Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by bamboozled » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:41 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #151

ubertoop wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have any good sources on the bioavailability of meat vs. plant nutrients? I've tried giving up meat before and have found that I feel noticeably worse both physically and mentally when I don't eat it, even if I eat a lot of plant protein and take supplements. I don't know if this simply due to my own unique biochemistry or what, but it's not subtle. I have a fast metabolism, so that may have something to do wi…

I have to be honest I had the same experience (which is unfortunate).

I went vegetarian and borderline vegan for 2 years and I wound up feeling depressed and run down.

It could’ve been from other things too, it’s only anecdotal.

I started introducing some chicken and fish into my diet again and I felt better.

I now eat meat again, just conscious of how much I’m eating and try eat a bit less.

One thing I noticed is that with being a vegetarian, I found to eat properly is harder. I had to cook a lot more to find the protein and calories, it seems to be something which I could probably do correctly if I had more time for it.

Balanced diet is the way to go I think.

One of the things I hate about eating meat is the copious amounts of plastic it comes in. With fruit and vegetables I don’t need too worry as much as I don’t put it in plastic bags, it’s a shame that meat is sold in disposable plastic.

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

#162

Post by bamboozled » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:49 AM UTC

atweiden wrote: post #159

ubertoop wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Hedging language aside — i.e. "humans evolved because X to some extent" — I recently had an epiphany touring the north island of New Zealand by minibus. Productivity utterly collapses when you have to frequently move from one (temporary) settlement to another. What you eat isn't nea…

“Plants can provide every nutrient required for human survival save for vitamin B12.”

Which is what’s interesting to me, you basically cannot actually be vegan without supplements. Maybe this is where we should go as a specifies for ethical reasons.

But it’s a mental leap to rely on supplements for vital nutrients.

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

#163

Post by refurb » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:49 AM UTC

aspaceman wrote: post #97

refurb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that humans have touched it. There’s a perception there’s large segments of the American West and Midwest that haven’t been touched. Which is what they’re describing. Almost every place, at one point or another was close to the road. When we’ve only had cars for the last 100 or so, that’s quite a statement. You’re splitting hairs.

People really believe there are parts of the west and mid-west that haven't been "touched" (we're changing the discussion here)?

The entire country has been surveyed, so of course it's been touched (as defined by some human presence at some point in time).

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

#164

Post by throwaway894345 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:49 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #95

throwaway894345 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glimmer of hope that I have is that the same sort of market forces that create these problems can be marshaled to solve them. For example, if the wealthiest countries implemented a carbon tax including a border adjustment (accounting for goods from countries with a laxer carbon policy) would give governments a single, simple dial that the could turn to lower carbon emissions. Similarly, we ought to be able to imp…

This comment is currently being downvoted, seemingly only for political reasons. It provides a clearly stated opinion not hostile towards anybody. I guess the HN crowd is not the once who like to hear that carbon tax might actually be a good solution.

Dang, I thought it was because I said “market based” and “market forces”. I can’t tell if I’m too left wing or too right wing.

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

#165

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

atweiden wrote: post #159

ubertoop wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Hedging language aside — i.e. "humans evolved because X to some extent" — I recently had an epiphany touring the north island of New Zealand by minibus. Productivity utterly collapses when you have to frequently move from one (temporary) settlement to another. What you eat isn't nea…

[deleted]

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

#166

Post by atweiden » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

solinent wrote: post #156

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…

Animal farming simply doesn't have to be so destructive. There's a simple solution to a simple problem. Look at New Zeland, regenerative agriculture. By allowing cattle to eat grass instead of grain (ha) we can avoid using pesticide and actually increase biodiversity, while planting trees as well. This increases carbon sequestration and has plenty of other benefits to the local wildlife. In fact, it can have a positi…

An Oxford research report refutes many of the claims made in favor of "regenerative animal agriculture" [1]. It's basically the clean coal of factory farming.

Also, to the extent "regenerative animal agriculture" works at all, it can be done without slaughtering the animals for their flesh.

[1]: https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fc...

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

#167

Post by seanwilson » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #162

atweiden wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Hedging language aside — i.e. "humans evolved because X to some extent" — I recently had an epiphany touring the north island of New Zealand by minibus. Productivity utterly collapses when you have to frequently move from one (temporary) settlement to another. What you eat isn't nea…

“Plants can provide every nutrient required for human survival save for vitamin B12.” Which is what’s interesting to me, you basically cannot actually be vegan without supplements. Maybe this is where we should go as a specifies for ethical reasons. But it’s a mental leap to rely on supplements for vital nutrients.

B12 usually comes from bacteria in soil (and not meat directly) that we don't get now because of cleaner vegetables and cleaner water. Likewise, many industrial animals kept indoors won't get as much B12, so that's why they're given B12 supplements. If you avoid meat, you can just take B12 supplements directly instead of them being filtered through an animal first. If you think this sounds "unnatural", there's nothing natural about intensive animal farming which is where most people get their meat from.

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

#168

Post by acituan » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:56 AM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #44

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…

The glimmer of hope that I have is that the same sort of market forces that create these problems can be marshaled to solve them. For example, if the wealthiest countries implemented a carbon tax including a border adjustment (accounting for goods from countries with a laxer carbon policy) would give governments a single, simple dial that the could turn to lower carbon emissions. Similarly, we ought to be able to imp…

> market forces that create these problems can be marshaled to solve them. For example, if the wealthiest countries implemented a carbon tax including a border adjustment (accounting for goods from countries with a laxer carbon policy) would give governments a single, simple dial that the could turn to lower carbon emissions.

Taxes are not market forces, they are exogenous interventions on markets. Which means having wealthiest countries implement a carbon tax is not riding market dynamics for free, but a difficult multi-agent cooperation problem that makes defecting competitively very advantageous. This includes for example requiring cooperation with India (5th in GDP) and China (2nd in GDP) who have been enjoying high, multi-year economic growth, whose de-carbonization would hurt their economies disproportionately, unlike other rich countries. Unfortunately exports only account for ~20% of their GDPs so there is only so much leverage to apply there either.

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

#169

Post by atweiden » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:00 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #162

atweiden wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Hedging language aside — i.e. "humans evolved because X to some extent" — I recently had an epiphany touring the north island of New Zealand by minibus. Productivity utterly collapses when you have to frequently move from one (temporary) settlement to another. What you eat isn't nea…

“Plants can provide every nutrient required for human survival save for vitamin B12.” Which is what’s interesting to me, you basically cannot actually be vegan without supplements. Maybe this is where we should go as a specifies for ethical reasons. But it’s a mental leap to rely on supplements for vital nutrients.

My B12 supplement is derived from plant sources, which I find far preferable to secondary B12 consumption from injected grain-fed animal tissue which is the modern status quo.

[1]: https://www.gardenoflife.com/content/product/mykind-organics...

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

#170

Post by burlesona » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:01 AM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #160

solinent wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animal farming simply doesn't have to be so destructive. There's a simple solution to a simple problem. Look at New Zeland, regenerative agriculture. By allowing cattle to eat grass instead of grain (ha) we can avoid using pesticide and actually increase biodiversity, while planting trees as well. This increases carbon sequestration and has plenty of other benefits to the local wildlife. In fact, it can have a positi…

> In short, the solution: buy grass-fed or pasture raised animals. It's worth noting though that for this to work we'd need to eat less meat and pay more for it because grass-fed takes much more land. The reason we have industrial animal farms with soy fed cattle is we need so much meat and we want it cheap (and countries that used to eat less meat want more meat as they get richer).

Seems like that would be a fine compromise.

This is a frequent paradox of industrialization: it makes certain things too cheap and that turns out to actually not be good for us. Corn Syrup, as one case in point. Plastic packaging as another. Traffic congestion on roads. Carbon in general.

If we were more comfortable pricing in externalities we could accomplish massive societal change in a quick and easy manner without most people even noticing too much. This was done all over the west to mostly eliminate smoking, and I'm surprised it isn't used more often.

So, to take your point, pass regulatory reform that only pasture raised cattle with appropriate limits on density etc. to be actually regenerative, and then the price of meat would go up quite a bit, and naturally most people would start to see it as a delicacy and eat less of it (and more importantly, expect less of it).