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

291–300 of 380 posts

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

#291

Post by LitFan »

ainiriand wrote: post #265

How can we pretend to fix something wrong in our behavior if most people won't even consider something as easy as going vegetarian most of the days. Even something like that would have a huge impact.

Going vegetarian is not "easy". It requires ingredients that are not as highly available, and vegetarian meals that satisfy a person's nutrition requirements typically take longer to make. It also cuts down on the variety in the food you can eat, and in most cases, takes a lot of willpower.

Of course it would have a huge impact - you're radically changing the diets of a majority of the population of the planet.

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

#292

Post by Chris_Jay »

c048 wrote: post #76
ifdefdebug wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Oh now you're just tempting fate. Surely that distinction goes to the cockroaches?

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

#293

Post by m_coder »

zdragnar wrote: post #210
Majestic121 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick calculus : TLDR : 100+ billions is a hard reach today, but 50+ billions might not impossible There is approximately 63,824,448 km² or liveable land on earth today.[1] Let's cut that in half to account for farms/land lost due to global warming/industries/etc... We get 31,912,224km² of land usable for habitation. Let's assume we cover the remaining with a huge city with the density of Hong Kong (6,690 people/km²)…

At those levels of scarcity, the economics of farming will likely change enough that hydroponics could (would?) become far more commonplace. That drastically cuts down on the amount of land needed, as you're no longer limited to ground surface area for growing crops. In fact, there's a growing trend of combining fish farming with hydroponic vegetable farming; circulating water between the plants and fish tanks, monit…

Have you had the fish from well run systems like this? I think it is fantastic. Data point of one.

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

#294

Post by usaar333 »

deialtrous wrote: post #274
usaar333 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is it not true in East Asia? The rich countries (Japan, South Korea) have super low fertility rates; the poor ones have higher (North Korea). Can you point out some clear violators?

The inverse relationship is obvious in South Korea:

https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINKOR

Before the 1930s, every country was "developing" my modern definitions. (US real GDP/capita was ~$9k in 1929 just before the recession). Also, other factors are necessary for this to happen (e.g. women empowerment)

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

#295

Post by pvaldes »

auiya wrote: post #207
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…

Stop having kids.

"Stop having kids,

said the elder people.

Die faster,

said the younger people..."

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

#296

Post by toasterlovin »

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…

You should be comparing calories, not pounds. Also, it really depends on what vegetables you're comparing (there is a 50x range in the amount of calories provided per input for plants as a class). Beef is generally less resource intensive than leafy green vegetables, but more resource intensive than most starchy vegetables. Chicken is less resource intensive than basically all plant food sources except for peanuts, potatoes, oils, and grains.

A brief glance at what most vegetarians and vegans are eating leads me to believe that their diets are probably not that much more environmentally friendly than your average meat eater. The real key is shifting toward inexpensive cheeses, milk, and oils for protein and fats and then consuming a lot more carbohydrates in the form of potatoes and grains.

And, really, the biggest impact environmental impact that most people can effect with their diet is not eating out as much.

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

#297

Post by jriot »

ainiriand wrote: post #265

How can we pretend to fix something wrong in our behavior if most people won't even consider something as easy as going vegetarian most of the days. Even something like that would have a huge impact.

How about most people stop using their mobile phones, or all the other electronics they carry that require charging?

I am not going vegetarian on any day. Why? Vegetables don't satisfy my tastes nor do I get enough calories from them for my activity output.

You aren't going to change people's wants and needs because they are different from yours.

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

#298

Post by jaegerpicker »

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…

My version is lightning bugs. Growing up I used to go out to catch lightning bugs all the time and there would be hundreds of them in nearly any field. Now I'm surprised and delighted just to see a dozen or so of them.

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

#299

Post by siruncledrew »

thealfreds wrote: post #188
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…

> The whole of human existence shows we're pretty consistent about choosing easiest every time. This isn't the case across the globe. Japan's recycling and Singapore's trash policies come to mind immediately but there are sure to be better. Probably the most common though. Will certainly require a shift in culture for most people on this planet. > Where once the shopkeeper measured out your purchase now we get single…

> Will certainly require a shift in culture for most people on this planet.

And that's the issue we run into with human behavior. Developed nations have adapted to a convenience mentality, and tend to use more because they consume more. Changing behavior takes more than awareness, it takes some sort of proxy for force or compulsion. With Singapore for example, they have heavy fines for littering and improper trash disposal. They have achieved cleanliness by mandating it upon their citizens.

Western nations aren't always as amenable to that form of governance as it impedes on someone's impression of their own free will to do as they please. In the case of American politics, I bet we will encounter "I don't want to go through the effort to recycle, and nobody can make me." This is why cultural attitudes and shifts take so damn long to change. Getting everybody on board is a hell of a lot harder than saying "This is what we are doing now because it is good for the planet even though it adds a bit more inconvenience to your life." People go apeshit when the government tells them what to do, even if it's something positive. There's just that much resentment to change that people will choose irrational, illogical action over changing behavior even slightly that would benefit them in the long-run. Only when shit hits the fan do people look around and wonder "So what do we do now?". There are things that must be done, even when the desire to do them is not that high. It's like people have a basic understanding that they could be doing something good, but they still don't do it, because they don't have to.

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

#300

Post by drb91 »

collyw wrote: post #157
empath75 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

carrying capacity keeps getting revised upward also.

Sure, but what's the end goal? That we all end up like caged chickens? We could probably cram in lots of people that way.

IMHO the idea of a goal is an attractive illusion.
Post reply on HN