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

81–90 of 447 posts

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

#81

Post by Arnavion »

heavyset_go wrote: post #76
Arnavion wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

If you're body building or doing serious exercise, it can be hard to get the protein your body needs to recover and build muscle on a strictly vegan diet. I've tried it and it's difficult.

You've simply restated rcarr's point without answering my question.

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

#82

Post by grecy »

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…

Yup, I was Justin the town that has the worlds largest shipping port by tonnage, all of it iron ore. I bet you’ll never guess - you’ve never heard of it.

The city and surrounds makes Mordor look nice.

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

#83

Post by agalunar »

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…

> I don't know about you but I'm quite happy to be alive and reasonably healthy

I think the important thing to contemplate is that this might be at the expense of other people, living or yet to be born. Not that we've done anything wrong – just that the circumstances that make this possible for us might preclude it for others.

> nihilistic platitudes like "how is there still an ecosystem?" are completely baffling to me

For some people, I think, it's jarring to realize that much of the world, including life for other people and creatures, is very different from anything they've experienced, and that the future could look very different from the present – despite it having not changed much so far in their lives. And the feeling of that realization might be the reason for platitudes like that.

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

#84

Post by thegrimmest »

myshpa wrote: post #59

The sad thing is that 100 years ago humans and livestock accounted for around 5% of the biomass (all zoomass, not land mammals only), 95% being the wildlife. Now the numbers are reversed. We've stolen the land from the wildlife and dedicated it to a few species we consider edible (agriland is more than forests now, and 75% of it for animal agriculture). Is anybody surprised that we're living in the anthropocene, defi…

> otherwise we'll lose them

So what? What value are these species? What are they for? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainly evolve, but a new civilization? That's much less certain.

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

#85

Post by cmpb »

myshpa wrote: post #59

The sad thing is that 100 years ago humans and livestock accounted for around 5% of the biomass (all zoomass, not land mammals only), 95% being the wildlife. Now the numbers are reversed. We've stolen the land from the wildlife and dedicated it to a few species we consider edible (agriland is more than forests now, and 75% of it for animal agriculture). Is anybody surprised that we're living in the anthropocene, defi…

The article indicates that the bulk of the extinction of large mammals happened during the Quaternary Extinction[1], between 52kya and 9kya, so 100 years ago the damage was already done. It also makes the argument that the extinction events in each region coincided with the arrival of humans to that region, which would imply that these extinctions were not due to climatic changes.

I don't mean to imply that we're doing enough right now to keep our planet healthy. I agree with your sentiment and just wanted to provide a little context and clarification.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/mammals#quaternary-megafauna-exti...

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

#87

Post by giantg2 »

Retric wrote: post #42
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?

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.

Not that we would necessarily run out, but would a 5% ore be financially viable, and how many places would be able to operate it (geology for underground mines, location/eco concerns for strip mines)? We also have to question they typical coke and smelting process.

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

#89

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

thegrimmest wrote: post #84
myshpa wrote: post #59

The sad thing is that 100 years ago humans and livestock accounted for around 5% of the biomass (all zoomass, not land mammals only), 95% being the wildlife. Now the numbers are reversed. We've stolen the land from the wildlife and dedicated it to a few species we consider edible (agriland is more than forests now, and 75% of it for animal agriculture). Is anybody surprised that we're living in the anthropocene, defi…

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for ? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainl…

What the hell, man.

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

#90

Post by davzie »

thegrimmest wrote: post #84
myshpa wrote: post #59

The sad thing is that 100 years ago humans and livestock accounted for around 5% of the biomass (all zoomass, not land mammals only), 95% being the wildlife. Now the numbers are reversed. We've stolen the land from the wildlife and dedicated it to a few species we consider edible (agriland is more than forests now, and 75% of it for animal agriculture). Is anybody surprised that we're living in the anthropocene, defi…

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for ? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainl…

This HAS to be trolling!
Post reply on HN