Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 447 posts

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#41

Post by himinlomax »

giantg2 wrote: post #39
retrac wrote: post #25

Going off on a tangent, but the scale of production is very hard to grasp. I'm probably not the first person to observe this, but I once did some napkin math about steel production, and what I realized kind of blew me away. About 1.9 billion tonnes in 2020. Like with billions of dollars, I have no intuition for such numbers. Context is needed. Global steel production just before WW I was about 70 million tonnes. So p…

"Every single tonne of steel manufactured by humans from prehistory until about a century ago -- the entire output of the industrial revolution -- amounts to less than one year at current production." The real questions are: Does that include recycling? If not, how do we see this being sustainable?

It can be sustainable with electrolytic furnaces powered by carbon-free energy.

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#42

Post by Retric »

giantg2 wrote: post #39
retrac wrote: post #25

Going off on a tangent, but the scale of production is very hard to grasp. I'm probably not the first person to observe this, but I once did some napkin math about steel production, and what I realized kind of blew me away. About 1.9 billion tonnes in 2020. Like with billions of dollars, I have no intuition for such numbers. Context is needed. Global steel production just before WW I was about 70 million tonnes. So p…

"Every single tonne of steel manufactured by humans from prehistory until about a century ago -- the entire output of the industrial revolution -- amounts to less than one year at current production." The real questions are: Does that include recycling? If not, how do we see this being sustainable?

Walk around and pick up a random rock. On average it’s 5% iron which combined with just a little carbon makes steel, so no we aren’t running out.

This is also why the Iron Age was such a big deal. The bronze age required both copper and tin which where rare and didn’t generally show up near each other while you could operate a shitty iron mine just about anywhere.

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#43

Post by foxtacles »

adamrezich wrote: post #29

I can't be the only one who is extremely tired of these semi-frequent utterly nihilistic "I'm sad to be part of the human species, we're killing the planet" posts and comments, especially when the posts themselves are possibly misleading (whales aren't included? come on ). I don't know about you but I'm quite happy to be alive and reasonably healthy, and I hope to have many children, I hope mankind doesn't go extinct…

You're not the only one.

To anyone who's tired of reading those frequently espoused, virtually now mainstream, apparently self-hatred fueled viewpoints, or to those who are interested in positive outlooks on humanity, I can recommend this book:

https://www.superabundance.com/

and this news aggregator:

https://www.humanprogress.org/

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#44

Post by club_tropical »

pvaldes wrote: post #13

Lets take in mind that there is a problem to compare two groups when one group is much easier to measure than the other. The error interval in the mammal biomass should be much higher. The actual real values are probably not so extreme. ... I see, is just megafauna. The most competitive groups (rodents and bats) are deliberately excluded. The title is incorrect then.

Also, “biomass” is a strange term. Is that literally an estimate of mass? Or count of individuals? Many other context lacking as well.

This is clearly written for the 96% statistic shock, not to inform anyone.

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#45

Post by [deleted] »

giantg2 wrote: post #39
retrac wrote: post #25

Going off on a tangent, but the scale of production is very hard to grasp. I'm probably not the first person to observe this, but I once did some napkin math about steel production, and what I realized kind of blew me away. About 1.9 billion tonnes in 2020. Like with billions of dollars, I have no intuition for such numbers. Context is needed. Global steel production just before WW I was about 70 million tonnes. So p…

"Every single tonne of steel manufactured by humans from prehistory until about a century ago -- the entire output of the industrial revolution -- amounts to less than one year at current production." The real questions are: Does that include recycling? If not, how do we see this being sustainable?

[deleted]

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#46

Post by Arnavion »

rcarr wrote: post #37
chrishare wrote: post #14

Devastatingly sad. Are plant-based meat replacements and lab-grown meat going to help fix this?

One day, whilst eating a burger in a pub and thinking about the food chain, I ran a thought experiment in my head. I imagined being hungry and someone offering me a choice between a ham sandwich or a vegan sandwich. I could only select the ham sandwich if I was willing to shoot a pig in the head. I wouldn’t have to butcher the pig or anything else, just be responsible for its death. I decided that I would choose the…

>It would require having 3 to 4 protein shakes a day or doing lots of cooking and prep. All the natural vegan protein sources outside of protein shakes weren’t lean; they also contained lots of carbs or fats. This made hitting macros hard.

A large number of Indian people are vegetarian (plants + poultry eggs + cow/goat milk), and I've never heard of them having such problems. Why? I certainly didn't have any dietary or nutritional problems when I grew up as a vegetarian there.

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#47

Post by seti0Cha »

adamrezich wrote: post #29

I can't be the only one who is extremely tired of these semi-frequent utterly nihilistic "I'm sad to be part of the human species, we're killing the planet" posts and comments, especially when the posts themselves are possibly misleading (whales aren't included? come on ). I don't know about you but I'm quite happy to be alive and reasonably healthy, and I hope to have many children, I hope mankind doesn't go extinct…

It's more a factor of dislocated moral feelings. If you decide humans aren't special, then you can go one of two ways with the moral feelings you had towards humanity: you can broaden them to a larger category that you still think is special, such as mammals, animals, all living things, etc, or you can narrow them down to some arbitrary set that you happen to be fond of, like your family, your friends, or yourself. Both are problematic to those who still think humans are special.

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#48

Post by canadianfella »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #40
giantg2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Every single tonne of steel manufactured by humans from prehistory until about a century ago -- the entire output of the industrial revolution -- amounts to less than one year at current production." The real questions are: Does that include recycling? If not, how do we see this being sustainable?

Two reasons: the earth is made of iron, for all intents and purposes asteroids are often made of iron

No post body was provided.

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#49

Post by nicoburns »

club_tropical wrote: post #44
pvaldes wrote: post #13

Lets take in mind that there is a problem to compare two groups when one group is much easier to measure than the other. The error interval in the mammal biomass should be much higher. The actual real values are probably not so extreme. ... I see, is just megafauna. The most competitive groups (rodents and bats) are deliberately excluded. The title is incorrect then.

Also, “biomass” is a strange term. Is that literally an estimate of mass? Or count of individuals? Many other context lacking as well. This is clearly written for the 96% statistic shock, not to inform anyone.

> Also, “biomass” is a strange term. Is that literally an estimate of mass?

It is indeed. The idea being that individuals vary greatly (it doesn't make sense to compare individual counts of humans with individual counts of ants for example), and that mass at least roughly accounts for the size of individuals.

Re: Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans

#50

Post by chinchilla2020 »

adamrezich wrote: post #29

I can't be the only one who is extremely tired of these semi-frequent utterly nihilistic "I'm sad to be part of the human species, we're killing the planet" posts and comments, especially when the posts themselves are possibly misleading (whales aren't included? come on ). I don't know about you but I'm quite happy to be alive and reasonably healthy, and I hope to have many children, I hope mankind doesn't go extinct…

It isn't a skewed perspective. Our civilization passed the carrying capacity of the planet half a century ago. Resources are being consumed at a far greater rate, despite advances in technology.

You don't need to be depressed or nihilistic about it. You can still live a great life and so can your children. The reality is that we need to start reducing consumption over the long term to prepare for the inevitable. Being aware is the first step.

The wrong path is to close our eyes and assume Elon Musk is going to transport us to another world, or that some unrealistic hollywood technology will magically terraform the planet and bring back the glaciers and mammoths.

Post reply on HN