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

371–380 of 380 posts

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

#371

Post by tomp »

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.

Don't worry, that's exactly what the developed countries have been doing!

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

#372

Post by hassan_shaikley »

Aloha wrote: post #314
novaleaf wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who grew up in the Pacific Northwest: Seagulls. 30 years ago if you went to the coast you would have hundreds of seagulls on every beach. If you go there today you are lucky to see more than 5 in an entire day.

Remarkably, the same in Los Angeles

There's a ton here in cold fucking Alberta

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

#373

Post by losteric »

yesenadam wrote: post #366
losteric wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

Hi. I don't see how that's 'the most fundamental sense' at all, to say the least. "Fooling myself" meaning not agreeing with your opinions? That's not a nice or useful way to talk to people. "We're all just organisms" - I hear that and I think "ah, next comes the faulty argument that was a premise of". What's wrong with men eating fish. Ah, good question. I don't think you're really asking it, it's rhetorical. But th…

Buddy, I'm already a vegetarian. I was hoping rhetoric would lead to some critical introspection, rather than perpetuating the buck passing stereotype...

Ethics is completely subjective. Slaughter isn't for me, but there are other ethical axioms that lead to rational support of the practice. It is not inherently bad.

You cannot sway people's opinions by starting with complete disregard for their opinions, or without a thorough understanding of your own rationale.

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

#374

Post by [deleted] »

jfim wrote: post #273
rhacker wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

$1000/month is peanuts for anyone who's moderately wealthy, and if that tax breaks the bank, what is someone supposed to do, get rid of their children? It makes more sense to tax things that are polluting (eg. plastic packaging).

[deleted]

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

#375

Post by yesenadam »

losteric wrote: post #373
yesenadam wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. I don't see how that's 'the most fundamental sense' at all, to say the least. "Fooling myself" meaning not agreeing with your opinions? That's not a nice or useful way to talk to people. "We're all just organisms" - I hear that and I think "ah, next comes the faulty argument that was a premise of". What's wrong with men eating fish. Ah, good question. I don't think you're really asking it, it's rhetorical. But th…

Buddy, I'm already a vegetarian. I was hoping rhetoric would lead to some critical introspection, rather than perpetuating the buck passing stereotype... Ethics is completely subjective. Slaughter isn't for me, but there are other ethical axioms that lead to rational support of the practice. It is not inherently bad. You cannot sway people's opinions by starting with complete disregard for their opinions, or without…

I find almost your every sentence is snarky, unpleasantly put in some way, ie not civil at all. The only exceptions assert as facts things that don't seem to me to be true.

I don't agree at all that Ethics is completely subjective. You say that like it's an uncontroversial fact. Just restating It is not inherently bad doesn't add anything, unless you're trying to say Nothing is inherently bad. Whatever inherently means in that sense. I think your last sentence is saying I have complete disregard for your opinions? I don't think anyone has a 'thorough understanding' of their 'rationale', whatever that means exactly.

I get a very strong passive/aggressive vibe from you, like you have no idea how hostile you sound. I really don't like engaging with it, so I'll stop now. Good luck.

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

#376

Post by brownbat »

jlawson wrote: post #364
brownbat wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking back at human history, QoL is correlated with increased hands and minds available to do useful work. QoL is not generally highest during population crashes. I'd rather live now than during the black death, or in ancient times when 90% of humanity had to devote their entire lives to food production. In contrast, 90% of the phds who have ever lived are alive right now. We have freed people to do great things. I…

I hate to say it, but you've got it exactly backwards. QoL is much better after population crashes. I'll give two examples and explain the simple reasons. For example, life in the early 1300s in Europe was awful. Life in the middle 1400s was much better. Reason: The Black Death killed a huge number of people, opening up quality land for people to live a bit more easily. You don't want to live during the black death,…

Much respect for your clear and thoughtful response on a very emotional issue for many.

I think we just have a different take on the underlying facts.

> QoL was the same in 1800 for most people as in 2000BC

An interesting claim. Googling the history of meaningful corollaries to QoL raised some concerns for me though.

Infant mortality was over 40% in 1800.

The average work week in the Us was over 70 hours.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

The deaths from flu and tuberculosis have been massively reduced, those diseases are still awful, but their impact is unrecognizable.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article...

They are still really deadly diseases for vulnerable populations, but I can't even imagine what it was like when they ravaged populations.

You reduce child mortality (and improve other measures) by freeing up minds from menial labor through economies of scale. Those free minds invent processes that ease human endeavors and lower humanity's impact on the environment in drastic ways.

These aren't small gains. The history of artificial light is an example, showing improvements in efficiency in magnitudes of tens of thousands.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/epis...

For example, those free minds discover things like kerosene, which nearly resolves humanity's obsessive quest to murder every whale for oil.

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

https://ourworldindata.org/light

We still have a lot of work to do to protect whales, but there's a reason Moby Dick resonated when it was written, everyone knew about the significance of that then major industry.

I'm not a transhumanist, but I am awestruck by the pace of human progress. Solar adoption looks glacial while we're waiting for price parity, but is there any doubt it will displace fossils over the next few decades?

Human inventiveness seems the best way to lower impacts while also obtaining other human goals. For all that I want the highest MIPS per gram ratio in the solar system as possible.

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

#377

Post by philipps »

_Tev wrote: post #357
philipps wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

The concept of carrying capacity estimates human consumption versus the planet’s ability to regenerate resources. Have a look at the reports and data cited on the Wikipedia page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible.

Furthermore, even at the current population size human activity is causing potentially irreversible climate change. The scientific consensus is that even a small increase of 1.5C will have severe consequences on the planet. Limiting the increase to 1.5 C will require significant action by all of us. Addding many more people makes this much harder.

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

I hope the links can help convince you that we are facing a serious crisis that is causally related to the size of the human population.

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

#378

Post by _Tev »

philipps wrote: post #377
_Tev wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"…

The concept of carrying capacity estimates human consumption versus the planet’s ability to regenerate resources. Have a look at the reports and data cited on the Wikipedia page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible. Furthermore, even at the current population size human act…

Carrying capacity of Earth is frequently revised upwards, but I am not paying much attention to research around it, that is why I would appreciate some concrete links / citations.

> I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible.

Because I have not seen anyone argue for the limits in convincing ways, it's all FUD from my PoV.

Intuitively - energy is not (very big) problem, we can make dense nuclear sources, solar & offshore wind is viable in many places, and gas peaker plants / limited enetgy storage should cover the rest.

Hydroponics and similar advanced agricultural methods are showing nice gains in effectivity of produce per sq km, at the cost of (IIRC) energy (see above). EVs are finally starting to be viable. Etc. Etc.

And that's before we get to really long-term solutions like colonizing space.

Where are the real limits?

> Furthermore, even at the current population size human activity is causing potentially irreversible climate change ...

Yeah, we are making a lot of externalities. This is not impossible to solve, see above.

Extrapolating from our past failures is extremely shortsighted and has been proven wrong numerous times, see e.g. WW3 and end-of-humanity scare in 50's/60's. We can learn from our mistakes, and we seem to actually do that a lot! Spreading hysteria is not helping I think.

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

#379

Post by birksherty »

dragonwriter wrote: post #338
birksherty wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I'll say it. That is a stupid statement. I've seen that "planet will be fine" line too many times. Here is the truth: the main purpose of that line is to hide the wrongdoing. The planet is not just a rock in space. It includes the environment and everything that is there. When we destroy that, we are destroying the planet itself.

> The planet is not just a rock in space. It includes the environment and everything that is there. When we destroy that, we are destroying the planet itself. I include my hair, but if I shave my head I haven't destroyed myself. What is really going on is that “We’re killing the planet” is a hyperbolic way to express “We are destroying the things I personally value about the planet” or perhaps “We are making the plan…

Another stupid argument. Your hair and environment are two completely different things. It's dishonest to make these kind of comparisons, but because you did I will too. Someone just by pure greed and money removes your eyes, rips away your skin, cuts your nose. Then he says stop complaining that you are destroyed, you are still alive, saying such thing is wrong.

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

#380

Post by birksherty »

manfredo wrote: post #283
birksherty wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I'll say it. That is a stupid statement. I've seen that "planet will be fine" line too many times. Here is the truth: the main purpose of that line is to hide the wrongdoing. The planet is not just a rock in space. It includes the environment and everything that is there. When we destroy that, we are destroying the planet itself.

> The planet is not just a rock in space. It includes the environment and everything that is there. When we destroy that, we are destroying the planet itself. Except... not? Altering, or even completely destroying the biosphere is not nearly the same thing as destroying the planet. Mass extinction events have occurred in the past, in terms of history on a planetary scale the anthropecene's mass extinction is nothing…

Except yes? Who cares about a planet without the biosphere? There are literally billions of such rocks. There is something different between Earth and other planet and that's what people are taking about destroying.

Extinctions happened were natural, nobody could stop it. This time it's because of greed and selfishness. It could have been stopped but not and still going on even though we know it. Don't justify this time with before.

Also we are not debating whether that happened before or not. Some (mostly american from what I've seen) people will take any excuse to justify it.

Post reply on HN