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

301–310 of 447 posts

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

#301

Post by nemo44x »

fnimick wrote: post #278
nemo44x wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

> Your active celebration of cruelty and unsustainable living disgusts me.

Cool.

> Shame on you

Don’t feel shame, sorry bro.

> Maybe try having some empathy for a change

Random.

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

#302

Post by hayst4ck »

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.

nitpick: People confuse simple and easy. Losing weight is simple (don't put food in your mouth), but anyone who's obese can tell you it is not very easy to eat less.

Likewise eating vegetarian is simple but to many, not easy.

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

#303

Post by Dylan16807 »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #291
Dylan16807 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean, I think they may agree that we are the most powerful species on Earth (debatable, if you account for the impacts of bacteria, viruses, trees, etc.), but that's distinct from agreeing that our lives are the most valuable. I think most humans would begrudgingly agree that white men, americans, europeans, etc. are the most powerful group on Earth. I don't think they'd agree that their lives are the most valuable…

The question wasn't powerful, it was important.

Humans are roughly interchangeable with each other, so in a wide view they can be roughly equally important.

But we're capable of so many things nothing else is.

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

#304

Post by nemo44x »

fnimick wrote: post #281
version_five wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that you may be in a doomsday cult.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-... Our lifestyle is unsustainable. Take your head out of the sand.

Lol a Guardian article! You’re not making the point you think you are.

It’s like posting a bible passage that god is going to smite us because sone dudes like fucking each other. It’s nonsense.

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

#305

Post by [deleted] »

ETH_start wrote: post #300
hayst4ck wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Militant-ism isn't going to win people over. The great lie of capitalism is pushing a theory of personal responsibility rather than legislating these problems away. There are so many elements of my life that cause harm to other beings that addressing the harm could be a full time job. Killing rodents, mosquitos, and ants is something most people will do without a second thought. I've sprayed a wasp nest with wasp kil…

>>The great lie of capitalism is pushing a theory of personal responsibility rather than legislating these problems away >>There are so many elements of my life that cause harm to other beings that addressing the harm could be a full time job. The principles of a free society with private-property/contract rights do NOT exclude the right of the collective to prohibit actions that generate negative externalities, incl…

[deleted]

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

#306

Post by rcarr »

rafaelero wrote: post #299
rcarr wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because between non-meat eaters and meat eaters there's a statistically significant reduction, while between vegans and fish-eaters there isn't?

So I stated:

> The longest living populations are eating diets that are heavy on plants yes, but not vegetarian or vegan.

The people longest living at the adventist church are pesco-vegetarians which are not vegetarians as far as I’m concerned. Also as far as I’m aware, there is no significant difference between the Adventist church goers in terms of life expectancy and the other blue zones, which are also consuming small to moderate amounts of meat, dairy, fish and alcohol.

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

#307

Post by Retric »

giantg2 wrote: post #87
Retric wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Economic viability is largely a question of competition between alternatives. As long as 60% iron ore is available there is little reason to focus on 30% iron ore and so on. Today 60% iron ore is only worth about 100$/ton.

Hypothetically, if we where down to 5% being the best option, then chances are your backyard would be just as viable as anywhere else. Plants will happily grow grow with up to about 55% iron in their soil. So in some place you could literally just use surface dirt as your “ore.”

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

#308

Post by xupybd »

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.

You can just accept that meat is a human food. Animals die for it. The natural world involves animals eating other animals. If you have to kill male calves because you're on a dairy farm then you kill the male calves. It's really not that shocking.

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

#309

Post by fnimick »

nemo44x wrote: post #304
fnimick wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-... Our lifestyle is unsustainable. Take your head out of the sand.

Lol a Guardian article! You’re not making the point you think you are. It’s like posting a bible passage that god is going to smite us because sone dudes like fucking each other. It’s nonsense.

It's the UN climate report you dunce. I picked the first search result because I'm lazy, but you can find it from any credible source you choose.

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

#310

Post by therealdrag0 »

freedude wrote: post #107
timeon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less impressive? Do you think there is no significant loss of biodiversity?

In the cities yes. I live outside the city. Some of the biodiversity near me is deadly and city dwellers haven't a clue. Regardless, fish outweigh mammals by at least an order of magnitude. then calculate arthropods, mollusks, bacteria and plants and you will see this is an overstating of a complex ecosystem.

We’ve decimated many bird populations. Silent Spring is all about that, albeit 50 years old.
Post reply on HN