Live data from Hacker News

Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

bloomberg.com

91–100 of 298 posts

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#91

Does anyone else > 40 years old remember there just being lots more animals around when you were a kid? I don't know if it's just age blinders or paranoia, but in particular I remember there being way more birds pretty much everywhere.

Do you live in the same place as when you were a kid? Anecdotal, but I now live in a bird sanctuary in South Carolina, and there are a lot more birds here than where I grew up. It’s really hard to gauge things based on personal experience. One thing that has definitely changed is insect levels around lights at night. Every streetlight in my childhood was positively swarming. Now, I can literally count the insects on my hands.

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#92

Does anyone else > 40 years old remember there just being lots more animals around when you were a kid? I don't know if it's just age blinders or paranoia, but in particular I remember there being way more birds pretty much everywhere.

Just over 40.

I live in Minnesota. I used to take trips in high school to the boundary waters area. The water was so clean, you didn't need a filter, you could drink right out of the lake. We didn't have to carry a ton of water, we just had cups that hung on the inside of our canoes. Thirsty? Just dip your cup and have a drink.

Nighttime was always an adventure. The bears and other animals out there were always vocal and nighttime is when a lot of animals came out and hunted. There were always an abundance of birds as well during the daytime. Hawks, bald eagles, falcons.

I've gone back through college and after college in the early 2000's. Everything has changed. Now we have a TON of ugly cell towers because people can't spend 5 min away from their phones. Less birds, the nights are a lot quieter, there didn't seem as many bears as I remember, and the nights have this eerie quiet to them.

Never mind now you have to haul in your own water, or bring a decent filter to filter the water now because its so polluted and not safe to drink. It used to be crystal clear, now its just mucky mud filth.

The other depressing thing is the trash. It was hammered into my brain when I was young the idea of "leave no trace" all through high school by my guides and in college all my roommates who were loyal to the idea. We took it on ourselves to self police each other. You leave a wrapper, a beer can? We all got on each other. It almost became a game, but it also taught us the importance of leaving an area as prestige as you found it. The last two times I was in the Boundary Waters (2008, 2014), I spent a LOT of time picking up others trash - beer cans, plastic bottles, cardboard boxes, you name it, I picked it up. There were two articles recently in the local paper saying it was getting worse now too.

I'm not sure if its a generational thing, people just don't care anymore or I've grown older and have no patience for people leaving their campsites a mess when they leave. Either way, the changes over the past decade have soured my attitude on going there anytime soon.

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#93

Does anyone else > 40 years old remember there just being lots more animals around when you were a kid? I don't know if it's just age blinders or paranoia, but in particular I remember there being way more birds pretty much everywhere.

Not necessarily animals but I remember seeing way more insects when I was younger -- living in Normandy, but it might be because I used to spend more time outdoor than I do today.

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#94

Does anyone else > 40 years old remember there just being lots more animals around when you were a kid? I don't know if it's just age blinders or paranoia, but in particular I remember there being way more birds pretty much everywhere.

I'm interested in the fact that almost every comment replied to your anecdotal comment with anecdotes of their own about how, in fact, there are so many more animals and the world is so much cleaner.

Yet, clearly, the statistics in this article and elsewhere show that this is plainly not the case. We are killing off wildlife at an unprecedented speed.

Why the disconnect? Are all our efforts really directed towards feel-good efforts at home, maybe, which make the world look cleaner and better for nature, while obscuring the huge amount of invisible damage we're doing?

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#95

Really sucks being young 20s. Between climate and the looming covid recession, is there even a point to planning for the future? Seems like the world will be trashed before I'm anywhere close to retirement anyway, almost like I might as well enjoy my money while I can do things with it.

A lot of people are driving the "the sky is falling" mentality. Ignore most of this and do your own research. The world is overall getting better everyday. Keep planning for the future and contribute to changing the world to how you'd want it.

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#96

Does anyone else > 40 years old remember there just being lots more animals around when you were a kid? I don't know if it's just age blinders or paranoia, but in particular I remember there being way more birds pretty much everywhere.

Just over 40. I live in Minnesota. I used to take trips in high school to the boundary waters area. The water was so clean, you didn't need a filter, you could drink right out of the lake. We didn't have to carry a ton of water, we just had cups that hung on the inside of our canoes. Thirsty? Just dip your cup and have a drink. Nighttime was always an adventure. The bears and other animals out there were always vocal…

This. The urban areas and inner suburban areas where most of HN grew up and lives are much less polluted and have more animals now because we mostly kicked out industry decades ago and the areas have recovered.

...but the outer suburban areas and rural areas have far less wildlife because they are so much more developed than they used to be. There has been some recovery of species in those areas too because many species were widely hunted at the turn of the 20th century and populations have rebounded but that mostly only effects the big visible species.

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#97
post #68

One of the issues of plunging headlong into solar and wind (and bio-fuels) is that those sources require huge land-areas around mining of rare metals, deployment, and finally waste. As our global population and energy needs grow, this problem gets bigger and bigger and therefore place stress on existing, and already stressed, ecosystems. On the other end, nuclear is energy dense, and requires tiny amount of land for…

Modern solar panels and their batteries do not require any "rare" metals. A lot of wind turbines use neodymium however it accounts for a very small amount of total usage. Edit: clarified.

>Modern solar panels and their batteries do not require any really "rare" metals.

The salient point was that manufacturing millions (billions?) of panels and turbines has a huge toll on the ecosystem - regardless if rare metals are used - and they are used in components of solar panels and wind turbines.

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#98
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, humans in previous generations wouldn't even bat an eyelid at the death rates. it wasn't long ago that people used to willingly go on boat journeys even though 10% of the passengers would typically die on the way

> on boat journeys even though 10% of the passengers would typically die on the way Source? Seems highly implausible (in general).

Yeah, the only kind of boat where that was probably true was the kind where the majority of "passengers" definitely weren't going willingly.

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#99
post #28

Mandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1338/ That was a real eye-opener when I first saw it. Talk about Anthropocene...

Paul Chefurka plotted change over time, which puts an additional spin on the quantities.

https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2018/7/18/how-much-of-eart...

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58ed5944e6f2e1...

Re: Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much was removed -- The movie is clearly based on the book, but only a quarter of the books themes end up in the movie. Isidore. Religion vs TV. Shared experiences. The movie is cut down, probably so it didn't turn a Novella into a trilogy. Dial 800, the desire to watch TV, no matter what's on.

I read the book first and was deeply disappointed in the movie. They could have done so much more. Instead they spent like half an hour on dumb fight scenes which are only a couple pages in the book. I can't enjoy it just because of how much they cut out. For those that haven't read the book, here's an example: When Deckard Cain meets Rachael for the first time, she has an owl, and she claims it's real. He says "I th…

I do agree that the removal of the extinction of animals theme, the removal of Deckard's wife, and to some extent the removal of mercerism detracts from the movie (or at least with the second two significantly alters bits), however not sure if the removal of the "it's difficult to kill someone when you've had sex with their double"-theme is really detrimental.

the whole fake police precinct full of androids thing was probably also better removed from a cinematic standpoint.

on edit: at any rate we should probably take into account that Phil Dick seemed to appreciate the movie https://screencrush.com/philip-k-dick-blade-runner/

Post reply on HN