out of here.

No I did not. Read the statement carefully, the word "ethical" was added in your mind, it isn't in the statement I made. Black people have lower IQs. Expecting them to have population proportional representation in universities, medical professions, etc is holding them to a standard they can not achieve, through no fault of their own, and it causes serious racial animosity and conflict. This is a real problem. There is no indication that the "problems" proponents of the "racism as the root of all evil" belief keep bringing up are actually real.

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

#232

Post by andai »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #148
temp364364 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just pure NIMBY-ism. You should be ashamed. Even the Green groups in Israel support the current solution. Building the gas infrafracture on-shore would have expanded jobs and the industrial base. Instead this was moved off-shore 20-km. Now you are fighting even this. This is just richer/educated/organized people acting in the most selfish way possible. Its disgusting. Its no wonder Israel is the country with…

There was a demonstration against an oil processing plant in Perth, Australia, that thousands of people drove to take part in. Parking in the town was a nightmare for the whole day. No-one seemed to notice the irony.

Short term pain for long term pain.

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

#233

Post by deialtrous »

usaar333 wrote: post #208
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…

If you look at the report, generally things are getting better in developed counties. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-ani... All the hit is coming in developing nations.

Or more accurately, destruction is slower in developed countries, largely because there's so little left to destroy. It is pretty hard to deforest Scotland any more than it already is.

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

#234

Post by deialtrous »

GVIrish wrote: post #222
deialtrous wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from…

The energy, land, and water required to produce 1 lb of beef is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of chicken, which in turn is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of the average vegetable. Not only that, but methane emissions from cattle contribute to climate change. About a third of anthropogenic methane emissions in the US are from livestock. Not saying…

None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in any way a factor in this. Also, your comparison is disingenuous. A pound of beef or chicken contains far more calories and protein than a pound of any vegetable. And grass fed beef actually requires less energy to produce than vegetables.

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

#235

Post by deialtrous »

jamil7 wrote: post #225
deialtrous wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from…

> You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. Exactly, environmental destruction caused by the beef industry, an incredibly inefficient process if you compare the land and water requirements vs other types of protein. > There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. This is a huge blanke…

>Exactly, environmental destruction caused by the beef industry

Not in Canada or the US. We have vast prairies that used to be inhabited by millions of bison. Now a fraction of it is inhabited by cattle instead.

>water requirements vs other types of protein.

How is temporarily using local water in the US, which is returned to the natural water cycle, causing deforestation in South America or Africa or Asia?

>This is a huge blanket statement to make as well as being factually inaccurate.

Then provide contradictory evidence. I can not exhaustively prove every single ranch in the US isn't clear cutting forests. You only need to provide a single example to disprove me. Please do.

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

#236

Post by jchrisa »

deialtrous wrote: post #161
strainer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human behavior is vastly more impactful on the planet than human numerosity. We are not feeling the consequences of simply people - it is our gross behavior. impact = people * behavior To make people reduction the target in this situation would be systematically misanthropic. Behavior can improve by orders of magnitude and even reverse polarity amicably and rapidly, through culture, inspiration, technological potenti…

There is no evidence that any acceptable behavioral alteration will help. The kind of behavioral modification needed is horrifying dystopian nightmare stuff, people naturally resist things like that. The population is going to be reduced no matter what. The question is purely "are we going to do it by lowering birth rates, or are we going to wait until India or Africa unleashes an antibiotic resistant super plague on…

Rethinking our property system need not be draconian. The economic solutions to a steady state economy have been on the shelf for years. The ideology of growth will need a humiliating defeat, and then folks will be ready to accept alternatives.

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

#237

Post by patagonia »

SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #216
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…

"We only have one small planet to live on, and we are destroying it." We're not destroying the planet, we're destroying our habitat, and the habitat of those animals unfortunate enough to live at the same time as us. The planet is going to be just fine, it's us who's going to suffer. I love this quote from George Carlin: "The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tect…

Recent article reported: “So many animals will go extinct in the next 50 years that it will take Earth at least 3 million years to recover”

Add to that the impacts of the technosphere (the artifacts of humanity which would not have existed in our absence) which was reported to be 30 trillion tons in 2016. Our impact to climate. Our impact to geography.

Sure, in all likelihood there will be a big round ball hanging around in our solar system despite humanity’s best efforts. But that seems like a distinction without a difference. To say the argument is disingenuous would be generous.

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

#238

Post by kalenx »

deialtrous wrote: post #231
lifeformed wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You plainly said that black people are genetically incapable of being held to the same ethical standards of white people. Come on dude, get out of here.

No I did not. Read the statement carefully, the word "ethical" was added in your mind, it isn't in the statement I made. Black people have lower IQs. Expecting them to have population proportional representation in universities, medical professions, etc is holding them to a standard they can not achieve, through no fault of their own, and it causes serious racial animosity and conflict. This is a real problem. There…

Again, this is plain racism. This is the precise definition of judging a group of people solely based on their race. Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate can be affected by so much factors than race if you must. Say "black people exhibit higher crime rate, so it must be genetic" while overlook the mere spurious correlation behind it, but at least acknowledge it. You are racist.

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

#239

Post by osense »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #230
jamil7 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. Exactly, environmental destruction caused by the beef industry, an incredibly inefficient process if you compare the land and water requirements vs other types of protein. > There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. This is a huge blanke…

That's a story that's often repeated here on HN. But it doesn't hold up much under scrutiny. American pasture lands, for instance, are not normally arable lands (cannot be used for cropland). And meat animals use less resources per pound of protein that vegetable sources. Certainly less plowing. I'm always stunned by the idea that somehow raising millions of cattle is destroying the planet, yet the millions of buffal…

> And meat animals use less resources per pound of protein that vegetable sources.

What? There's literally hundreds of scientific articles out there that establish the opposite, e.g. [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

Edit: Where do you think the protein in cattle comes from? Isn't it… plants? That the cattle eat? Once eaten, the cattle expend some energy to live and then we kill them for meat.

By not eating animals, you cut out the middleman and waste less energy.

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

#240

Post by mg4so7 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #230
jamil7 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. Exactly, environmental destruction caused by the beef industry, an incredibly inefficient process if you compare the land and water requirements vs other types of protein. > There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. This is a huge blanke…

That's a story that's often repeated here on HN. But it doesn't hold up much under scrutiny. American pasture lands, for instance, are not normally arable lands (cannot be used for cropland). And meat animals use less resources per pound of protein that vegetable sources. Certainly less plowing. I'm always stunned by the idea that somehow raising millions of cattle is destroying the planet, yet the millions of buffal…

Did Buffalo burp/excrete as much methane as modern cows?
Post reply on HN