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

Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 277 posts

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#61

Post by julienb_sea »

Hokusai wrote: post #2

> "Doing so will require systemic shifts in how we produce food, create energy, manage our oceans and use materials," This is a hard political problem. The owners of the current means to produce meat/oil/etc. want to keep their fortune and to move them to renewable/plant-base/new-tech solutions make them lose that edge and creates real competition. The problem with economy/ecology is that many people are addicted to…

The problem is much more complex than people being "addicted to easy money". Wealthy nations have buffer to take on unnecessary expense in addressing their basic needs, like food and shelter. This is dramatically less true in non-wealthy nations. Creating ecological mandates can have actual human impact on food availability and on human standard of living. Not the marginal improvements experienced in developed nations, but life or death quality of life changes to the worlds poorest.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#62

Post by mongol »

julienb_sea wrote: post #56
AlexandrB wrote: post #5

I think the future is very grim for biodiversity. Even if we stopped destroying habitats tomorrow, many larger animals are already living in small, isolated pockets surrounded by roads, farms, and industry. Meanwhile, plants and smaller animals face intense competition from invasive species - often brought in by accident thanks to the constant flow of goods around the globe. We're probably headed for a pretty homogen…

Fragile species will continue to be in decline. Long term, large species will remain in protected environments like national parks. The idea that humans are incapable of protecting larger species is belied by a visit to Yellowstone. Our living environments create opportunities for well-adapted species to flourish. This will certainly shift the makeup of our planet's biodiversity. You mention all of this in passing, b…

I don't think it is a matter of what humans can do if they make enough of an effort, but what is most likely to happen.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#63

Post by lopmotr »

laurent92 wrote: post #4
Hokusai wrote: post #2

> "Doing so will require systemic shifts in how we produce food, create energy, manage our oceans and use materials," This is a hard political problem. The owners of the current means to produce meat/oil/etc. want to keep their fortune and to move them to renewable/plant-base/new-tech solutions make them lose that edge and creates real competition. The problem with economy/ecology is that many people are addicted to…

We are addicted to high population density, making babies and helping get everyone to what we consider is the minimum level of consumption, which is exactly 2x higher than the Earth can provide sustainably. At one point we’ll have to say “Earth can only feed X billion people if we want to have a medium pressure on our environment”.

In pre-industrial times, the population was naturally limited by food shortages. People were chronically exceeding the carrying capacity and then being culled back. They've always been "addicted" to high population density. What's the alternative? Extinction? Every species does the same, but for most of them, nobody cares about the endless hardship of living at the limit of carrying capacity.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#64

Post by refurb »

jeffbee wrote: post #57
volkl48 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that statistic includes every Forest Service road on the books.

Yes, clearly. In what way is a forest road not a road? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7775746,-122.9327754,2401a,3...

I think when people think “road” they think something maintained and well used.

A forestry or old logging road that hasn’t been used in 50 years doesn’t come to mind.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#65

Post by lopmotr »

tuatoru wrote: post #21
laurent92 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are addicted to high population density, making babies and helping get everyone to what we consider is the minimum level of consumption, which is exactly 2x higher than the Earth can provide sustainably. At one point we’ll have to say “Earth can only feed X billion people if we want to have a medium pressure on our environment”.

We are not addicted to making babies, or at least not endlessly. Take a look at Wikipedia's list of countries by total fertility rate, and then google for charts showing what's been happening to it over the last few decades. Most countries, the significant exceptions being in Sub-Saharan Africa, have TFR below or near replacement (2.1). When girls are allowed to learn to read, and when people move to cities women don…

It's kind of weird to see the people worried about over-population come crashing into the new worry about population stagnation or decline. Both problems are hard. The only fun stage is unconstrained growth unless we can somehow reach stability without continually killing people to stay there like we used to.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#66

Post by lopmotr »

mythrwy wrote: post #18
xnx wrote: post #6

I wish we spent more time talking about "habitat destruction" instead of "climate change", while understanding that climate change is the largest form of habitat destruction.

The net effects of climate change (and of course the magnitude) are big question marks in my book. But you bring up the exact thing I think every time I hear the more extreme climate change claims. We have some very real and relevant issues right now that are huge, existential even, and not based on theoretical models and we don't seem to be discussing or doing anything at all about these. Groundwater depletion. Tops…

I think you committed a bit of heresy there. When expressing ideas about political topics, you also have to give praise the correct Gods or people will think you're an enemy.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#67

Post by ptmcc »

refurb wrote: post #45
jeffbee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in the contiguous USA the furthest you can get from a road is only 20 miles. There are no undisturbed places left, really. Unfortunately preserving roadless areas is politically contentious here. Clinton enacted a roadless area rule at the end of his administration and Bush tried to reverse it a week later.

Not sure I believe the 20 miles thing unless you could count an old road that hasn't been used in 100 years as "developed". There are massive swaths of land in the lower 48 that are pretty much untouched beyond a few footpaths that are rarely used.

I agree, but the fact that there was a forest/logging road in that area as recently as 50 years ago does indicate that it is an environment recently impacted by humans.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#69

Post by nickff »

Avicebron wrote: post #46
Hokusai wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're hurting these poorer communities the most. My point is that redistributing wealth in a better way, we would get less opposition to upgrade our production means and people like that poor farmers and others will get a bigger piece of the cake in a more healthy environment and conserving their culture and land. I agree with you, thou. The current mindset is that the super-rich are super-rich and their wealth ca…

This is key. It's this cultural blind spot where we gloss over the fact that these people are impoverished and so desperate that they would destroy the home around them, partly because we allow a tiny fraction of humanity to amass absurd wealth. Then we double down by making it socially acceptable for them to leverage that wealth into making it untouchable and ever-growing. If we just took this situation as strictly…

Well, innovation in agriculture has actually reduced the amount of land used for farming in more developed countries while increasing production.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#70

Post by zo1 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #31
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Madagascar is a slow-motion environmental catastrophe because every family has many children and each of those children eventually needs to slash-and-burn rainforest in order to plant enough rice to sustain themselves. Also a lot of tree-felling to make charcoal, because for whatever reason Malagasy villagers cannot afford e.g. kerosene to cook with. The result is the steady eradication of all those cool lemu…

And without significant investment by those with resources, asking them to preserve the environment is a direct ask for them to go hungry or cold for the sake of the environment. This is an ask that 99.99% or more of the human population will absolutely ignore.

Or how about we invade Madagascar, ship all these poor folk to NYC, and declare the entire region a wildlife reserve?
Post reply on HN