Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by GauntletWizard » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

virgildotcodes wrote: post #242

scotty79 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is, in fact, the modern city.

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

#252

Post by prvc » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #229

eyko wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quoted post unavailable.

>Almost 40% of all food in the US is wasted each year and that's enough to feed every hungry person on earth.

You have a feasible plan to distribute all the wasted food in the U.S. to all the world's hungry people that you'd like to share?

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

#253

Post by croes » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 1:59 AM UTC

therealdrag0 wrote: post #220

glitcher wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of George Carlin, "The earth will be fine..."

In what sense will the earth be fine? Is it the sense that people care about or is it a rhetorical trick to make people feel good about not caring?

Something will survive, but maybe not mankind.

The while save the planet thing isn't about the planet but about us.

If we change the environment, nature will adapt and live will continue but maybe not in a way we can survive.

So it's unlikely that we kill live on earth just the live as we know it

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

#254

Post by fnimick » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

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…

"We're destroying the planet with unfathomable cruelty, but at least we get to eat what we want!"

This is not the accomplishment you think it is. This is absolute depravity on a societal scale and the fact that we're all so okay with it is horrifying.

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

#255

Post by thatguy0900 » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

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…

Where do you live? The greater cruelty is that we can feed everyone, but choose to throw it away instead if they can't pay. My mother worked at inner city schools in Ohio, let me tell you if the schools didn't have a free lunch and breakfast program (something a lot of politicians hate) a lot of kids wouldn't be eating at all. Saying hunger is solved in America is absurd. Maybe it is in a technical sense but it's far more profitable to keep it around, so we do.

Rate limit edit: The fact you have to give out food for free is the opposite point. They had food lines during the great depression too. Ideally the government wouldn't have to hand any children food for free lest they not eat at all.

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

#256

Post by rcarr » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

myshpa wrote: post #189

rcarr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think this is going to have the opposite effect of what you think it will. People outside of metropolitan areas are sick to death of “new traditions and practices” and “high profile” names. They see it as another bourgeoisie vs proletariat battleground. They do not want “new food culture” they want the existing culture but more environmentally friendly. You aren’t going to pry the burgers out of their hand…

You need only few % of the population protesting in the streets (less than 5% imho) to topple an authoritarian regime. I suppose with sufficient vegan base the political will to remove (huge) subsidies for meat/dairy industry will materialize. It simply doesn't make sense that meat burger/milk is cheaper than plant-based burger/milk now. You need 100x more land to produce same amount of calories (beef vs. peas). Remo…

> You need only few % of the population protesting in the streets (less than 5% imho) to topple an authoritarian regime.

I know who my money would be on if vegans decide they want to try and overthrow the country.

> we can't pretend forever that (negative) externalities don't exist.

I agree but like I said, I think petri dish meat is the answer which would most likely be even less resource intensive than plant based alternatives when perfected. You only use the exact resources you need for each Petri dish and you can literally build a meat factory for every city. Next to zero transport emissions.

There is a good reason why those farming subsidies exist. It does not end well when people are hungry en masse.

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

#257

Post by fnimick » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #132

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes, except unlike wildlife, we have evolved be smart enough to limit our consumption in order to sustain future life. Unlike the algae that grows until it literally chokes itself to death, we can limit ourselves so future generations can also thrive.

Up farther in this thread you're celebrating increasing meat consumption as an economic victory, so I suggest you tilt your balance more towards "conservation" and away from "immediate pleasures".

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

#258

Post by undersuit » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

virgildotcodes wrote: post #242

scotty79 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was certainly going to bring it up. The fabricants from Cloud Atlas haunted me.

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

#259

Post by nemo44x » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:04 AM UTC

eyko wrote: post #210

nemo44x wrote: post #179

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…

> we have discovered methods that allow anyone to enjoy this. This is great progress. Just because we can produce (and consume) vast amounts of meant doesn't mean we must. Restraint is a virtue.

You sound like a Catholic. Just because we can have sex doesn’t mean we should, etc.

What is the point of restraint? To what end? I should suffer to make your ideal of how the works ought to be a reality?

I’m not into your religion.

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

#260

Post by nemo44x » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

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…

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

I’m just not into your religion, sorry. I love it for you though. I’m happy that you’re happy not consuming animals, and that it makes you feel good. I will continue to smoke beef briskets over live fire for hours at a time.