Live data from Hacker News

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

ourworldindata.org

221–230 of 447 posts

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

#221
post #109
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…

I made a website to help visualize American meat consumption in terms of animals slaughtered per second. It’s pretty insane and I think does something to help communicate just how large such industrial operations truly are. https://zach.ws/meat/

> 17,123 Chickens Slaughtered/min > > vs. > > 61 Cows Slaughtered/min

It seems much more moral to be eating beef than chicken. Fewer consciousnesses demolished.

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

#222
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cant say a diet (vegan) that requires artificial produced supplementation (vitamin b12) in order for you to survive is the optimal diet for humans. You know animals don't produce B12 as well, right? They come from bacteria in the soil. > The longest living populations are eating diets that are heavy on plants yes, but not vegetarian or vegan. Take a look at the Seven-day Adventist study (the population with the…

> You know animals don't produce B12 as well, right? They come from bacteria in the soil. Good luck with your soil recipes. > Take a look at the Seven-day Adventist study (the population with the highest longevity ever recorded). Between this group, the ones excluding all animal products from the diet actually live longer than the rest. Not true. Pesco-vegetarians had a lower death rate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…

> Good luck with your soil recipes.

Wtf.

> Not true. Pesco-vegetarians had a lower death rate.

They are not statistically distinguishable.

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Livestock is something only the wealthy could eat daily and today we have discovered methods that allow anyone to enjoy this. This is great progress. You’re free to choose your lifestyle of course and I’m grateful to live in a place and time where that’s possible. But I don’t subscribe to your beliefs. I have access to the same information you do. I possibly have a more critical appr…

A cow was worth about 10 months of skilled labor in ancient Rome [0]. If you keep the fat trim that's maybe ~600-700 pounds of usable meat. That's about 0.01666 of a month's salary for a pound of meat. So if you were willing to spend 10% of your salary on meat, you could have a quarter pounder everyday. Not cheap, but if you really liked meat and you had a semi-skilled job you could afford to eat it everyday. [0] htt…

Thats an interesting way of looking at it, but seems kind of misleading to use a cow. Pigs can live anywhere and eat pretty much anything and are a much more common meat. Beef has always been a luxury meat in most places.

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cow was worth about 10 months of skilled labor in ancient Rome [0]. If you keep the fat trim that's maybe ~600-700 pounds of usable meat. That's about 0.01666 of a month's salary for a pound of meat. So if you were willing to spend 10% of your salary on meat, you could have a quarter pounder everyday. Not cheap, but if you really liked meat and you had a semi-skilled job you could afford to eat it everyday. [0] htt…

Thats an interesting way of looking at it, but seems kind of misleading to use a cow. Pigs can live anywhere and eat pretty much anything and are a much more common meat. Beef has always been a luxury meat in most places.

Beef was cheaper than pork, porknubbins.

https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-economy/roman-goods-pric...

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

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your perspective, you just made a smart comment that adds wider context on this issue. From mine, it's something of a cosmic horror that people can think like this and be proud of themselves. We are wreaking havoc on the Earth and all life on it; strip mining it to the bone for the shallowest purposes. And some people have this strange glee about it... It's Lovecraftian to me. Like cultists worshipping death and…

I do not equate animal lives to human lives. I am fine with the death of billions of animals to keep humans fed. This is their job. This is the way of nature. We’ve just streamlined it a bit

I also do not value animal lives as much as human lives. But there is an important assumption built into the argument that it is ok to eat this many animals: that it is possible to raise and slaughter this number of animals without deleterious effects on humans. I believe that assumption is incorrect, and that the environmental and health consequences of the current level of meat consumption will cause immense suffering to both animals and humans.

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

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans are more important by far. From the perspective of which species? Does might make right? For intra-human relationships as well? Could anything evil happen as a result of embracing this outlook?

Meat tastes delicious and is packed full of healthy things we need to live. Sone animals would eat us when given the chance. I think it’s important to not treat animals like humans precisely so we don’t treat humans like calorie sources.

I mean just because something feels good doesn't mean it's right.

We can get all of our nutrients from plants, most of us in the developed world don't need animals, we by and large just eat them for pleasure because we like the taste, as you noted by leading with the fact that they are delicious.

Further, if your concerns are humanitarian in nature, in terms of feeding the most humans, ensuring the greatest amount of happiness for them, then we are on the same side.

It turns out you can feed more humans with plants than you can with animals, given that the latter are largely inefficient middle men for our calories that are fundamentally sourced from plants. We feed a cow roughly 10 calories of corn and soy to get 1 calorie of meat out of it. Were we to eat those crops directly we'd be able to feed ~10x the number of people on the same agricultural output, or reduce our agricultural output by ~90% and feed the same number of people.

That latter point leads to the environmental impact of animal farming. Over 90% of the destruction of the Amazon to date has happened for two industries - beef, and soy. Over 80% of the world's soy is... turned into feed for those same animals.

We are destroying the Amazon, evicting and slaughtering the indigenous people that live within it, exacerbating climate change which is already resulting in more and more extreme droughts and famines, killing millions around the world, and as this gets worse will kill untold millions more.

Animal agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet, in terms of climate emissions, resource use, and land destruction.

By feeding animals to humans we are turning around and killing those same humans. Well, not the same ones actually. The poorest ones who can't even afford the meat we're gluttonously shoving into our faces.

This is all tied to the fundamental fact that the animal is a middle man for our calories, and in a time where our environment's carrying capacity is greatly exceeded by our civilization, we need to reduce these gross inefficiencies in order to save our own lives, even if that's all we care about.

So even if your primary goal is to feed people and save humanity, the rational conclusion is still to stop eating animals.

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

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value is sentiment; you cannot refute a value statement without relying on it.

Value is more than one thing, arguably. You kind of have to go back to first philosophical principles to unpick this. Which I guess is my point - if one's goal is the expansion and longevity of human civilization (which I think is reasonable) then it's not clear at all where the rest of organic life (which we compete with) fits into this picture. If the best reason to preserve it is "it's pretty to look at" and "mayb…

Why is the expansion of human civilization desirable?

Why does preservation of human civilization depend on exterminating wild nature?

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

#229
post #209
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a website to help visualize American meat consumption in terms of animals slaughtered per second. It’s pretty insane and I think does something to help communicate just how large such industrial operations truly are. https://zach.ws/meat/

What gets me is that over a quarter of that (26% as of 2010 by USDA's estimates) is simply thrown away.

No post body was provided.

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps Agent Smith mistook an S-curve that hasn't started to level off yet for unfettered exponential growth. > Generally, developed nations have seen a decline in their growth rates in recent decades ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Population_g... ) Or perhaps he was just evil and had a hatred of humanity that he was justifying with whatever reason pleased him.

But has their resource consumption per capita leveled off? Population numbers aren't the scary thing about our CURRENT population. What's scary is that China and India, which is almost 3 billion people, want US-levels of resource consumption, and they are full steam ahead in doing so. Oh, so the curve will tail off around 11 or 15 billion? Who cares. Each billion is 3x the population of the US, and they all want our…

US per capita consumption/energy also higher. Just from energy perspective, US trending towards 150M more population by 2100 is equivalent to 1.8B Indians and 900M Chinese. PRC population is set to decline, and probably India's as well. Canada is like 50% more than US baseline, Norway 300%, Iceland 500% but not much immigration there.

Every individual migrating from developing world to developing world is increasing energy use of that person substantially even considering that (a typically skilled) migrant is likely a higher tier consumer in their origin country. Or that moving to a high consumption economy has greater compounding effects in terms of knockon consumption, i.e. 40% of RMB spent in PRC goes towards consumption vs 70% (?) for US. I joke that the most enviromental way to be a consumer is to buy developing countries with poor consumption or huge savigns rate because they're simply less likely to recycle that profit into more excessive consumption.

Post reply on HN