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

381–390 of 447 posts

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

#381

Post by goatlover »

notch656a wrote: post #248
fnimick wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bad person according to whom, though? What makes eating meat wrong? That some people decide it is? There's no consensus or laws that make it so, unlike the case with eating humans. You decided you didn't want to be miserable, but I guess you feel guilty because you decided it was wrong? I've decided it's not wrong, and I don't see that anyone can make me think otherwise.

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

#382

Post by goatlover »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #217
9991 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human perspective. There are extraordinarily few chickens participating in HN comment threads.

On a planet filled with millions of species, is it ethically defensible to consider these matters from the perspective of just one?

The other millions of species don't have an ethical perspective. But okay, lets grant their perspective of wanting to survive and reproduce, behave in the way they evolved to. Fine, but how do you balance the perspectives of those millions? We still need to plow and harvest large fields even if we all go vegan. We still have to deal with pests in our homes.

Should we kill a bunch of cows to make way for native species? Was it okay when the feral goats in the Galapagos were machine gunned down from the air so they would stop eating all the vegetation the native tortoises relied on? Should we kill off all the feral cats, or just let them continue killing birds and small mammals? Is it okay to spray for mosquitos and ticks, or do we let them carry disease and infect us and other animals?

There's a million different tradeoffs, thousands of which we have to decide no matter what.

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

#383

Post by himinlomax »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #341
himinlomax wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be sustainable with electrolytic furnaces powered by carbon-free energy.

Luxembourgh has a huge steel industry, relative to the size of its GDP. As I understand, they switched to electric arc furnaces. Yes, it seems possible, but difficult. Also, I don't know if there are limitations on these furnaces. Example: Can you only recycle scrap metal or produce certain types of (lower grade) steel? Unsure.

Those furnaces are for removing the oxygen from the iron oxide, so they're not needed for scrap metal. The CO2 emissions from smelting iron is due in large part to that reduction process, not just the heating.

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

#384

Post by uxcolumbo »

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.

What is religious about following simple math and trying not to destroy our biosphere… which we need to live btw.

But I guess ‘Don’t look up’, right?

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

#385

Post by meheleventyone »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #331
GuB-42 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chick culling is certainly gruesome, but not so shocking to me. It terms of animal suffering, I have seen much worse, still not enough to stop me from eating meat though. I've seen videos of these chick grinders, from fully live chick to ground meat, it takes something like 1/10 of a second, I am not even sure their brain have time to register what happens before there is no brain anymore. Culling also happens very e…

What happens to birds in the wild? Is it ethically significant that a particular one is predated upon by a human rather than another animal?

The moral objection in this case is less around predation but the fact that humans rear the animals we kill and as such have far more control over their environment and lives. As such the cruelty of their lives and the way they meet their end is absolutely within our control as a choice. Whereas the vast majority if not all other animals aren’t in this position. You can also put this alongside the enormous amount of food waste that occurs in human society.

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

#386

Post by 2000UltraDeluxe »

socialismisok wrote: post #323
xupybd wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meat is human food. But industrialization of meat is much more morally grey. Working with a local farmer to buy pasture raised pigs free from gestation crates is totally different from the hog mills with tiny cages and concrete floors.

This. Meat as a food source is fine. Modern industrial food production isn't.

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

#387

Post by throwawaylinux »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #379
throwawaylinux wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not asserting any moral high ground. Wonderful. > I'm saying we should stop factory farming cattle that are fed with heavily subsidized, fossil fuel grown crops, stop clearing land for more cattle, and hold the meat industry to some basic environmental and animal welfare standards. Oh, I didn't see where you were saying that. Almost all global food production has large fossil fuel based inputs, land clearing is…

> Almost all global food production has large fossil fuel based inputs, land clearing is the unfortunate reality of growing population and consumption Well no it's not. Said population (which we should be stabilizing) can be sustained on a fraction of the land used today by eliminating the inefficient uses such as ethanol, cattle and almonds. > but at least the market allocates it somewhat efficiently, Nice slight of…

> Well no it's not.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cereal-crop-yield-vs-fert...

Yep, fossil fuel based fertilizers and other chemicals aren't going away.

> Said population (which we should be stabilizing) can be sustained on a fraction of the land used today by eliminating the inefficient uses such as ethanol, cattle and almonds.

How about computer games and instagram and google searches and air travel and cars including EVs, electricity, more than 50 square feet of housing per person, etc etc.? We're back to judgements excusing our own preferences and consumption and denouncing others.

> Nice slight of hand. Markets optimise for the goals of the people with capital. Efficiency is only meaningful once an objective is selected, and wellbeing of the majority is a different objective to increase in wealth of the already wealthy.

It's not a slight of hand, you brought it up. I don't think markets are perfect or even all that great, but they sure are better than you (or I).

> This is patently untrue.

Your wild conspiratorial fringe theories and claims are just false. For example The US Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was signed into law on August 24, 1966. Name any country and you'll be able to find laws and regulations for basic environmental and animal welfare standards.

> So we're back to you having no accountability for your personal actions and no change to the system that enables and subsidizes them being permissable. This is just a reframing of you getting to do whatever you want if you are powerful enough to do it.

No, we're at everybody else not being accountable to you.

> So I guess I am asserting the moral high ground after all.

Yes it always seemed so.

> Because I'm not lying and gasghting and demanding you subsidize my lifestyle while I and the systems I support destroy the lives of everyone around you.

Yes, it is exactly because you claim that you are not doing that and that I am.

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

#388

Post by jibbit »

hayst4ck wrote: post #296
fnimick wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

Reminder to self: don’t read the comments

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

#389

Post by pencilguin »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #346
pencilguin wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hint: you do not need to eat any meat to get plenty of protein.

That's not a "hint", meat is a desirable food, a very good source of protein, can be a good income for poor farmers and can be raised in places that aren't suitable for cropping. But even if you set aside meat, modern lifestyles necessitate the killing of other life. Take your protein-rich plant food, for example. Do you know how modern cereal and vegetable farming is carried out? The idea is basically to create a ho…

> "meat is a desirable food"

Yet I do not desire it.

> "Do you know how modern cereal and vegetable farming is carried out?"

I do know. The food I eat is not, in fact, produced that way.

I do not need or want absolution. But I know my carbon footprint is a tiny fraction of yours. You are, in other words, personally responsible for overwhelmingly more suffering in the world than I know, by direct experience, is necessary for your level of comfort.

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

#390

Post by flarg »

hayst4ck wrote: post #296
fnimick wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

We're all guilty aren't we, even speaking as a vegetarian, but for me it's about how much cruelty I can avoid, not all or nothing. I don't kill insects but I eat eggs. I try to use public transport but I do have a car. Don't let perfection be the enemy here.
Post reply on HN