Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 298 posts

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

#101

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #13

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.

Part of the reason we have this problem now is similar thinking in the cold-war era. When you believe a WWIII-induced apocalypse is just around the corner you're not likely to make a priority out of long term planning.

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

#102

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

the_af wrote: post #61
LandR wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had this book on my shelf for a couple of years. I was put off it because I finally saw the film (and the remake) and didn't like them. Especially the remake, fell asleep trying to get through that film on three seperate occasions before giving up on it. But I need to give the book a chance if it's quite different to the film.

I think instead of "remake" you meant sequel, because there is no remake. If it's any consolation: I'm an absolute fan of Blade Runner but hated the sequel. In my opinion, it fails to capture the neo-noir feel of the original, has no interesting characters, Jared Leto's acting is distracting, and the villains/antiheroes... compare Roy Batty's "tears in rain" dying speech with Luv's "I'm the best!". It makes me cringe…

I, for one, think that the sequel is as good as the original. Cinematography was stunning and the world was a believable evolution of the world from the previous movie.

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

#103

Post by jamil7 »

macspoofing wrote: post #97
jamil7 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The salient point was that manufacturing millions (billions?) of panels and turbines has a huge toll on the ecosystem

Everything has an impact on the ecosystem, is your point that nuclear has less of an impact than solar?

> and they are used in components of solar panels

Which rare metals are used in solar panels?

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

#104

Post by tartuffe78 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #24
thatguy0900 wrote: post #13

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.

> Between climate and the looming covid recession, is there even a point to planning for the future? For real? Imagine having lived through a global depression, fighting a world war on the other side of the planet and watching an entire society vapourized by nuclear weapons, all in the span of a decade. > I might as well enjoy my money while I can do things with it. You should always enjoy your money, because you can…

> watching an entire society vapourized by nuclear weapons

What society was that?

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

#105

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

cultus wrote: post #84
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the worst case projections I’m aware of, global warming won’t kill people in the billions. This kind of frankly fearmongering is a large part of why it’s so hard to get consensus on environmental issues in the first place.

I am a former geophysicist, and credibly we could see on the order of an 8C rise this century. It's much worse than the general public thinks, and the picture keeps worsening as understanding of the system and its feedbacks increase. A rise of 5-8C make large parts of the Earth uninhabitable and would collapse food production and global civilization. Billions dying is not scaremongering, but is a very probable outcom…

The IPCC says that the worst case scenario is a 5C rise, and their analysis of food production (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap...) doesn't indicate any sort of catastrophic collapse. What source are you getting this information from?

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

#107

Post by throwaway0a5e »

slavik81 wrote: post #36

I saw a figure[1] the other day that blew me away. If you exclude pets and livestock, then human beings comprise ~90% of all mammals (by weight). All wild whales, bears, lions, deer, moose, mice, rabbits, wild horses, camels, beavers, buffalo, elephants, tigers, rhinos, chimpanzees, pandas, goats, etc... are in that remaining 10%. [1]: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/al...

That's because we've spent several millennia figuring out how to live more and more densely and we do the same with our livestock.

If beavers invented a lifestyle that enabled them to live at densities up to thousands per square mile they'd compromise a hell of a lot of biomass too.

The fact that there's more humans doesn't imply anything about the other animal population (though I suspect that it's not good for the other animals though).

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

#108

Post by graeme »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #66
graeme wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be instructive reading re: the plan you alluded to lower in your comments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lotus_Eater Can’t find text online but it’s a good story. Most humans want to live when older, even if circumstances bad. As for the future, you may consider a few things: 1. What will happen of everyone sensible to problems lives a life of empty hedonism? Rather than trying to improve them. 2. Wi…

I'll read the book, thanks for the reccomendation. 1. Maybe I'm just being a doomer, but I don't think it makes a difference, all of the money is on being a hedonist staying the course and that seems to be the only relevant thing. 2. 68% of life in 50 years is pretty fast, it will only really take 1 global war between powers over resources for things to slip it seems to me 3. That's a sensible plan. I enjoy the field…

If you think you have the aptitude for it, you might consider starting a business. You can make it so you’re totally free of time and location, and have a fair bit of money.

It requires a bunch of upfront work, but then you’re free. For hedonism or more useful purposes. (Though directly working on the problem is more effective than what I suggest)

And yeah, 68% in 50 years is a lot. Our default trajectory is very bad. But if all those who see this collapse into hopelessness, what chance do we have?

And the book is just a short story. A cautionary tale against believing that a happy life can be hedonism in youth with a planned early end. Most older people, it turns out, still want to live, once they get older.

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

#109

Post by otachack »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #102
the_af wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think instead of "remake" you meant sequel, because there is no remake. If it's any consolation: I'm an absolute fan of Blade Runner but hated the sequel. In my opinion, it fails to capture the neo-noir feel of the original, has no interesting characters, Jared Leto's acting is distracting, and the villains/antiheroes... compare Roy Batty's "tears in rain" dying speech with Luv's "I'm the best!". It makes me cringe…

I, for one, think that the sequel is as good as the original. Cinematography was stunning and the world was a believable evolution of the world from the previous movie.

I agree and am ecstatic for Villeneuve's Dune!

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

#110

Post by mercer »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #100
ludocode wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and to some extent the removal of mercerism

Imagine how I feel!?

Post reply on HN