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

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

#191

Post by aporetics » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 6:30 AM UTC

Fascinating to see how these comment threads debate the relative facility of different diets, and even armchair evolutionary biology... while conveniently avoiding the critical topic: the choices we continue to make are defacing the planet, destabilizing ecologies, and exterminating other species at a scale that is hard to imagine. We’re all ok with this?

So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions (much less to resolve to change your habits)?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for all of you who ate a burger for dinner tonight, were you thinking about the devastation you’re a part of? (And of course the list of destructive-yet-normalized ways of living is long; try picking one relevant to you).

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

#192

Post by bostik » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 6:35 AM UTC

throw51319 wrote: post #129

samatman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Another pseudo-intellectual "solution" in the same realm as... let's go to Mars! This planet is made for us, we are made for it. We need a top down approach to limit damage to nature and make sustainability the "GDP" of tomorrow.

> We need a top down approach to limit damage to nature and make sustainability the "GDP" of tomorrow.

I'm ready to say that most us know, instinctively, what the solution needs to be. It's just that we are morally obliged not to even consider it, let alone propose it.

Thanos lacked ambition.

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

#193

Post by acituan » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 6:43 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #178

acituan wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Just about everything humans do is an exogenous intervention on markets, one way or another. And markets respond to them, via the cited market forces . The notion of the "free market" is a toxic fiction. Any market that works for its participants is intricately curated.

> Just about everything humans do is an exogenous intervention on markets, one way or another

Markets is simply the name for a particular collective of human interactions in response to pricing signals based on supply and demand, it is not a separate entity of its own. Taxes are exogenous in that they distort the equilibrous price points. That is not saying that it is always bad, because markets do fail.

> The notion of the "free market" is a toxic fiction.

Free market is a useful fiction for some economic modeling. No one has invoked the notion that real world markets has to/can be free, as mentioned, they do fail. But also interventions on them do fail catastrophically too.

This is important, because whether to intervene with markets or not is not as hard as the question of exactly in what manner to intervene. Our pet economic policy/intervention ideas might sound nice but rarely work exactly the way intended without side effects. Lack of a carbon tax is doesn't have to be due to a conspiracy of misanthropic apocalyptic evil but simply due to the difficulty of the multi-agent cooperation it requires based on the current incentive structures.

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

#194

Post by vertbhrtn » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 6:50 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'm not a vegan of any sort, but one day I realized that I hadn't eaten meat for really long time and I didn't really want to anymore. That must have something to do with fruits: there's definitely some almost material "energy" in them and eating sandwiches with meat feels like chewing paper sometimes. 10 years ago my diet was almost entirely meat.

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

#195

Post by acd » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 6:55 AM UTC

System engineer here. The economic system current is wrong, it does not reward keeping ecological systems in a good state! We need to fix the economic system so that preserving wild life and nature is rewarded.

Well functioning eco systems is very valuable to us as humans yet we do not preserve them as we should.

Wildlife is valuable Clean air is valuable Oceans clean of plastic and full of fish is valuable Not warming earth is valuable

How do we make a fix to the economic system that such values are kept for future generations?

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

#196

Post by petepete » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 6:58 AM UTC

rcpt wrote: post #138

jeffbee wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, go right ahead and name any place that is, say, fifty miles from a road.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/20/using... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42104894 The best one can do is 21 miles from a road - in Yellowstone

I just had a go and thought I'd found somewhere with a 60km road-free radius, then zoomed out and found that I'd strayed into Mexico.

Sugar bunker, just NW of Las Vegas has a few places with 50km (~30 miles) though.

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

#197

Post by nicbou » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 6:58 AM UTC

aporetics wrote: post #191

Fascinating to see how these comment threads debate the relative facility of different diets, and even armchair evolutionary biology... while conveniently avoiding the critical topic: the choices we continue to make are defacing the planet, destabilizing ecologies, and exterminating other species at a scale that is hard to imagine. We’re all ok with this? So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the co…

Because it's a coordination problem. You can make lifestyle changes to reduce the waste and emissions you produce, but half of the people in your building can't be arsed to separate their trash.

That's in Germany, where people seemingly care about the environment. Go to southern Europe and you'll see roads lined with trash. Go to Turkey and you'll undo all of your work in a week or two.

It feels pointless.

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

#198

Post by drivebyvegtrian » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 7:04 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…

You were all probably low on iron, among other things.* B12, Calcium, Omega-3's, and a handful of trace elements are also on that list. Most of those can be solved by supplementation, but iron's more tricky. Likely why life evolved carnivorous tendencies in the first place - the iron is safely tucked away in a readily-absorbed heme complex.

Iron's one of those things your body doesn't absorb easily through supplements, and competes with Calcium absorption (So, no taking it in multivitamins or consuming dairy at the same time you take it, otherwise it will inhibit absorption). It will also chelate with tannins (which are in teas, coffee, wine, and chocolate), which also inhibits absorption. And, for more fun, if you over-do it on the iron, it will horribly poison you, so, uh, basically check with a doctor re: supplements. That said, if you're good about balancing out the protein, iron, b12, calcium, and omega-3's (among others), you'll feel a lot less crappy in transitioning over to a plant-based diet.

*In my semi-scientific, zero-medical-training, not-a-doctor opinion

tldr: try iron next time you go vegetarian!

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

#199

Post by throwaway894345 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 7:09 AM UTC

acituan wrote: post #168

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…

> 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…

Taxing carbon is just removing the carbon subsidy that we currently enjoy because it isn’t sustainable. If we decide we want to subsidize India’s pollution or whatever, we can still do that. Anyway, you don’t have a market at all without government and you don’t have a government without taxes so appeals to taxes being an intrusion aren’t persuasive IMO.

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

#200

Post by qnt » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 7:13 AM UTC

acd wrote: post #195

System engineer here. The economic system current is wrong, it does not reward keeping ecological systems in a good state! We need to fix the economic system so that preserving wild life and nature is rewarded. Well functioning eco systems is very valuable to us as humans yet we do not preserve them as we should. Wildlife is valuable Clean air is valuable Oceans clean of plastic and full of fish is valuable Not warmi…

I think "the economic system is wrong" is a bit of a stretch, but despite objectively working pretty well there are a few glaring problems (some of which potentially lead to society imploding if left unchecked... but aside from that, pretty good!)

As far as I'm aware, I think the most glaring problems (tragedy of the commons, dealing with negative externalities) are very well known & have relatively well understood policy solutions (e.g. Pigovian tax).

When there is wide enough social buy-in that these policy solutions can be implemented without expending/risking too much political capital, the "problem" ends up resolved.

A good example might be smoking in Australia. Very highly taxed, forced grotesque health warning images plastered all over the cigarette packets, etc. The comparison travelling through Italy vs Australia with respect to number of smokers is pretty amazing. The population understands & accepts the negative externalities of smoking well enough to accept the forced hand of policymakers intervening in their lives, and won't vote anybody out because of it.

So to me, the more appropriate question is, how do we incentivise enough social buy-in that people will accept the personal disadvantages of e.g. a carbon tax, and still lend their support (vote) to the party who choses to implement it? Didn't work well for France last time they tried to hike taxes on fuel.