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

241–250 of 447 posts

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

#241

Post by throwanem »

Spivak wrote: post #175
mandmandam wrote: post #148

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…

Of course people are going to be proud, the horrors of capitalism aside, we’ve completely eliminated hunger in the US (not implying we’re the only place). Not one single person is starving because we are unable to feed them. And we’re able to feed everyone with the absolute top tier of food desired by humans. It used to be an event only for special occasions to slaughter your lifestock. The only people who got a stea…

The question of present concern is whether it will still be possible 150 years hence.

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

#242

Post by virgildotcodes »

scotty79 wrote: post #232
virgildotcodes wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a fucking atrocity.

You might consider the other side that equal amount of animals get to be born every minute and live some lives. We usually don't consider a person being born a tragedy almost regardless of what life this person had.

Could we use this to justify factory farming humans, in that the agony and terror they experience is eclipsed by the good of them being bred into being rather than not existing at all?

We would certainly have more humans being born in that case than now, is it a negative thing that we are not doing this?

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

#243

Post by rcarr »

rafaelero wrote: post #222
rcarr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If they’re not “statistically distinguishable” why are you trying to claim the vegans have higher longevity?

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

#244

Post by bgergen »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #227
nemo44x wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for articulating this so well. A lot of the comments in this thread are absolutely horrifying.

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

#245

Post by rcarr »

myshpa wrote: post #199
heavyset_go wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hard to get the protein? That's the oldest excuse in the book. Debunked endlessly. Simply not true. https://www.peta.org/living/food/vegan-bodybuilders/ https://www.reddit.com/r/veganbodybuilding/ https://www.reddit.com/r/veganfitness/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/8y4noz/vegan_... https://www.theveganlink.com/resources/30-vegan-recipes-for-... https://plantbasedfaqs.com/protein-in-beans-vs-meat/ And…

It is absolutely amazing to me that I can go vegan for an entire year and heavyset_go can also try being vegan and you and the rest of the vegan brigade want to now lecture us with vegan subreddits and recipe blogs. I am absolutely aware of what the vegan protein sources are as I am sure, given their username, heavyset_go is. It is this kind of militant mentality which is why so many people roll their eyes whenever the term vegan gets mentioned.

Neither of us are disputing that it is possible to be a vegan bodybuilder. But it is significantly more difficult and extra work compared to being either a meat eater or a vegetarian and to try and claim otherwise does not chime with our experiences or those of others I have encountered. The protein sources are inferior in density, amino acid profile and bioavailability, prep time is longer, more cooking is involved, meals can easily get monotonous and your social life is strained. It is hard work on top of already gruelling work in the gym. I will not be going back.

I can also say without a shadow of a doubt that several of the bodybuilders on that PETA page are using steroids which completely changes the game. Studies have shown that a steroid user doing no training puts on more muscle than a natural bodybuilder training as hard as they can.

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

#246

Post by fnimick »

hayst4ck wrote: post #237
SCUSKU wrote: 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/

I am an unrepentant meat eater, but your visualization was absolutely fantastic. I would add that (my maybe incorrect napkin math) shows that 5 Americans die per minute to give it scale. My understanding is also that we destroy an absolutely phenomenal amount of chicks in an entirely gruesome way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_culling I have trouble handling that.

No post body was provided.

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

#247

Post by pha392 »

myshpa wrote: post #99
cmpb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doi…

100.000 years ago ... 20 mil. tonnes of carbon 10.000 years ago ... 15 mil. tonnes of carbon 100 years ago ... 10 mil. tonnes of carbon now ... 3 mil. tonnes of carbon https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2021/04/Decline-of-wild-m... First 5 mil. tonnes took 90.000 year. Next 5 mil. 9.900 years. Next 7 mil. 100 years. 3 mil. remain, most of the megafauna is already gone. If we continue this trend, in 30 years there'll…

I'm good enough with the farm animals Why should I switch to plant based?

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

#248

Post by notch656a »

fnimick wrote: post #246
hayst4ck wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an unrepentant meat eater, but your visualization was absolutely fantastic. I would add that (my maybe incorrect napkin math) shows that 5 Americans die per minute to give it scale. My understanding is also that we destroy an absolutely phenomenal amount of chicks in an entirely gruesome way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_culling I have trouble handling that.

Quoted post unavailable.

I think you make it sound easier than it is. I also decided over dinner one evening. Then I realized meat was in almost every meal I loved. I tried them without meat and hated it. Habit I guess.

Then I realized I'd rather be a bad person than a miserable person; that it was wrong, but I'd do it anyway. This is what you're up against -- the sad but brutal reality of apathy and willful disregard.

Mea culpa.

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

#249

Post by fnimick »

version_five wrote: post #168
nemo44x wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha that’s great! Hopefully we continue to see these numbers as increase as a leading indicator of a wealthy and well fed society.

Yes! Happy to see more people celebrating human achievement amidst all the usual doom and gloom that people like to leverage to push their political beliefs. The GP should be commended. Seriously, it's a bit tiring that [vegetarians] people that want to control what I eat get a pass for posting the same tired stuff every time it came up. If any other fanatic jumped in with their own agenda at every conceivable junctu…

Maybe because your meat consumption and demand for increasing land and water use to satiate your meat consumption is ruining the planet for the rest of us?

If I could trap all the "unrepentant meat eaters" in a dome and let you ruin your own environment without broiling the rest of us, I wouldn't have a problem with your choices.

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

#250

Post by appletrotter »

BurningFrog wrote: post #197
edflsafoiewq wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately I can't grasp the number of humans either.

The cool part is that the ungraspable numbers cancel each other out, and you're left with a human scale number.

I think you could understand that that value is only useful in some contexts.

It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

Post reply on HN