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

111–120 of 277 posts

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

#111

Post by rch »

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…

My perception is that climate change policy hasn't been sufficiently focused on biodiversity, maybe because it has taken so much effort to get the public on board with the idea that the science is real.

That's going to have to change.

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

#112

Post by eanzenberg »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #26
airstrike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID-19 begs to differ

North Dakota has more than 10x the per-capita COVID-19 infection rate of New York City right now, despite having only about 0.03% of the population density.

That’s because covid ran through NYC in April leading to massive per capita loss of life.

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

#113

Post by samatman »

giantg2 wrote: post #109
samatman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I specifically said that those actions are important also. But it does matter regardless, because rewilding in the future is distinctly possible. If we're able to rebuild an acceptable habitat, and we have the genetic information on hand, we can conceivably unextinct a species and reintroduce it. Without the genetic material, this is impossible. It's similar to the logic of cryostorage, although I would…

I guess you're just much more optimistic than me when it comes to shrinking the population below the current level and reducing consumption.

The second derivative of population is decidedly negative, as is the slope throughout the high-consumption regions of the world; optimism on that front is rational.

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

#114

Post by Swizec »

thethethethe wrote: post #59
Swizec wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities are badly designed for pedestrians. Eh every large city I've been to that isn't in US or Canada is extremely pedestrian friendly. To the point of being actively nicer and easier to navigate by foot than by car. Even NYC and SF are way faster to navigate by foot/bike than by car. I've stopped using Uber in SF because it's faster (and cheaper) to get places with a rented bike.

Well there are thousands of small cities and towns which are not this way. Hell, if you leave San Francisco and go to any other bay area city it's not this way

Well the GP was saying that density is the problem but really it’s the solution. High density keeps our mess contained and reduces carbon output.

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

#115

Post by runarberg »

zo1 wrote: post #70
ashtonkem wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not cool. This kind of imperialist mindset has historically been at the head of some of the most awful actions in human history. Including forced relocations, imposed poverty, sustained resource theft, sustained vandalism and theft of local artifacts, slave labor, and even genocide.

If the rich world really cared about the wildlife in Madagascar we would fund green local infrastructure projects so that the local population could enjoy a sustainable lifestyle on their own.

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

#116

Post by rch »

samatman wrote: post #41
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…

That's the direction things are heading. It's (past) time to start collecting genomes and marrow samples from as many critically endangered species as possible. Unextinction is a difficult problem, but without the necessary material, it's impossible. Sure, that's going to favor charismatic megafauna. But we like those, it's right in the name. And it's no substitute for building wildlife corridors, managing park lands…

Bio-banking is worthwhile in some cases, but generally speaking it's on par with escaping to Mars in terms of practical utility. Genomes without a hospitable environment would be mostly anachronistic.

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

#117

Post by seanwilson »

50% of habitable land on earth is taken up by agriculture, 77% of which is used for meat & diary (including the crops grown for livestock to eat), which contributes only 18% to the global calorie supply because of the inefficiency of animal products:

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

I wonder how much of an impact it would have to return the land used by meat & diary to nature (40 million km^2 out of the 104 million km^2 of habitable land, minus some for more crops for humans). Wild animals would have more of chance, they'd be more forests to capture more carbon, and industrial animal farming wouldn't be polluting the planet with carbon, methane and waste products that are contributing to climate change.

I don't know a practical solution to the above, but people are in denial about how much damage animal farming is doing globally and the insane scale of it (about 70 billion animals are used for food each year).

The general attitudes of "well, people are never going to reduce their use of animal products to help so..." and "lab based meat will save us at some point in the future and then I'll probably switch if they're indistinguible from real meat" is depressing. We're running out of time.

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

#118

Post by giantg2 »

samatman wrote: post #113
giantg2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you're just much more optimistic than me when it comes to shrinking the population below the current level and reducing consumption.

The second derivative of population is decidedly negative, as is the slope throughout the high-consumption regions of the world; optimism on that front is rational.

We'll all be long dead before that results in a population less than today's, so I guess it's a moot point either way.

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

0-_-0 wrote: post #106
bosswipe wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't live on land that looks like this but it's destroying biodiversity anyway https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/general-view-t...

To be fair, that's a desert so technically speaking agriculture increases biodiversity there

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by cleandreams »

I believe this study but it contrasts oddly with my own experience. I have lived for many of my 60+ years in the American West. Species which have made a comeback: wild turkeys, cougar, eagles, rocky mountain sheep, even wolves in some areas. Is this because American patterns of interaction with wildlife are different than elsewhere? Genuinely curious here.
Post reply on HN