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

301–310 of 380 posts

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

#301

Post by lifeformed »

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…

"Ethical" was added as a clarification, since you were talking about crime.

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

#302

Post by Izkata »

trentnix wrote: post #75
trentnix wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proven wrong? Yes! ehrlich said the human lifespan in 1981 would be 42. He assured us that, if we didn’t do something , there would be mass famine and billions dead and all manner of horror that never came to pass. It is not all that impressive to note that more consumers than producers creates a scarcity problem. That’s the entire driver behind Malthusian fear-mongering. But over and over and over those that stoke t…

Actually, I'm wrong about one thing: Ehrlich didn't warn us that catastrophe was inevitable if we didn't do something. He said catastrophe was inevitable period : The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

> At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

Well, technically that's not wrong. Bigger population = more deaths.

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

#303

Post by jaegerpicker »

jamil7 wrote: post #243
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> American pasture lands, for instance, are not normally arable lands (cannot be used for cropland). This is a fair point but unfortunately intensive animal agriculture (in feedlots) dominates US and world beef production which requires the growing of corn and other grains to feed entirely or supplement grass-fed beef, introducing further environmental impacts.

feedlots do not dominate US beef ranching. It is regularly used but the average head of cattle spends less than six months in a feedlot per it's average 1.5-2 year lifecycle. Even so advocating that feedlots are replaced by grass fed cattle is much more likely to happen and the growth of the grass fed beef industry shows that it is/can happen.

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

#304

Post by siruncledrew »

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.

I have little faith people will change behavior unless they are pushed to. About 50% of my office would rather throw plastic bottles and utensils in the trash bins under their desks than walk 20ft to the recycling bin in the center of the office (yes, each desk could have recycling but that's not the point). Altruism is not enough of an incentive. Really, the only person people are accountable to in a moment such as throwing something away vs. recycling is their self. Without incentive, compulsion, or accountability it's hard to naturally get people to direct themselves towards a change in behavior.

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

#305

Post by siruncledrew »

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…

It's sad because we really don't appreciate these small things in our lives until they are gone.

I think humans are naturally receptive to nature, but we take nature for granted when it's always there, until one day it isn't.

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

#306

Post by mikestew »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #298
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.

Did you move, by chance? I ask because I haven't seen lightening bugs in years. Not because of environmental disaster, but because I moved from Indiana to the West Coast. I kinda figured lightening bugs were everywhere. Turns out...

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

#307

Post by Chris_Jay »

maxerickson wrote: post #26
seren wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know with still have a functioning ecosystem ? For example, there is a massive extinction of bees going on, the only reason we don't see a massive impact is that we have industrialized bee productions. https://theconversation.com/a-bee-economist-explains-honey-b... > In 2017, beekeepers in North Dakota, Idaho, Florida and other states shipped 1.7 million colonies to California to pollinate almond trees, or…

US honeybees are livestock, they aren't a native species. They travel in semi-truck loads of 400 to 500 colonies each! The apparent decline in native insects is very concerning.

Wild honeybee colonies used to exist, though granted they were a new import.

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

#308

Post by osense »

coldtea wrote: post #278
osense wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Unfortunately, this is not the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-repor...

Note that the year of publication is 2010.

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

#309

Post by GVIrish »

toasterlovin wrote: post #296
GVIrish wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, p…

Yes if you want to get into detail, one should compare environmental cost per calorie. Even then, beef still is worse than chicken and most vegetables.

I recognize that some vegetables are far more resource intensive than others, which is why I stated 'the average' vegetable. If we wanted to shift diets towards being more environmentally friendly, we'd have to be selective and deliberate about how we do it.

I would argue that shifting diets rather than trying to get everyone to become vegetarians (that don't eat lettuce) is the most sensible path. It would be hard to convince everyone never to eat a steak again, but if you can get people to go from eating 50 lbs of beef a year to 30 or 40 lbs and shifting to chicken and legumes it could make a sizable difference. Would be even better if the developing world went straight to sustainable diets rather than roaring towards beef-heavy diets.

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

#310

Post by mikestew »

jriot wrote: post #297
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.

Vegetables don't satisfy my tastes nor do I get enough calories from them for my activity output.

One can't argue taste, but I can argue caloric intake for high intensity activities. If a guy can win Western States 100 seven times on a vegan diet (Scott Jurek), I'm not going to worry about getting enough calories.

But as a vegetarian endurance athlete I'll be the first to admit that taste (for some folks) and convenience (for about everyone) kinda go out the window.

Post reply on HN