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

#271

Post by knight-of-lambd » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #138

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970" isn't an ecological disaster?

It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic reduction in the population of game such as deer and bear and sport fish, but those populations thrive. I should see fewer snakes and birds and rabbits in my yard yet that hasn’t happened. So that tells me it’s nonsense.

I would expect such a strong assertion to come with well laid out and persuasive reasoning. Maybe spoil me with relevant data (even second hand). Instead, you reject both premise and conclusion by some extremely weak heuristic, that has trouble even approximating reality in the first order.

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

#272

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

kalenx wrote: post #242

deialtrous wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kindergarden is not an organization. If you want to decree that people who commit wrongthink offenses are by definition incorrect in everything they ever say, you need to provide a list of wrongthink offenses. I don't even know what you think is racist about that comment, much less how anyone could logically extrapolate that everything I say is wrong as a result.

Well, to be more specific: literally any handbook about statistics will explain the difference between correlation and causation.

And what does that have to do with anything I said?

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

#273

Post by jfim » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

rhacker wrote: post #218

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your evidence that behaviour can improve? The whole of human existence shows we're pretty consistent about choosing easiest every time. That leaves blind optimism or restrictions. Since WW2 the developed nations have been systematically throwing away sustainable approaches to literally everything. Where once the shopkeeper measured out your purchase now we get single use coffee pods and single use plastic around 4 sl…

How about the following: * We set up consumption targets. * We set up laws that define the following rule: If consumption targets are exceeded, any non-first child is taxed at $1000/month until the consumption targets are met again.

$1000/month is peanuts for anyone who's moderately wealthy, and if that tax breaks the bank, what is someone supposed to do, get rid of their children?

It makes more sense to tax things that are polluting (eg. plastic packaging).

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

#274

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

usaar333 wrote: post #212

deialtrous wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A rise in standards of living is directly correlated with lower birth rates. No it isn't. That is based on a single observation, increasing standards of living in the 20th century in western nations. Living standards in western nations were increasing before that and birth rates were not declining. Living standards stopped increasing decades ago, and birth rates have not gone back up. So the evidence that this is ev…

It's true in East Asia as well. In fact, where is it not true? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

>It's true in East Asia as well.

No it isn't.

>In fact, where is it not true?

Everywhere? Nothing in your link contradicts what I said already. You can only make the correlation if you cherry pick start and end dates, and cherry pick western nations or nations that had coincidental birth rate declines like China. If the correlation is real and not spurious, then why doesn't it hold now? Why didn't it hold before the 1930s? Why has it never existed in Africa?

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

#275

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

kalenx wrote: post #245

deialtrous wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, to keep things simple : - CO2, as a greenhouse gas, increase the Earth surface temperature - This temperature increase causes droughts/floods/other extreme meteorological events - Lands that used to be arable aren't anymore, because of these events. - People need to feed themselves, so they need new lands. - They burn forests, wipe out ecosystems, and kill millions of animals in the process.

But that hasn't happened. These people did not lose land from "extreme meteorological events". They simply exhausted the stored fertility in the soil, and it is cheaper to burn another chunk of forest than it is to purchase fertilizer. A hypothetical scenario that could happen in the future does not explain the actual scenario that the article we're discussing is about.

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

#276

Post by kleopullin » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #100

pvaldes wrote: post #84

False statement. In any case would be 60% of vertebrates, not animals. Big animals are being systematically wipped, but smaller animals had probably increased in total number. With the same amount of grass you can have 1 cow, or lets say '50' rabbits, or '1000' voles, or "1billion" of nematodes. I we could really measure it, I bet that we would find a big increase in number, and a big decrease in diversity.

I think you might be mistaken. Not just vertebrates: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... It's biomass that's decreasing, not just numbers: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-lose-65-percen... Yes, maritime animals too: https://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf And yes, plant biomass too: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 (This one's on a much longer timeline, so…

This article is about vertebrates, though. The headline is distinctly incorrect, whatever else is happening to flying insect biomass, or even plants, the article is a survey of vertebrate decline. Vertebrates are one subphyllum of the chordates, not even the most diverse phyllum of animals. Even children know snails are animals but not vertebrates, so how does a journalist miss this.

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

#277

Post by SuddsMcDuff » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

birksherty wrote: post #246

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…

OK, I'll say it. That is a stupid statement. I've seen that "planet will be fine" line too many times. Here is the truth: the main purpose of that line is to hide the wrongdoing. The planet is not just a rock in space. It includes the environment and everything that is there. When we destroy that, we are destroying the planet itself.

"the main purpose of that line is to hide the wrongdoing"

I think by focusing in on that line you're missing the bigger picture. What I'm trying to say is that we're primarily a threat to ourselves, not to the 'planet'.

I think people would be much more engaged if it weren't "save the planet" but rather "save the human race".

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

#278

Post by coldtea » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

osense wrote: post #211

coldtea wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. The "sources" in the link either reference to mistaken FAO stats, or give some numbers out of context and with no argument (e.g. "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" -- ok, but what's that compared to other consumers of such resources? Or "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat", ok so?)

> "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. > "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat" Same argument: even though meat makes up only 18% of calories in our diets, it produces 5…

>The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food.

Sure, but either quantity might not be the real issue on the grand scheme of things, if it's just eg. 5% of resource use or pollution.

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

#279

Post by sj3k » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:48 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

yiiiiiiiiiikes

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

#280

Post by kalenx » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #253

kalenx wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>This is the precise definition of judging a group of people solely based on their race. No it is not. Racism is judging individuals based on their race. When someone assumes a specific black person has a low IQ because they are black, that is racism. When someone states the objective fact that black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, that is not racism. >Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate ca…

Fair enough. Have your motte and bailey.

You said (verbatim) : "Holding black people to the same standard as white people when they are genetically incapable of meeting that standard seems like a much bigger problem"

True, you did not define "standard". Then you attack people when they infer you're talking about ethics, or crime rate, or whatever other interpretation. Sure, but you were definitely not talking about the ability to cook a Thanksgiving turkey. If you do not want your writings to be open to interpretation, then be specific.

> When someone states the objective fact that black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, that is not racism.

No, but saying that this is because of their genetic is. Because you have no reasoning backing that other than "they're black, so there could not be any other reason explaining the lower IQ". Same thing for crime rate. Crime rate is a fact, not racist in itself. But facts do not make discussions. No one brings a fact just to leave it there. You bring it to back up an opinion. And this opinion can definitely be racist.