Animal Populations Fell by 68% in 50 Years and It’s Getting Worse • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by slavik81 » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

manoDev wrote: post #206

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...

Obligatory Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgS1Lwr8gq8&ab_channel=Popco...

Agent Smith is generally one of my favourite parts of The Matrix, but his speech is factually incorrect. Plenty of mammals will multiply until they run out of food.

I worry quite a bit about the habitat distruction necessary to comfortably sustain 7–10 B people, but the comparisons to a virus and the implied moral judgment have always seemed off-base. Nature doesn't care if we destroy everything. I care.

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

#262

Post by deanCommie » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

misja111 wrote: post #50

alangibson wrote: post #41

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.

No I remember the opposite. I'm over 50 and when I was young in the 70's the water in ditches and canals was so polluted that nothing lived in it anymore but algae. In Amsterdam, where I moved to after leaving home, you had to be suicidal to be willing to take a swim in the canals. Nowadays fish are back everywhere, even in the canals in Amsterdam. There seem to be salmons swimming in the big rivers, this was unthink…

Re: Salmon

Unfortunately gains in some parts of the world are not seen everywhere.

Sockeye Salmon populations in British Columbia (basically the world HQ for "wild" salmon) are plummeting: https://twitter.com/raffertybaker/status/1293318721574801408...

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

#263

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #178

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a die-hard Dune (1984) and book fan, I'm not really ecstatic yet. Old movie had some unique qualities, and would be a great movie if it was 7 hours long. Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?!

> Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?! Do you really have to ask or do you not believe words have associations that aren't their exact dictionary definitions? Dune was written well before the word was associated with religious extremism in modern times, the word didn't have the associations of terrorism and caliphates and 9/11.

Thing is, Dune is literally a book about religious extremism, it is one of it's most important themes.

So changing this term gets massive thumbs down from me.

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

#264

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

Simon_says wrote: post #176

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a die-hard Dune (1984) and book fan, I'm not really ecstatic yet. Old movie had some unique qualities, and would be a great movie if it was 7 hours long. Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?!

> Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?! Have you been in a coma since 1984?

You mean we should not use the j-word for a destructive religious war because it can offend some extremists?

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

#265

Post by macspoofing » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

jamil7 wrote: post #103

macspoofing wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

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

Yes. That was my point. Much less.

The other argument I would make is I'm not seeing any evidence that solar actually solves any problem for us. It can't replace fossil fuels, and in fact needs fossil fuel back-up because there is no battery technology (today or upcoming) that can store enough energy to, say, power a city overnight. The global population continues to grow and with it energy needs. Worse, energy/capita is also growing. This means that as bad as solar is today on the environment, it is only going to get worse.

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

#266

Post by davexunit » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

davexunit wrote: post #170

nemo44x wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it reminds of Nassim Taleb's idea of anti-fragility in that because our monoculture and reliance in chemicals to sustain it, it would only take a certain devastating thing to endanger the national food supply. Do you have examples of or references to regenerative farming practices? I ask because I'm curious about them to see if they scale like modern Ag which for all of its problems (many you pointed out), h…

Sure, starting really generally: "regenerative agriculture" and "permaculture" are good keywords. I think looking for any solution to scale the way industrial agriculture does is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. The scaling of industrial agriculture is the problem. I don't think any one alternative is "the" solution, but rather that many alternative methods need to be applied where appropriate and at…

Oh also add "natural farming" to those other keywords.

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

#267

Post by NoRagrets » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:29 PM UTC

sgt101 wrote: post #225

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #217

We are past carrying capacity. If we don’t bring down population to 1-3 billion, when the natural trend of depopulation happens, there won’t be enough resources to feed the population on the spoils of a collapsing eco system. When the apex predator gets hungry, everything gets eaten. Not only are we a super apex predator, we are also the most hungry and are outbreeding all other species and devouring eco systems. It…

Are you actually advocating genocide?

There are only two reasons not to promote responsible procreation :

1. Religion 2. Creating a labour force.

When reproductive rights are restored back to women and automation/AI takes over most of the mundane tasks, humanity can live to the best of its ability.

We also need anti ageing therapies so we can all live long and healthy as well as ways to preserve and manipulate genetic material so that subsequent generations have the best future in every possible way.

All while restoring our eco system and bringing our planet back to equilibrium. Does this sound like genocide to you?

If we had longer life spans and can live healthy lives without the ravages of ageing, how many of us would want to procreate in a hurry so we remain immortal through our genes?

I don’t see responsible procreation and advanced bio therapies as something negative. I think it’s the next level of our evolution.

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

#268

Post by macspoofing » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #258

macspoofing wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How does it compare to the ecosystem cost of coal strip mining? I think we're all in agreement that coal is terrible and we don't want to use it anymore. Having said that, the one benefit it has over solar and wind is that it doesn't actually need to be backed-up by any other power source. As in, it doesn't need an alternate base-load to be provided. But again, I take your point ... coal is bad. The question is, giv…

We should make some tough calls about how much off peak baseload is supplied. Nuclear is probably a bit overrated (very capex heavy, carbon intensive at build time) and still ultimately not renewable. We should and do have a massive investment in non-PWRs, for current baseload replacement, right? At some point you have to ask if there was an obvious nuclear solution, why nobody picked up the dollar bill on the ground…

>We should and do have a massive investment in non-PWRs, for current baseload replacement, right?

Like what? Because I'm seeing Germany sign massive multi-decade contracts for natural gas, at the same time as they are investing in wind energy.

>At some point you have to ask if there was an obvious nuclear solution, why nobody picked up the dollar bill on the ground.

We know why. Nuclear energy is highly regulated and therefore very expensive to build. But we know it works. There's also a dedicated anti-nuclear lobby that does spread anti-nuke FUD.

By the same measure, given how 'cheap' renewables are (I've heard for the last decade that renewables are cheaper than almost anything out there), why aren't renewables powering any economy? Maybe price isn't the issue with renewables. Maybe they just can't do the job.

And there is a bait-and-switch going on. Anytime you hear about some nation powered fully by renewables it's always Hydro (Hydro and Geothermal are great and better than nuclear ... but only if you have the geography for it)

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

#269

Post by the_af » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

remote_phone wrote: post #165

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…

Bladerunner 2049 was completely bifurcated. I thought the first half was magnificent. The scene with Ryan Gosling having the intimate moment with the hologram made me weep, it was so sad because that’s all he could get. The movie became terrible once Harrison Ford was introduced and kept diving. Everything about it was horrible. The scene in the water looked like a sound stage. Absolutely terrible.

Everything with Deckard was awful. I also felt the Rachael clone was both a "fanservice" moment and at the same time terribly disrespectful to the character of Rachael. I hated it, a "we did this with CGI because we can" moment.

In my opinion, Deckard and Rachael's story was over at the end of the first film. Let them have their moment, be happy for an instant, and forget them.

If the sequel was even necessary at all, it should have moved on without sullying old characters.

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

#270

Post by FooBarBizBazz » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 8:17 PM UTC

davexunit wrote: post #231

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this works at scale. The problem is that we are past carrying capacity. We need to control population. I am in favour of E.O. Wilson’s Half Earth solution where we set aside half the planet for habitat and inhabit only half of the land and leave the oceans alone.

This is so completely wrong I can't believe I'm responding to it. We are not past carrying capacity. Population control is some ecofascist bullshit.

Population voluntarily goes down with increased education and reproductive rights for women. You don't need something heavy-handed. You just need feminism. Get the fertility rate down to something like 0.9 and just wait.

You don't need to deny the facts because of some fringe-right boogeyman. There really are too many people. But there are perfectly-good solutions no more extreme than the center-left.