Live data from Hacker News

Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

science.org

111–113 of 113 posts

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see forests all over the world. Seriously, there are so many trees. I have no idea what you're talking about. Edit: I looked up the numbers, and one quarter of the earth's land is covered in forest. The same percentage as twenty years ago. https://ourworldindata.org/forest-area

Yes, tree cover is doing reasonably well, thankfully! But the loss of biodiversity and wildlife that isn't trees remains a critical issue.

I am responding to the GP comment claiming you can only see farmland on satellite photos. That is false and only takes a few moments of investigation.

People who live in cities might actually believe claims like this.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#112

We live in an empty, denuded world, a faint shadow of its former self. Even "green" Ireland which sells itself as a natural place is an ecological wasteland. From Whittled Away, by Padraic Fogarty https://iwt.ie/product/whittled-away/ """ In 1623 it was reported chat Ireland was exporting 20,000 tons of pilchard annually.4 To pm this figure in perspective, it is over four times the toal landings for all species from…

You don't need to go back to 1623. Talk to fishermen who have been working the same waters for 30 years, the decline is very apparent.

I think there is use in looking much further back. If we are looking only 30 years (or even 300) we are not looking back to where the decline started, only at that recent point of the decline. The issue with this to me is setting a bad 'target' to aim for for conservation.

Say 30 years ago the fishery was at 80% depleted, and today it is 95% depleted, then conservation looking only 30 years back could decide to stop (or more likely lose political will) at that 80% mark.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#113
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That gets to a classic "xkcd what if" - Pile of Viruses https://what-if.xkcd.com/80/ > What if every virus in the world were collected into one area? How much volume would they take up and what would they look like? And remember that the images have mouse over text.

Haha, this is awesome! Thank you! Here's another question... if I drank a spoonful of HIV, would I get HIV? Would it even survive my stomach acid? I suppose it depends on whether it found its way into my blood, right? Or would mere exposure to the mucous membranes in my mouth be enough? You can't, as far as I know, transfer HIV by kissing, but maybe if there was lots of it?

I don't think anyone can answer that concretely, we've never had any virus at that concentration. In general, yes, stomach acid will neutralize most viruses (stomach viruses require specialized and fascinating adaptations to survive), but when you're talking about consuming by the quadrillions or quintillions (or more) particles that only need on the order of several dozens to get lucky and infect you, only a few of them need a lucky journey to get you. The process of swallowing will still end up with them in your throat, some in your mucus membranes in your mouth, nose, and probably your entire sinus system, etc. I wouldn't take that bet. Rates of success we would normally call "non-infectious" would get you in this case.
Post reply on HN