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

441–447 of 447 posts

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

#441

Post by goatlover »

xorfish wrote: post #406
goatlover wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So eating humans is only wrong, because other people think it is wrong and there are laws against it? I find that really shortsighted. Slavery isn't bad because we as a society have decided it so. It always has been bad.

It’s always been bad to us living today, but it hasn’t always been bad to people in the past. I’m not a moral realist because I don’t see what sort of objective facts are moral. The universe doesn’t care. It’s humans who are moral, and what’s considered good or bad varies quite a lot. No, I wouldn’t want to be enslaved, and the golden rule seems like a good principle to live by, but nothing in nature makes it true. It’s a value judgement we moderns make.

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

#442

Post by throwawaylinux »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #423
throwawaylinux wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes that sentence was definitely about the fossil fuel bit and not the land use of cattle vs other protein sources. You directed it generally. Now you're upset that I replied to what you wrote. > Try a piece of intellectual honesty. How much human edible protein can be produced on an acre of land being used for corn and soy cow feed? Now how much on the same land with the same fertiliser input with a combination of…

> You directed it generally. Now you're upset that I replied to what you wrote. More dishonesty. > I don't know the numbers. Chicken is a very cheap source of protein, much cheaper than a huge range of plant based protein actually. Are we moving the bar for sinning to "thou shalt not consume any plant protein more expensive than chicken"? How about bugs? You have to kill them to eat them, right? Or does the holy book…

> More dishonesty.

Reality says otherwise, check the thread.

> Yes. That's the entire point.

So we're back here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33368082

Do you admit you choose to inflict pain and suffering and death on animals for your own comfort, as you condemn others for doing the same?

> A law that is never enforced

Source on the wild conspiratorial claim that environmental and animal rights laws are never enforced? Don't make me google a counter example that proves you wrong for the nth time.

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

#443

Post by mahogany »

club_tropical wrote: post #128
pvaldes wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “The energy contained in one group” - what energy? The chemical energy contained in the links of the molecules > Is a lean cheetah “less-energy” than an elephant? Yes, of course. One cheetah, has less biomass than one elephant. But -the- rats, have more biomass than -the- elephants. Is the beauty of the ecology. > What a bizarre metric, nobody thinks like this, I don’t even think “ecologists” understand why they sh…

> The professionals that use it, obviously, know their job. They aren't stupid. I will not defer to authority. I want an explanation for why the percentage of aggregate “chemical energy contained in the links of molecules” is considered a meaningful metric for anything other than “how much percentage heat would I produce if i threw them into a fire”, let alone mammal population health or diversity. > Well, the differ…

I'm not sure why you're so hostile toward this idea...

I know basically nothing about ecology, but it seems relatively straightforward to think of reasons to study biomass. Think about food chains. Food is energy is biomass (as you mention). At a basic level: if you know that a certain ratio of biomass is needed (or expected) between two stages in a chain, then you can keep tabs on one of those stages, and when you see biomass decreasing, it's a signal that the food chain might be soon disrupted. In a food chain, the number of animals seems mostly irrelevant (except in cases of near-extinction), but the total energy is highly relevant.

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

#444

Post by ETH_start »

garren wrote: post #362
ETH_start wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Fact? Do you have a citation for the higher intelligence, lower rates of depression/anxiety bit?

Mental health:

https://www.psypost.org/2021/11/meat-consumption-is-associat...

Intelligence:

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/137/4/1119/4664672

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

#445

Post by rafaelero »

rcarr wrote: post #413
rafaelero wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, there is no statistically significant difference between fish-eaters and vegetarians.

You’re cherry picking data to suit your argument is what you’re doing.

What a ridiculous comment. I made a very simple remark over statistical significance and I am cherry picking?? Enough of Internet for today.

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

#446

Post by throwaway2037 »

goatsi wrote: post #431
taneq wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_port... Surprise, it's Shanghai.

They mentioned by tonnage, not by containers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_ports_by_cargo...

Yes, I was thinking the same. The tip about "iron ore" made me think about Brazil and Australia. But maybe Ningbo because of Bao Steel.

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

#447

Post by asdff »

rcarr wrote: post #417
asdff wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about something getting shot in the head isn't too helpful, because you could realistically run a similar moral exercise on just about every thing you encounter in modern life, and find that somewhere, something along the line from raw material to finished product is getting either literally or proverbially shot in the head.

Yes, the killing is being done everywhere throughout modern life just at different levels of distance removed from the killing. I believe the thought experiment to be relevant in this case as there is a more direct chain between the death of the animal and my consumption of the end product. It provided me with insight as well as the year long experiment. I think it’s a brilliant thought experiment as (providing you’r…

There couldn't be less of a direct chain of death between you and the animal. If you don't order that steak its still in the inventory of the restaurant. If you don't buy it at the store its still at the store. If demand actually drops like a stone, I wouldn't be surprised if cows were still killed hand over fist and their bodies turned into mere fertilizer, because a well developed industry is not just going to willingly cease to exist overnight. Once the industry exists and is politically entrenched consumer action can do little to remove it. Take corn for example. We produce so much corn that a huge portion of the crop is converted to ethanol for lack of a better use, and farmers still grow this corn knowing its not going to do much good or feeding that many people, because the industry is entrenched and protected by strong subsidies and costs are high to convert to some unknown industry. We produce so much milk that rather than scale back production when we overproduce for demand, we just dump it into the drain.

If you want to enact the change you expect to enact by going vegetarian, then move to a district with a slaughterhouse and show up to local government meetings every day to raise hell until such land use is made illegal in this jurisdiction. If you rely on consumer demand alone, industry will just find either nonconsumer demand or will use its ability to strongly influence government to keep it in existence in perpetuity.

Post reply on HN