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

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

#251

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #243

ncmncm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the B12 consumed anywhere in the world -- and all animals need it -- comes exclusively from bacteria. The bacteria in your colon produce thousands of times as much as you need, but you do not absorb so much as a nanogram of it. (Dogs and rabbits eat their own crap to get it.) The process for absorbing B12, in the upper intestine, is the most intricate of any vitamin, starting with saliva. Apparently the huge v…

> Homo erectus probably got enough from the dirt on everything, and grubs And now they are extinct. It seems that the plan didn't worked very well. The faster way to ingest lots and lots of bacteria so you don't die is a simple one: Carrion. Our ancestors ate as much as they could find. The other monkeys are dead (and our plant eaters relatives are almost extinct).

You are descended from Homo Erectus. They survived for many times longer than H. sap has, and it is far from clear that we will outlast them, in the end.

Eat carrion if you like. I will send flowers to your grave.

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

#252

Post by munificent » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #108

munificent wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they say, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It's worth it.

There are ways to construct constitutions such that no one person in a democracy has the power to do this much damage. E.g. only a multi-participatory and diverse parliament—and crucially not any government; especially not any president—has the power to enact laws which can cause such a damage. In a successful democracy, the people don’t have the option to vote them self a dictator.

One of the core beliefs I have for understanding the world is that equality is an unstable equilibrium.

Imagine an almost perfectly balanced democracy where everyone has nearly equal agency and power. At some point, maybe at the political level of brownian motion, someone will have a tiny edge. They will naturally use that bit of extra power to garner a little more power. Because the most useful thing to with a little extra power is always to capture some more.

Compound that over many iterations and your democracy is dead.

Thus, I believe that all systems of equality and democracy need active, constant recalibration to maintain fairness. There is no perfectly written constitution that you can set in motion like clockwork and have it run flawlessly forever. There is no static equilibrium, but you can have dynamic equilibrium. Constant vigilance.

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

#253

Post by seanwilson » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

toxik wrote: post #224

seanwilson wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

Yes, but the recommended daily allowance for an adult male (which you said was too little) is for regular people - most people aren't athletes and shouldn't be eating like one.

> I am however not sure of their profiles; proteins are a group of compounds, not a single one

Maybe look up what plant based athletes eat if you're concerned e.g.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elite-athletes-who-are-vegan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegans

Seitan, pea protein and soybean products are all very high in protein for example.

> Typically since animals eat plants and not the other way around, animal-sourced proteins are a superset of vegetable ones.

Can you offer any proof that this is true + significant in some way compared to a plant based diet? How are plant based athletes performing at a high level if it's important? These kinds of statements are things that people cling to so they can keep a high meat diet, which has an environmental impact.

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

#254

Post by seanwilson » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 10:28 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #250

atweiden wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

But heart disease, diabetes and many types of cancers are diseases that you will get, regardless of diet or lifestyle, if nothing else kills you first.

This part is more of a reply to people claiming meat is the natural thing to eat so it must be healthy, it's what we've eaten for centuries, you can't be healthy without eating meat etc.

Nobody is arguing that taste isn't important but are your current taste preferences more important than climate change and animal suffering?

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

#255

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 10:32 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #251

pvaldes wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homo erectus probably got enough from the dirt on everything, and grubs And now they are extinct. It seems that the plan didn't worked very well. The faster way to ingest lots and lots of bacteria so you don't die is a simple one: Carrion. Our ancestors ate as much as they could find. The other monkeys are dead (and our plant eaters relatives are almost extinct).

You are descended from Homo Erectus . They survived for many times longer than H. sap has, and it is far from clear that we will outlast them, in the end. Eat carrion if you like. I will send flowers to your grave.

> Eat carrion if you like.

I don't need to, animals have plenty of vitamin B12, but I could do if necessary of course, because my species is omnivore. Better than ignoring my real nature and being forced to eat dirt or my own crap to fix my diet.

> I will send flowers to your grave.

Can't fall to mention that is a nice detail. Will be appreciated.

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

#256

Post by seanwilson » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

solinent wrote: post #227

seanwilson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Maybe look into what top plant based athletes eat if you're convinced you can only perform better with meat e.g.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elite-athletes-who-are-vegan...

This is a more convincing anecdote to me.

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

#257

Post by seanwilson » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #249

seanwilson wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why isn't that the answer? Nobody wants to be out of the animal husbandry business more than the meat producers do. Even if they haven't realized it yet. Because lab based meat isn't here yet: - You can't buy it in supermarkets or for cheap, and I haven't heard a realistic timeline for when this is going to change. - Is there going to be realistic lab based cuts of steak, duck, pork and chicken? Whole chickens? Lab…

We don't have time to wait when climate change is here now Yes, we do, and we will. Everything you've said could apply equally to electric vehicles, which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons, yet which are, nevertheless, happening. Be patient. Failing that, deal with it.

> Yes, we do, and we will.

The point is we should be doing something now and adopting lab based meat when it actually arrives, instead of doing nothing and hoping it comes. The catastrophic impact of climate change is coming on the scale of decades - we really don't have time to wait.

> which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons

What a weird thing to write. You don't know anything about what I think of electric vehicles or my wider views.

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

#258

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 11:53 PM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #254

CamperBob2 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But heart disease, diabetes and many types of cancers are diseases that you will get, regardless of diet or lifestyle, if nothing else kills you first.

This part is more of a reply to people claiming meat is the natural thing to eat so it must be healthy, it's what we've eaten for centuries, you can't be healthy without eating meat etc. Nobody is arguing that taste isn't important but are your current taste preferences more important than climate change and animal suffering?

Nobody is arguing that taste isn't important but are your current taste preferences more important than climate change

No, but synthmeat will largely take care of that aspect of the problem. Not as soon as we'd like, but we'll get there.

and animal suffering?

To the extent animals are suffering, I'd encourage you to get involved legislatively. Contact your representatives, and support organizations that work for change (ethically, which excludes PETA). Animal abuse is unnecessary and unlike climate change, it can be stopped, right now, if people speak up.

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

#259

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 11:56 PM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #257

CamperBob2 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have time to wait when climate change is here now Yes, we do, and we will. Everything you've said could apply equally to electric vehicles, which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons, yet which are, nevertheless, happening. Be patient. Failing that, deal with it.

> Yes, we do, and we will. The point is we should be doing something now and adopting lab based meat when it actually arrives, instead of doing nothing and hoping it comes. The catastrophic impact of climate change is coming on the scale of decades - we really don't have time to wait. > which people like yourself said were never going to be "the answer" for a hundred different reasons What a weird thing to write. You…

You don't know anything about what I think of electric vehicles or my wider views

When you make identical arguments, it's reasonable to infer identical underlying motivations and beliefs.

What a weird thing to write

Not as weird as assuming that people are "doing nothing and hoping it comes" with respect to synthetic meat. There is serious money in that market. It's being worked on, trust me. Like EVs, it's not a trivial engineering problem.

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

#260

Post by throwaway894345 » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 12:59 AM UTC

acituan wrote: post #247

throwaway894345 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what point you're making. Even if the tax leads to a small black market for unregulated pollution, the legitimate market would remain regulated and thus our society would reap enormous environmental benefits. Moreover, the effort to thwart the tax constitutes a cost in and of itself, albeit the cost would necessarily be lower than the tax (to the extent that it's not lower, there is no incentive for a bl…

> Anyway, you don’t have a market at all without government That is not true, in fact most of the markets in history operated either without currencies (e.g. barter, farm labor etc) or with currencies that have inherent value (e.g gold, silver). A switch to fiat money implies state backing indeed, but a) it doesn't have to be one particular state (e.g. can do business with US dollars in some 3rd world countries) and…

Government != currency. In the most general sense it’s just the system that defines, interprets, and enforces property rights. That can be a tribal chief or the US government or the WTO.

> That is the crux of the criticism you say you find silly. How exactly? Please show your work, because I am curious how we can subsidize China or India's emissions resulting from their domestic economy

Writing them a check would be the most obvious way.

> Again please pay attention to domestic vs imported carbon. Most of the claims of approximating carbon neutrality is much smaller than in reality, because of the increasing consumption of carbon positive goods from developing countries.

I agree, there needs to be a border adjustment, and claims of carbon neutrality need to be similarly adjusted for imported carbon. I don’t see how that materially changes the calculus. Maybe the argument is that wide-scale border adjustments haven’t been proven out, and fair enough, but let’s maintain perspective: we’re speeding toward a cliff and we can’t be too concerned about bumps off to the left or the right.