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

141–150 of 277 posts

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

#141

Post by playingchanges »

seanwilson wrote: post #117

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 k…

Surely a portion of grazing land is also habitat to a significant amount of wildlife. Whereas large mono crops leave no room for competition and result in much death in the automated processing of crops. Not a lot of great options with billions of people to feed.

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

#142

Post by thrwaway69 »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #90
philips wrote: post #14

How are people on Hacker News changing their behavior around food and energy consumption? And besides individual action what community action have you taken? Personally I have found myself on a similar path to Peter Kalmus[1]. Before having kids I did what I could: didn’t own a car, commuted by bike, composted, minimized fashion/tech consumption, etc. On the other hand my career required significant plane travel for…

>And besides individual action what community action have you taken? I didn't have any kids. Its a message that unfortunately most people still refuse to hear (much less accept) - the earth is massively overpopulated. It doesn't matter how think try to dice the onion, there are far too many people for the earth's finite, renewable resources to sustainably support. Certainly our wasteful and overly consumptive habits…

If people want to advocate that overpopulation isn't a problem, they should live in dhaka or other densely packed poor areas. Anyone living in developed countries have no idea how it is to live there.

US population density = under 100 per mile^2

SF population density = 18k per mile^2

Major cities in Bangladesh, India, Phillipines have well over 50k/ml^2

Those countries also have nation wide population density of over 500/ml^2 at least.

Most people there can't buy an electric vehicle any time soon. They don't have tall buildings or functional transportation. They don't have enough jobs. The pollution levels are worse. Their countries have more corruption and less rights for everyone. They don't have enough drinking water or land for agriculture geographically.

Overpopulation makes solving all the problems harder.

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

#143

Post by ubertoop »

seanwilson wrote: post #117

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 k…

The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat.

Meat is absolutely PACKED with bioavailable nutrients in a way that most plant products simply aren't.

Add to that, the growing evidence that much of the plant material we're eating may have inflammatory side effects of consumption.

The point I am making is that a solution isn't a solution if it means getting rid of one of the most dense forms of nutrition we have.

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

#144

Post by airstrike »

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.

You're comparing two cities that got hit by COVID-19 in totally different time periods. No other place in the US had a spike like NYC

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

#145

Post by rbg246 »

ubertoop wrote: post #143
seanwilson wrote: post #117

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 k…

The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Meat is absolutely PACKED with bioavailable nutrients in a way that most plant products simply aren't. Add to that, the growing evidence that much of the plant material we're eating may have inflammatory side effects of consumption. The point I am making is that a solution isn't a sol…

From all the history I have read of civilisation, it's been grain that has been the foundation of human society as we know it, meat couldn't get us anywhere.

Meat eating among the poor in European societies and derived societies is a new phenomenon at least in the idea that every meal has meat in it.

Take a look outside of Europe or even within less wealthy areas of Europe and their diets are magnitudes lower in their meat consumption.

I've read the opposite re: inflammatory side effects of meat that we are discovering. WHO a few years ago put eating sulfite infested meat as being carcinogenic.

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

#146

Post by yelloweyes »

ubertoop wrote: post #143
seanwilson wrote: post #117

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 k…

The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Meat is absolutely PACKED with bioavailable nutrients in a way that most plant products simply aren't. Add to that, the growing evidence that much of the plant material we're eating may have inflammatory side effects of consumption. The point I am making is that a solution isn't a sol…

what?

My life wouldn't change at all if I suddenly started eating 50% less meat. wouldn't change a thing.

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

#147

Post by rbg246 »

playingchanges wrote: post #141
seanwilson wrote: post #117

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 k…

Surely a portion of grazing land is also habitat to a significant amount of wildlife. Whereas large mono crops leave no room for competition and result in much death in the automated processing of crops. Not a lot of great options with billions of people to feed.

I think you are right, there are only nuanced, localised level solutions to this issue.

But to not address the parent's issue is really not an option.

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

#148

Post by edjrage »

chongli wrote: post #130
seanwilson wrote: post #117

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 k…

I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts. Replace all the milk with almond milk and you’re still dealing with huge water and land use for a product that has inferior protein and nutrients. Second…

> If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts

In addition to the other replies, I'd like to point out that insect farming is an often overlooked solution. But of course it's just not sexy enough for most westerners.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:

> Edible insects contain high quality protein, vitamins and amino acids for humans. Insects have a high food conversion rate, e.g. crickets need six times less feed than cattle, four times less than sheep, and twice less than pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein. Besides, they emit less greenhouse gases and ammonia than conventional livestock. Insects can be grown on organic waste. Therefore, insects are a potential source for conventional production (mini-livestock) of protein, either for direct human consumption, or indirectly in recomposed foods (with extracted protein from insects); and as a protein source into feedstock mixtures.

http://www.fao.org/edible-insects/en/

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

#149

Post by analog31 »

playingchanges wrote: post #141
seanwilson wrote: post #117

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 k…

Surely a portion of grazing land is also habitat to a significant amount of wildlife. Whereas large mono crops leave no room for competition and result in much death in the automated processing of crops. Not a lot of great options with billions of people to feed.

True, but we could grow less acreage of mono crops if we weren't feeding livestock.

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

#150

Post by mac01021 »

cleandreams wrote: post #120

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.

The article obviously and necessarily omits thousands of pages worth of detail, but I'm pretty sure that if you dug into the scientific findings a disproportionate amount of the decline in vertibrate biodiversity has been in places like Peru, Brazil, Congo, Malaysia -- all the places with jungles and tropical rainforests, which contain a disproportionate amount of the world's terrestrial biodiversity in the first place and which are near-universally under dire threat of being logged into oblivion, cleared for palm plantations, etc.

The USA is not doing fantastic when it comes to conservation, but much of the world is doing far worse.

Post reply on HN