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

261–270 of 447 posts

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

#261

Post by Dylan16807 »

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?

The answer is going to be completely different based on how much agony and terror you are proposing.

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

#262

Post by nemo44x »

fnimick wrote: post #257
nemo44x wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unlike algae we can invent things. We can engineer. Are aren’t a hopeless, deterministic algorithm like algae. Future generations don’t need us to thrive. Plus, what’s your obsession with future generations?

Thank you for your suggestion. While I’m choosing prime ribeye steaks to grill this weekend I will consider it.

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

#263

Post by pfdietz »

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.

The 40% waste figure is exaggerating the waste, since cheaper foods will be wasted more than expensive ones (like meat).

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

#264

Post by sidewndr46 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #153
patrec wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So modern civilization currently requires the average human to consume roughly 3-4 times his body weight in steel per year. And given that steel production has roughly doubled in the last 20 years, this will probably still go up a fair deal.

We don't really "consume" the steel. It doesn't disappear.

Iron actually is a consumable in some processes. For example, it burns pretty well. So it gets used in thermic lances. I'm not sure if anyone bothers trying to collect the resulting iron oxides and recycle those.

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

#265

Post by nemo44x »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #255
Spivak wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#266

Post by Dylan16807 »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #204
nemo44x wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are more important by far. This idea that a cow’s life is as precious as a human’s life is the worst type of misanthropic thought. There is a hierarchy and although we shouldn’t torture living things, giving them “1 bad day” is totally ethical when used to endure and pleasure. I admit we don’t live up to that standard necessarily, but we should strive for it. Ideally everyone that wants to is eating happy anim…

> 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?

Do you think most of the other animals wouldn't begrudgingly agree, if they (temporarily) had the capability to?

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

#267

Post by arcticbull »

pfdietz wrote: post #263
arcticbull wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The 40% waste figure is exaggerating the waste, since cheaper foods will be wasted more than expensive ones (like meat).

The biggest single category is dairy, which isn't the cheapest. But of course it doesn't exaggerate the waste, its 40% by weight of marketable good - but if you figure in the weight of the grain and other feed used to raise animals the number gets worse not better. If anything it understates the waste.

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

#268

Post by fnimick »

nemo44x wrote: post #262
fnimick wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unlike algae we can invent things. We can engineer. Are aren’t a hopeless, deterministic algorithm like algae. Future generations don’t need us to thrive. Plus, what’s your obsession with future generations? Thank you for your suggestion. While I’m choosing prime ribeye steaks to grill this weekend I will consider it.

"Future generations don’t need us to thrive. Plus, what’s your obsession with future generations?"

Have you considered asking those "future generations", i.e. YOUR KIDS, whether they'd like to live on a planet with a self-sustaining ecosystem or suffer through a climate catastrophe?

You can't possibly think that we don't owe it to future generations to try to leave them a better planet. Would you support setting off a nuclear war now too, because the fallout will be a future someone else's problem?

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

#269

Post by arcticbull »

prvc wrote: post #252
arcticbull wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nope, but we can reduce waste by raising prices for instance by ending farm subsidies. We can mandate the removal of (or at minimum the regulation of) expiration dates on food. Also, educating people about food. People assume that milk goes bad the second the clock rolls over on the unregulated 'best-by' date, so there's incentive to goose the numbers to raise sales. Further, slightly sour milk can be used as a substitute for buttermilk in baking, for instance, but people have to learn that. [1]

Any competing plans you'd like to share that allows us to avoid losing unfathomable quantities of limited fresh water and raising a ton of animals so they can be hucked onto a landfill?

[1] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/spoiled-milk

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

#270

Post by virgildotcodes »

nemo44x wrote: post #260
virgildotcodes wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I’m just not into your religion, sorry.

Between doing something just because your people have traditionally done it, in the face of all the mounting scientific evidence that that thing is destructive, and choosing to embrace that science and shirk those traditions, which course of action seems more religious?

Post reply on HN