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

351–360 of 380 posts

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

#351

Post by jriot »

kiliantics wrote: post #348
jriot wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not everyone eats meat, but most everyone charges their electronics multiple times a day. People carry a phone, tablet, laptop etc... That all adds up. Plus they replace it every year or two, causing additional foot print. Which doesn't include the shipping of all the materials.

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

#352

Post by losteric »

yesenadam wrote: post #341
losteric wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 mean it in the most fundamental sense: there are sustainable levels of meat consumption that do not negatively impact the diversity and longevity of our biome.

> 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.

Don't fool yourself mate, we're all just organisms - existing to feed and breed. What's wrong with bears eating fish? What's wrong with men eating fish? Why is commercial chicken "worse" than commercialized corn? What form of value does any life take?

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

#353

Post by dang »

deialtrous wrote: post #194
jahaja wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? I would really like a list so I know how to censor myself. It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect.

We've banned this account for turning two unrelated threads into massive racial flamewars in the last 24 hours.

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

#354

Post by ahje »

TomMarius wrote: post #213
ahje wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once that technological progress has been made, and we have implemented those new technologies on a global scale, then sure. Right here and right now, we're still largely relying on fossil fuels and machinery up to several decades old in order to produce food and considering it seems to be hard to even get up to modern standards, hoping for future tech to save the day seems far fetched.

What if part of the reason is the fact that the new tech isn't better enough to justify switching - yet?

Sure. Do you believe we will be able to develop this new tech AND deploy it on a global scale within the next 10-15 years? Because that's how long we've got to turn this around before it turns really ugly.

I don't think we can do that (although it is arguable that any drastic measures taken now doesn't have to be permanent, and that things can change again once we do have all that new fancy tech)

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

#355

Post by ainiriand »

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.

The Ironman winner in Hawaii this year is vegetarian. It is the first person ever to go under 8 hours. So I think that if he can do it you surely can.

But if you are putting your taste before the wellbeing of the world then you need to realize that the taste can change. You can have a taste now and a different one in one year time. Don't get me wrong, I've loved hamburgers and big steaks like everyone else, but just not anymore.

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

#356

Post by ainiriand »

jriot wrote: post #315
mikestew wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conveni…

When I did ultra-marathons, never hit the 100 miler maker, my body could tolerate less meat, filling it up with carbs. Switching to powerlifting 4 - 5 years ago, my body demands more meat. Demanding in the sense that I can feel a difference when I go without meat i.e., it is stronger when I consume meat. Granted I also went from 160lbs ultra-running to 230lbs powerlifting, so I am sure there is difference in caloric…

Have you ever heard of Kendrick Farris? He is Olympic weightlifter and vegan.

https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/only-male-us-weightlifte...

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

#357

Post by _Tev »

philipps wrote: post #187
thousandautumns wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence is there that we can't? The issue again isn't the number of people on the planet, its the number of people combined with our current usage of planetary resources. But between the fact that the vast majority of those resources are being used by a small amount of the population, and the fact that people have been claiming the "population bomb" will be going off imminently for hundreds of years and it not…

There are two reasons why we can’t: We live within a finite ecosystem of resources and finite systems can by definition not sustain infinite consumption. And we are currently consuming an unsustainable and growing rate of resources. Maybe at some point our aggregate consumption will slow, but all credible models of population growth (leveling off around 11B) and associated consumption suggest that it would be far too…

> There are two reasons why we can’t: We live within a finite ecosystem of resources and finite systems can by definition not sustain infinite consumption

Yeah this gets thrown around a lot, but people clearly misunderstand what it actually means. It just means that there is _some_ amount of people we can't feed, but it says _nothing_ about what the amount is. It can be 10 billion, it can be 10^27. You just "proved" nothing of substance.

> And we are currently consuming an _unsustainable_ and growing rate of resources. (emphasis mine)

[citation needed]

I am serious, it does not matter how many times people say this, it still is not obvious truth.

> And we are currently consuming an unsustainable and growing rate of resources.

And when you finally claim something that would be easy (I guess, you seem confident in it) to back up by links, you don't do that.

This reads like unfounded hysteria.

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

#358

Post by deialtrous »

kalenx wrote: post #284
deialtrous wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False dilemma. Of course over exploiting arable lands contribute to this problem. But it does not mean it is the only cause. You'll have a hard time in this world if you believe that every problem has a single source...

It isn't a false dilemma. You are proposing that climate change is the cause. You provide no evidence, the article does not support your claim, I can find nothing that supports your claim, and the existing explanation fits the observations. You can't simply say "it isn't the accepted cause, it is actually climate change because I say so, and if you don't prove it is 100% not climate change then it is climate change". That's just silly. You have to prove it is climate change.

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

#359

Post by deialtrous »

arbitrary_name wrote: post #326
deialtrous wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That assumes that Canadian beef production is at or near its limit. It is not even close. We could produce far more, but there is no market for it. So if Canadian beef consumption goes down, all that happens is Canadian beef production goes down. No impact is had on the amazon. We can be very confident of this because Canadian beef consumption has gone down, and Canadian beef production went down with it, not Brazilian beef production.

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

#360

Post by tomhoward »

trentnix wrote: post #103
feistypharit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a shame you've been downvoted on this point, and it's more evidence Hacker News is becoming more like Ars: upvotes are votes of agreement as opposed to votes that you providing insight. And your comment is not only extremely insightful, it is exactly right - the current global political climate is a populist reaction by people tiring of being told by elites what they should and should not have and what they shou…

> more evidence Hacker News is becoming more like Ars: upvotes are votes of agreement as opposed to votes that you providing insight

At the time I'm reading this comment, the parent is not downvoted. The guidelines ask you not to obsess about downvoting in comments, because it's boring/repetitive, and often turns about to be moot, when the comment ends up being voted back into the black, which is often the case.

Post reply on HN