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

221–230 of 277 posts

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

#221

Post by partyboat1586 »

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…

But also the owners of the means to produce soybean and grain are happy that they can cut out the middleman and sell their product direct to consumers rather than as animal feed. They will end up with more wealth.

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

#222

Post by DarthGhandi »

tarsinge wrote: post #220
DarthGhandi wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France destroyed basically all of their forest in the last few centuries. It's a funny claim. It's like a homeless man saying his wealth increased by 100% in one day. There's a real problem with conservation in the West where we lecture developing countries about the environmental destruction we ourselves did long ago for pure monetary gain. It's hard to have a proper conversation about it and find solutions when the…

> France destroyed basically all of their forest in the last few centuries. It's a funny claim. It's like a homeless man saying his wealth increased by 100% in one day. Sure but the point is that it's not directly related to the "Wildlife in catastrophic decline since the 70's". I'm not sure I follow the rest, there is no time for philosophical debates about wether the West has the right to lecture developing countri…

> there is no time for philosophical debates about wether the West has the right to lecture developing countries

I'm quite involved in conservation movements and this really is a huge issue if not the biggest. You can't simply just turn up and lecture them. It's incredibly counterproductive and everyone on the ground knows this while people sitting comfy in their home in Europe and the States nod approvingly at these justice warriors telling others far removed from their existence to reign in their ways.

Let reverse it:

Will the US reduce its per capita emissions to say the level of China? That would involve the average person reducing their carbon footprint by half, which is going to dramatically impact quality of life if done today.

How do think that would go down if some country told Americans to do that? How would the average person react to having that imposed on them?

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

#223

Post by atweiden »

toxik wrote: post #204
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…

What a ridiculous hot take. We buy meat to have a varied and healthy diet, and yes we like our food to taste good - as is that is something to be ashamed of? We don’t buy insects because last time I checked, supermarkets don’t sell them. Maybe you could look into why time and time again, insect food startups fail.

I'm not here to be your enemy, so please don't make me out to be one. I wasn't raised vegetarian by any means, and I know fully well meat tastes amazingly good, and that having a varied diet is important. But heart disease, diabetes and many types of cancers are worryingly linked with the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. As the documentary Forks Over Knives [1] makes abundantly clear, a whole foods plant-based diet is in every way a life extension technology.

> Is that something to be ashamed of?

Wanting to feel satiated is nothing to be ashamed of. What is arguably shameful, however, is how the bacon gets made [2].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtnlwqEii2I

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko

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

#224

Post by toxik »

seanwilson wrote: post #215
toxik wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who recommends 50 grams of protein per day? That’s way too little for an adult male.

NHS for one: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/body-building-spor... > The Department of Health advises adults to avoid consuming more than twice the recommended daily intake of protein (55.5g for men and 45g for women). https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/what-are-reference-int... > Protein: 50g Also, not that it's hard to get protein with plants anyway, but if you're really concerned with getting lots of…

Per the same agency:

> Athletes require slightly more protein than the rest of the population. According to the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF), endurance athletes require between 1.2 and 1.4g per kg of body weight daily, while those competing in strength and speed events need between 1.2 and 1.7g per kg of body weight. These intakes can easily be achieved by eating a normal balanced diet.

This is in line with what most people aim for in macros. 1.2 g protein / kg body weight means way more than 50 grams per day.

I did not dispute that you can get proteins from plants. I am however not sure of their profiles; proteins are a group of compounds, not a single one. Typically since animals eat plants and not the other way around, animal-sourced proteins are a superset of vegetable ones.

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

#225

Post by mac01021 »

jl6 wrote: post #187
mac01021 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in the world (and probably even in the us) eat a lot of meat but never fly.

It’s a matter of degree. Eating “a lot” of meat is worse than a little flying. But I personally think giving up meat is much less of a personal sacrifice than giving up international travel.

Me too. My point was just that most people have no international travel to give up and so the comparison for them would is irrelevant.

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

#226

Post by solinent »

atweiden wrote: post #166
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…

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...

I personally don't believe in anthropocentric climate change, so greenhouse emissions aren't a big deal for me--we've been warming for 10000 years and we're still -2C, and the temperature is always correlated with C02. I'd say there's no comparison to clean coal at all, you have the burden of proof there. Clean coal has no advantages other than less C02. Good farming practices can prevent ecological collapse. Especially avoiding use of roundup, which contains dioxin (!) now. Dioxin has been used in chemical warfare in the past. So is the problem meat, or agriculture?

Bigger deal is total ecological collapse. We can lose the coast, or we can lose the most. I don't think it's a choice we can avoid.

So yeah, it's really just a sell to those who believe C02 has a major impact on climate change. It's definitely well correlated--and it has been throughout time, before humans started combusting.

I'll read that study tomorrow and post back, you could be right in terms of the impact of C02 could be negligible, but there are other possibilities like planting trees to divide the cows up.

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

#227

Post by solinent »

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).

I've found that I perform way better when I eat well. So that has allowed me to eat more grass-fed meat. I think it's easily possible to do it in a ecologically conscious way if it was something anybody cared about. But they care more about the coast line they're still holding on to that's inevitably eroding.

We can also plant trees, it doesn't have to be a traditional farm. If we planted a certain number of conifers we could easily soak up all of that c02 and even convert it into oxygen, if that's your biggest concern.

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

#228

Post by feralimal »

tpnCC wrote: post #219
feralimal wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but none of the imminent dangers he warned about came to pass did they? We're still waiting. So, perhaps the right choice was made. 20 years later, you should watch that film again and see the manipulative fear mongering that is in play. And let's not forget that Al is heavily invested in 'green' tech.

If U may tell, which specific imminent 'dangers' did not come to pass?

I'd have to watch the film again (no thanks!) to provide more detail, but it was a tirade of fear. Eg:

No snow on Kilimanjaro? but: https://glacierhub.org/2018/04/04/greatest-snowfall-on-kilim...

20-foot rise in sea levels caused by melting ice caps?

shutting down of the ocean conveyor?

Hurricanes are getting stronger?

Pacific Islands drowning?

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

#229

Post by aembleton »

refurb wrote: post #64
jeffbee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looks in remarkably good condition for something that hasn't been used for 50 years. You can even see tyre marks: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7941501,-122.9358659,3a,75y,...

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

#230

Post by regisg »

DarthGhandi wrote: post #216
tarsinge wrote: post #201

The key quote is that 94% of the drop is in Latin America and the Caribbeans. For example in France forests are increasing since more than 100 years [0]. So discussing diet is interesting but eating les meat in the developed world will do nothing for the obvious big problem: Amazon deforestation. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122699/forest-area-surf...

France destroyed basically all of their forest in the last few centuries. It's a funny claim. It's like a homeless man saying his wealth increased by 100% in one day. There's a real problem with conservation in the West where we lecture developing countries about the environmental destruction we ourselves did long ago for pure monetary gain. It's hard to have a proper conversation about it and find solutions when the…

"France has destroyed practically all of its forest in recent centuries." It's false, it's the opposite: over the period of 1000/1500 there was much less forest in France than today because wood was the only energy for heating.
Post reply on HN