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

#321

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:59 PM UTC

kalenx wrote: post #280

deialtrous wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

>Have your motte and bailey.

I do not. You don't get to pretend I said something else and then call me dishonest when I point out what I actually said.

>Then you attack people when they infer you're talking about ethics

I did not attack anyone.

>If you do not want your writings to be open to interpretation, then be specific.

I am sorry it was unclear. Not every miscommunication is deliberate, try to assume good faith. I have since clarified, is there something you still are unclear about?

>No, but saying that this is because of their genetic is.

No it is not. It is a statement of objective fact. When you control for every other conceivable factor, you are still left with a very large gap that can only be explained by genetics. And now recently, we have identified a number of genes that directly correlate to IQ, and their prevalence varies with race just as would be expected.

>You bring it to back up an opinion. And this opinion can definitely be racist.

It can be, but it is not. Black crime rate being high explains black arrest rate being high. This means the standard argument that black arrest rate is high due to white racism is not a given. This is the comparison I was making. The belief that racism is the cause of problems is not supported by evidence, and in fact those people pushing that view cause racial tension, conflict and violence by ignoring objective reality and pushing unreasonable demands like that black people have population proportional representation in high IQ positions.

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

#322

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

wiz21c wrote: post #282

deialtrous wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.

I do not understand the relevance of that tabloid article. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I live in Canada. All my beef comes from Canada. The fact that people in other countries burn forests to graze cattle does not mean that Canadians consuming Canadian beef cause those other countries to burn forests. My beef consumption is 100% irrelevant, they will burn the same amount of forest regardless of what I eat, because they are not burning it to feed me.

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

#323

Post by kiliantics » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

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.

If chicken were as expensive as kaviar, people would go vegetarian pretty quick. If the government gave out free vegetarian food, I'm sure most people would eat it rather than pay for expensive meat.

Our consumption habits are mostly encouraged by various taxes and subsidies.

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

#324

Post by deialtrous » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

sten wrote: post #289

deialtrous wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I wasn't sure about this so I did a quick google. There may have been an estimated 20-30 million bison at one point across North America. And currently something close to 80-90 million cattle today in the US alone. To answer why this is bad and bison were fine you have to remember how these creatures are being used. The cattle will be concentrated today in ways the bison never were, so the impact will be less diffuse…

None of that has anything to do with the subject of discussion though. How are those US ranchers burning down the amazon? US beef consumption and production are completely irrelevant to the developing world burning forests to produce their beef, which again is what the article we're discussing is talking about.

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

#325

Post by kiliantics » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:17 PM UTC

Theodores wrote: post #33

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…

> I implore you to be politically active, to consider support for candidates that at least acknowledge that there is a problem. Consider a carbon tax. Consider big, international efforts to clean up our oceans. Consider sexual education efforts in developing nations. Consider carbon re-capture efforts. There's a ton of things we can do, but we have to start doing It has all been said before. None of this is going to…

Great points. I believe the best way to change these arms deals is to engage in political action on a social-movement based level, just as MLK did, rather than on an electoral level, as the GP suggests.

History has shown us that threats of mass strikes by coalitions of large industrial unions have the power to force the hand of the elites. This is what people who really care about these issues should be working towards. I think tech workers in particular have a lot of power, if only they would engage in collective action.

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

#326

Post by arbitrary_name » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #322

wiz21c wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.

I do not understand the relevance of that tabloid article. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I live in Canada. All my beef comes from Canada. The fact that people in other countries burn forests to graze cattle does not mean that Canadians consuming Canadian beef cause those other countries to burn forests. My beef consumption is 100% irrelevant, they will burn the same amount of forest regardless of…

If you stop eating beef, others can eat Canadian beef and not brazilian beef. Your consumption has an effect.

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

#327

Post by mac01021 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:42 PM UTC

FriedPickles wrote: post #5

If this headline feels overwhelming to you, I highly recommend this article by Stewart Brand: https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinc... Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species.

> it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species.

Should this really console me? If there are only trace amounts of each species left, isn't that practically the same as extinction?

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

#328

Post by 08-15 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

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…

> Consider sexual education efforts in developing nations

Is this a joke? Do you really think people in poor(!) nations don't know how children are made? They do. They want 10+ children, because that's their retirement fund.

If you want to make a difference, educate women about everything but sexuality. That drops the fertility rate to below replacement and raises the generation time from 20 years to 35.

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

#329

Post by mikestew » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

jriot wrote: post #317

mikestew wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switching to powerlifting 4 - 5 years ago Aha, as I suspected! ("Eh? Plenty of runners get by on a vegan diet. Now, power lifters or some such...") I can't speak to that, I'm still a scrawny runner. I mean, I suspect one could still get results with a proper (read: PITA) diet, but then I'd be talking out my arse. Enjoy your steak.

I suspect you are correct though it would be a lot of eating/chewing. At 4,500 calories a day, I am tired of eating as it is. I looked up the PITA diet as I was unfamiliar, it recommends to eat less spicy foods which is tough as a Cajun, but then states to add more chicory which we add to our coffee. Maybe there is a balance!

By "PITA" I meant "pain in the ass" because you'll probably have to track down the special hoo-ha bean (I made that up) that can give you the extra protein you need, though you can probably get by with garbanzo beans but they make you fart, and yeah, calories will probably involve some high-calories food that you'll quickly tire of. That's what I meant by PITA.

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

#330

Post by 08-15 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 9:00 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.

Mao Tse Dong, is that you?

Sorry, but the idea that everything can be fixed by draconian regulations imposing arbitrary limits is simply evil. And if implemented (China's one child policy comes to mind), produces more unintended than intended effects. The obvious side effect of your ridiculous idea is that only poor people will have more than one child, because you cannot tax what isn't there.