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

341–350 of 380 posts

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

#341

Post by yesenadam »

losteric wrote: post #221
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?)

Meat is not inherently bad, but there is clear scientific consensus that the world's current meat consumption is unsustainable. Here's a list of problems with 105 sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... At this point, denial is willful ignorance of evidence... falling in the same vein as antivaxxers and climate change denialists.

Meat is not inherently bad

I'm not sure in what sense you mean this. It sure seems 'inherently bad' in just about every sense you could mean, to me. I think often it doesn't seem 'bad' to humans, mainly because we're humans and animals aren't. As if only human life has any value whatever. The very word meat sounds grotesque to me - imagine if some other species had a nondescript word for human meat.

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

#342

Post by yesenadam »

deialtrous wrote: post #321
kalenx wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

try to assume good faith

That is something you conspicuously failed to do dozens of times on this page. The other person is always missing the point, didn't read what you said, falling victim to one myth or another, disingenuous, irrelevant, fixating, making absolutely no sense, slipping in thing at the end after the red herrings, seem eager to put words in your mouth ...

It makes for super-tiresome reading. This is not a productive method of communication. (That was you complaining about the other guy yet again.)

Please consider that you are just one person among many on here, and that you may seem as ignorant, misguided, irrational, unfair, impossible-to-argue-with, prejudiced to them as they apparently seem to you. And please be more considerate in future. Be civil. Don't be snarky.

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

#343

Post by yesenadam »

tashoecraft wrote: post #72
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and animal farming. It's completely unsustainable as well.

Do be careful with that, whilst I agree that we need to drastically reduce our meat consumption, getting rid of all meat consumption with out some kind of super advancement in other fields will be far worse for the environment. In some place plant based food is more sustainable, in other animal based is.

getting rid of all meat consumption with out some kind of super advancement in other fields will be far worse for the environment

How so?

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

#344

Post by kiliantics »

mtberatwork wrote: post #136
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock. Climate change will cause famine, natural disasters and mass migrations. Poverty, overpriced health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase.

> Poverty, overpriced health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase. This seems to be a very US specific outlook on things that most western countries have long since figured out. Extreme poverty, lack of health care, lack of social safety nets - all self-inflicted in the US. Take for example the recent closings of hospitals in…

The problem is that western countries will not be the first ones to experience the consequences of climate change. Most likely the first victims will be in places where such social safety nets barely exist. Arguably, this is already happening, which is why we are seeing civil unrest and mass migration from North Africa and the Middle East, where droughts and famine were a factor in many of the instabilities.

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

#345

Post by kiliantics »

feistypharit wrote: post #19
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock. Climate change will cause famine, natural disasters and mass migrations. Poverty, overpriced health care and a lack of common social structure (every man for himself) will lower the life expectancy again after decades of increase.

Sadly, I think this is right. The "fix" involves one group of people telling another group of people what to do. That never goes over without a fight. Especially when it will involve land, life and death, and reproductive rights. I think what we're seeing with government's moving more right wing is the first step of this. These people are already operating on this assumption and plan on being the ones doing the telli…

This is why people should support popular movements that are resisting the right wing and resisting unsustainable practices. Unions and social justice activists are our best hope for a decent future without extreme repression. But they get labeled as antifa or eco-terrorists and arrested or otherwise silenced.

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

#346

Post by kiliantics »

strainer wrote: post #97
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…

Human behavior is vastly more impactful on the planet than human numerosity. We are not feeling the consequences of simply people - it is our gross behavior. impact = people * behavior To make people reduction the target in this situation would be systematically misanthropic. Behavior can improve by orders of magnitude and even reverse polarity amicably and rapidly, through culture, inspiration, technological potenti…

> Behavior can improve by orders of magnitude and even reverse polarity amicably and rapidly, through culture, inspiration, technological potential, historic renaissance

I think, without the right economic incentives, people do not change their behaviours substantially. I think the GP comment is right about political engagement being necessary. However, I don't think electoral politics will cut it since it is so corrupt. The best chance is for mass collective action in the form of worker strikes and other acts of civil disobedience to force the governments of the world to act in our favour, rather than in the favour of the elites.

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

#347

Post by kiliantics »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #151

I got as far as "WWF" and stopped reading. The WWF has been doomsaying for decades, because that's its business model. It is an organisation specifically designed to raise funds from the general public in order to promote green causes. It does this by creating scares like this. The WWF is as much "big business" as any energy company. I don't trust "science" funded by it, because there's not a chance in hell that it w…

yeah, better to trust "science" funded by governments and corporations that profit directly from exploitation of natural resources

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

#348

Post by kiliantics »

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.

Charging a phone has a tiny carbon footprint when compared to being a meat-eater. There is a reason why one is encouraged more by climate scientists than the other.

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

#349

Post by elocinstr8t »

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 agree that the consequences of us trashing the planet will be felt more by us, but I think that our future kids and grandchildren will have to suffer through it, if we don't take actions fast. It's true, we should support someone who acknowledges climate change and tries to find ways to stop it, but we could also help by starting in our own homes. Change must come from within. Also, tech companies should help solve this problem. They have the resources, they can find a way to stop or alleviate climate change from worsening.

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

#350

Post by code_duck »

pvaldes wrote: post #263
code_duck wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought studies said that mortality wasn’t significantly increased, though some deformities were?
Post reply on HN