Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 277 posts

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#101

Post by sanjay_316 »

roenxi wrote: post #100

I live in a city. We've exterminated every animal except cats and dogs, which we've modified with a multi-millennium breeding program to suit our desires. Pretty much every surface is covered in concrete, all the plants are curated by humans. As far as the eye can see is a totally artificial biosphere. This is where pretty much all the humans live. Most of the people who get worried about wildlife decline live here t…

There’s room outside the cities. Even cities require farms at the very least, which — while not wilderness — are not concreted over. Wilderness is good for mental health, clean air, and having options in the case of a collapse of our artificial ecologies of food crops.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#103

Post by bamboozled »

AlexandrB wrote: post #5

I think the future is very grim for biodiversity. Even if we stopped destroying habitats tomorrow, many larger animals are already living in small, isolated pockets surrounded by roads, farms, and industry. Meanwhile, plants and smaller animals face intense competition from invasive species - often brought in by accident thanks to the constant flow of goods around the globe. We're probably headed for a pretty homogen…

Yup, I guess the best strategy is to sit on the internet and talk about the doom to come?

Why don’t you do something about it ?

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#104

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #94
jeffbee wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really know what people think is or isn't a road but these are objectively roads and I think you are understating the extent to which resource extraction activities use these roads today, and the degree to which any road, no matter how much or little used, alters the ecosystem through which it passes.

A road (dirt trail) that hasn't been in use for 100 years is not impacting the ecosystem to any extent at all.

[deleted]

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#105

Post by rewgs »

bamboozled wrote: post #103
AlexandrB wrote: post #5

I think the future is very grim for biodiversity. Even if we stopped destroying habitats tomorrow, many larger animals are already living in small, isolated pockets surrounded by roads, farms, and industry. Meanwhile, plants and smaller animals face intense competition from invasive species - often brought in by accident thanks to the constant flow of goods around the globe. We're probably headed for a pretty homogen…

Yup, I guess the best strategy is to sit on the internet and talk about the doom to come? Why don’t you do something about it ?

Surely you see the irony here.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#106

Post by 0-_-0 »

bosswipe wrote: post #96
air7 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be over pessimistic as "95% Of The World's Population Lives On 10% Of The Land" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217192745.h...

We don't live on land that looks like this but it's destroying biodiversity anyway https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/general-view-t...

To be fair, that's a desert so technically speaking agriculture increases biodiversity there

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#107

Post by xnx »

philips wrote: post #16
xnx wrote: post #6

I wish we spent more time talking about "habitat destruction" instead of "climate change", while understanding that climate change is the largest form of habitat destruction.

Why do you feel discussing habitat destruction would be helpful?

"change" feels neutral. "destruction" is always bad. There's also a lot of habitat destruction (e.g. ocean acidification) that might not fit the normal concept of "climate change". "Habitat destruction" can include things like deforestation, which would be bad even if it didn't affect climate. "Habitat destruction" might also serve as a reminder that we're destroying our own habitat as well, not just that of other plants and animals.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#108

Post by runarberg »

munificent wrote: post #91
Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deforestation in Brazil was almost stopped when Bolsonaro came into office and has surged since then. For me this is one of the primary reasons why i worry about the future of our civilisation: every nature reserve, every protected animal, every small victory against ecological destruction can so easily be lost again. Those who wish to protect must be on guard every day and win every fight. Those who wish to destroy…

As they say, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It's worth it.

There are ways to construct constitutions such that no one person in a democracy has the power to do this much damage. E.g. only a multi-participatory and diverse parliament—and crucially not any government; especially not any president—has the power to enact laws which can cause such a damage.

In a successful democracy, the people don’t have the option to vote them self a dictator.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#109

Post by giantg2 »

samatman wrote: post #99
giantg2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter if we collect the genetic material if we aren't reversing the actions that caused it to become extinct. For example, arable land is shrinking and population growth as well as an increase in consumption will not leave much (if any) suitable space for some types of wildlife.

Which is why I specifically said that those actions are important also. But it does matter regardless, because rewilding in the future is distinctly possible. If we're able to rebuild an acceptable habitat, and we have the genetic information on hand, we can conceivably unextinct a species and reintroduce it. Without the genetic material, this is impossible. It's similar to the logic of cryostorage, although I would…

I guess you're just much more optimistic than me when it comes to shrinking the population below the current level and reducing consumption.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#110

Post by eanzenberg »

runarberg wrote: post #81
Hokusai wrote: post #2

> "Doing so will require systemic shifts in how we produce food, create energy, manage our oceans and use materials," This is a hard political problem. The owners of the current means to produce meat/oil/etc. want to keep their fortune and to move them to renewable/plant-base/new-tech solutions make them lose that edge and creates real competition. The problem with economy/ecology is that many people are addicted to…

Very much indeed. It frustrates me to no end to look back 20 years in the past and see that Al Gore ran on an anti global warming platform in the 2000 presidential election, and lost to an oil baron. While in the 2020 presidential election the democratic candidate hardly mentions the climate disaster while the western parts of the country is literally on fire. Over the years we have tried to solve the climate disaste…

>> the western parts of the country is literally on fire.

Currently under investigation as arson.

Post reply on HN