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

261–270 of 380 posts

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

#261

Post by mempko »

jlawson wrote: post #200
mempko wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rathe…

I like how you think they won't follow the same growth curve as USA or Europe. It's insanely stupid. Also we don't have until end of century for the brutal challenge. We have it now and it's ridiculous to ploace the burden on the developing world. We have to act now, in USA, Europe and SE Asia NOW. It's not even worth entertaining the population issue of Africa in 2100 when we have more urgent problems at home RIGHT NOW.

To put that in perspective, the current billion Europeans and north americans is worth about 15-20 billion africans in terms of energy consumption.

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

#262

Post by carapace »

This is it. This is the alarm. The siren is sounding.

We are destroying ourselves.

It's not too late: We can wake up together as a species and pull through.

There are two main technological things to be aware of, first Buckminster Fuller "Design Science Revolution" - We have the technology we need already, we just have to deploy it efficiently. Second, Permaculture (Applied Ecology) - we can provide food for ourselves without wrecking Nature.

"Permaculture Behind `Greening the Desert` with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q41b05ku9U

Toby Hemenway - "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Earth, but Not Civilization" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo

The most important things you can do right now are to immediate reduce your "ecological footprint" to a minimum, start or partner with a Permaculture farm to provide your food and fuel[1], and encourage others to join you. Get political: vote and write to your representatives. Vote with your wallet. Change your diet.

It's not too late, and there is a lot to be done. We have to live in harmony with Nature. The good news is that this is fun! Living in harmony with Nature is really fun and enjoyable. We are actually punishing ourselves with the current design of our cities and civilization[2].

The thing we need, the thing we yearn for, is not more gadgets, it's more life. More connection with living things.

It starts with your choice: wake up to a wider world that wants and needs your love and attention.

[1] http://permaculture.com/ "Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" Small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated with a Permaculture farm. You can grow your own energy. The economics are totally different from large-scale industrial ethanol production. You can start this in your backyard and be driving your converted car from your own home-grown carbon-neutral solar energy within a few months. Faster if you scavange feedstock. Farmer Dave used to have an arrangement with a donut shop to ferment their old leftover/scrap dough.

[2] This is uncontroversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...

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

#263

Post by pvaldes »

code_duck wrote: post #254
CalRobert wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be devastating for individual organisms, but what would the large scale ecological impact be? Chernobyl is home to quite a bit of wildlife as I understand it. Also, if we're talking about a world after the exchange of thousands of ICBM's I'm not sure how much relative impact the melting down of the world's nuclear power plants would have. The problem has been considered before, though probably as a general…

Wildlife thrive near Chernobyl because normal human activity is more destructive than that radiological disaster has been.

And because there is a replacement outside. Chernobil is acting as a sink for some species with individuals inside being killed faster but replaced with immigrants constantly.

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

#264

Post by deialtrous »

osense wrote: post #252
deialtrous wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That premise is only accurate if you are planning to have everyone consume livestock feed. If that is the plan, then you shouldn't be fixating on beef, you should be going after almost all crops we grow, which produce just as few calories per acre as beef, and even lower protein per acre. Depending on where you draw the line, your argument effectively requires all farms to only grow a small number of very high calori…

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong. There are many plants that produce much more protein per acre than beef: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_o... Edit: I can't reply to child anymore, max comment depth reached. Anyway, I think my work here is done :) I am not demanding we stop growing lettuce, I am demanding we stop raising cattle for proteins. We can keep growing lettuce for vitamins…

You can't say "you are completely wrong" and then support that by showing I am right. You showed 5 crops that produce more protein per acre than an absurdly low fake figure for beef. That's precisely what I said, that we would have to cut down to just a small handful of highest value crops. 5 is a small handful, we currently grow thousands. You know full well lettuce produces fewer calories and less protein per acre than beef. But you are not demanding that we stop growing lettuce, just beef. Your demands are inconsistent with the premise you use to support them.

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

#266

Post by ainiriand »

pingec wrote: post #9

When I was a child about 20 years ago, I remember going snorkelling near my home in the North Adriatic Sea quite often. I could see crabs, starfish, sea urchins, sea horses, octopuses under rocks and loads of fish. I went back there recently and was shocked to find the water looked clear but there were no animals left inside except for a few fish and a crab here and there. This makes me really sad and pessimistic abo…

Ladybugs in my case, the gardens were full. Now they are a very rare encounter as the plants don't have aphids anymore.

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

#267

Post by abledon »

Theodores wrote: post #52
abledon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that, humanity needs spiritual process — people like Putin trump , NK, China etc will not let that happen unless we provide them with a tool for inner transformation of their experience of living

The largest arms dealers sit on the UN security council. One of them is currently wanting to abolish the INF treaty and they aren't in Asia. I would say that spiritual mumbo jumbo ain't going to cut it, a business case needs to be made that green energy is going to offer better profit and more security than more nukes.

ok let me rephrase 'spiritual mumbojumbo'! I'm not saying people need to wear safron robes and chant kumbaaya. moreso that th ehuman body is the most advanced chemical factory / technology on the planet, we need people to read the user manual and get a sense of all-inclusive life that is not human centric, that we are all together on this planet. People who are making the business case for anything won't make the right case unless they have the proper fundamental system put in place in their body,mind,spirit. An example of a place to start (Think a child learning the difference between big 'A' and little 'a' in the alphabet.. not even spelling words yet) is having everyone on the planet think "I am going to die, I came from the earth, and will return to the earth" and become ultra-sensitive to their impermanence.

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

#268

Post by ProAm »

patagonia wrote: post #237
SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ar…

99.9% of all creatures who have existed on earth are extinct. [1] The world will continue to move on just as it always has, humans maybe not, but it would just be nature taking it's course.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statem...

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

#269

Post by osense »

deialtrous wrote: post #244
osense wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be wrong here. Firstly, most cattle is not grazed on open pastures: "[…] the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply" [1] Rather, they are kept on feed imported most likely from South America, and "Agriculture is the direct driver for worldwide deforestation" [2]. So how does attempting to minimize deforestation not address the issue? [1] http://iopscience.io…

Literally all beef in Canada and the US is grazed on open pastures. The majority of it is sent to feed lots for the last couple of months of their life to be fattened on grain, but they spend the first year in pasture no matter what. Second, absolutely none of the feed is imported from South America. It is from Nebraska and Iowa in the US, and Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada. Both nations produce massive amounts o…

Thanks. I'm inclined to believe you on this as it seems reasonable, although I have to say that a blogpost is not the most trustworthy source of information :)

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

#270

Post by yesenadam »

deialtrous wrote: post #244
osense wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be wrong here. Firstly, most cattle is not grazed on open pastures: "[…] the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply" [1] Rather, they are kept on feed imported most likely from South America, and "Agriculture is the direct driver for worldwide deforestation" [2]. So how does attempting to minimize deforestation not address the issue? [1] http://iopscience.io…

Literally all beef in Canada and the US is grazed on open pastures. The majority of it is sent to feed lots for the last couple of months of their life to be fattened on grain, but they spend the first year in pasture no matter what. Second, absolutely none of the feed is imported from South America. It is from Nebraska and Iowa in the US, and Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada. Both nations produce massive amounts o…

to be fattened on grain

...and chicken shit, feathers etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_litter#Use_as_cattle_f...

Post reply on HN