Live data from Hacker News

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

ourworldindata.org

141–150 of 447 posts

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

#141
post #109
post #25

Going off on a tangent, but the scale of production is very hard to grasp. I'm probably not the first person to observe this, but I once did some napkin math about steel production, and what I realized kind of blew me away. About 1.9 billion tonnes in 2020. Like with billions of dollars, I have no intuition for such numbers. Context is needed. Global steel production just before WW I was about 70 million tonnes. So p…

I made a website to help visualize American meat consumption in terms of animals slaughtered per second. It’s pretty insane and I think does something to help communicate just how large such industrial operations truly are. https://zach.ws/meat/

What a fucking atrocity.

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for ? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainl…

An absolutely crazy point of view. What is to stop this point of view to extending to people who are no longer “useful” to you? Do you just annihilate them?

Moral equality?

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

#143
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a website to help visualize American meat consumption in terms of animals slaughtered per second. It’s pretty insane and I think does something to help communicate just how large such industrial operations truly are. https://zach.ws/meat/

Ha that’s great! Hopefully we continue to see these numbers as increase as a leading indicator of a wealthy and well fed society.

No, hopefully we can see these numbers stabilize at some long-term sustainable level, whatever that is.

They aren't at that level at the moment, with large parts of modern agriculture more similar to a kind of mining - resources are extracted, with insufficient replenishment.

The thing with mines is that they are eventually exhausted, and stop producing.

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

#144
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.

Is there a reason the Bronze Age had to precede the Iron Age? At least in the Mediterranean, the only continuous civilisation I’m aware of was Egypt.

Because anyone who chucks a (copper-based) rock into a standard wood fire will notice the copper that melts out of the rock. Tin's melting point is only 500F for example (one of the components of Bronze), while Iron's melting point is ~3000F.

It has to be the _correct_ rock, but chucking random things into a fire is an activity that all humans like to do. Its only a matter of time before some human chucks the right rock into a wood fire to discover Tin and begins the Bronze Age.

Iron however, is far more difficult to process. One theory is that early Iron-age was helped by meteors, as pure-iron rocks from the sky would be objects of worship to any human. After experimentation with the space-metal, they'd discover the incredible properties of iron.

With the "Seed of knowledge" planted in the human's brains from space rocks, humans would build hotter fires that can better process the space-rock / space-iron (maybe not reaching 3000F, the melting point, but maybe 2500F for hot enough to make it malleable / hammerable).

Once this discovery is made, its only a matter of time before people chuck _other_ rocks into the 2500F fire and start hammering to look for the common iron that's all around us. So the process is instead to heat the iron as hot as possible with your current technology (again: maybe 2500F) Then, you smack the hot rock with a hammer until you squeeze all the impurities out (while shoving it back into the fire to keep it at 2500F+ as much as possible through this process).

Once the impurities are gone, you're left with pure iron, equivalent to the space rock.

---------

This iron-age process (even for the simplest of ores) is far more difficult to "discover" than "chuck the correct rock into a fire".

You really can start mass producing iron when you can melt the darn thing, which requires a blast furnace. But "Iron Age" smiths were largely with simpler forges / fires and with the "hammer method" IIRC.

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

#145
post #59

The sad thing is that 100 years ago humans and livestock accounted for around 5% of the biomass (all zoomass, not land mammals only), 95% being the wildlife. Now the numbers are reversed. We've stolen the land from the wildlife and dedicated it to a few species we consider edible (agriland is more than forests now, and 75% of it for animal agriculture). Is anybody surprised that we're living in the anthropocene, defi…

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for ? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainl…

I think your point is somewhat fair, and I agree that advancing medicine is not a great sole reason to keep around our fellow organics. There are a few ways to respond to this, including such notions as having intrinsic respect for nature, and appreciation for what natural selection has wrought. But for one and most simply with regard to your anthropocentric viewpoint, the ecosystems that these species constitute are actually critical to keeping civilization going in a practical economic sense.

The theoretical human civilization that can withstand a global ecosystem collapse and exist on a paved over earth is perhaps possible with the right technology but also it is 1. very dreary and 2. much more expensive and difficult to maintain than just putting in some effort to prevent ecosystem collapse now.

Fisheries management is a good microcosm for the cost of ecosystem collapse. If we manage a fish population correctly, we can continue to harvest fish from it and get resources out of it indefinitely. If we do not manage it well and let the population go extinct, we lose that pool of resources permanently and need to replace it with another equivalent source of food which may be very expensive in comparison. Perhaps the local human civilization which relied on the fish will be unable to adjust and will also fall.

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

#146
post #59

The sad thing is that 100 years ago humans and livestock accounted for around 5% of the biomass (all zoomass, not land mammals only), 95% being the wildlife. Now the numbers are reversed. We've stolen the land from the wildlife and dedicated it to a few species we consider edible (agriland is more than forests now, and 75% of it for animal agriculture). Is anybody surprised that we're living in the anthropocene, defi…

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for ? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainl…

♫ They paved paradise... put up a parking lot ♫

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3g9_dnjaFY

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

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not, I'm actually looking for a good faith refutation that doesn't rely on sentiment.

Value is sentiment; you cannot refute a value statement without relying on it.

Value is more than one thing, arguably. You kind of have to go back to first philosophical principles to unpick this. Which I guess is my point - if one's goal is the expansion and longevity of human civilization (which I think is reasonable) then it's not clear at all where the rest of organic life (which we compete with) fits into this picture. If the best reason to preserve it is "it's pretty to look at" and "maybe we'll get some medical advances" then let's just admit that. I'm only suggesting that this is something about which reasonable people can (and have) disagree.

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

#148
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a website to help visualize American meat consumption in terms of animals slaughtered per second. It’s pretty insane and I think does something to help communicate just how large such industrial operations truly are. https://zach.ws/meat/

Ha that’s great! Hopefully we continue to see these numbers as increase as a leading indicator of a wealthy and well fed society.

From your perspective, you just made a smart comment that adds wider context on this issue.

From mine, it's something of a cosmic horror that people can think like this and be proud of themselves.

We are wreaking havoc on the Earth and all life on it; strip mining it to the bone for the shallowest purposes. And some people have this strange glee about it...

It's Lovecraftian to me. Like cultists worshipping death and darkness - literally.

Dramatic? Sure. But you're literally cheer-leading the death of billions and billions of lives as a strong economic indicator.

The fact is, we can't afford industrial farming (and many other 'indicators'). The bill is coming due for our lifestyle. Faster and closer every day.

What to you is "determination to enjoy life", reads to me as blissful ignorance - but only blissful for the ignorant.

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

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for ? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainl…

I think your point is somewhat fair, and I agree that advancing medicine is not a great sole reason to keep around our fellow organics. There are a few ways to respond to this, including such notions as having intrinsic respect for nature, and appreciation for what natural selection has wrought. But for one and most simply with regard to your anthropocentric viewpoint, the ecosystems that these species constitute are…

Thank you for your good faith reply. I agree with everything you wrote, but don't see how saving importantly regarded mammals such as polar bears, elephants, whales and dolphins (etc.) fits into the picture. If these animals and others no longer have vast tracts of wilderness to roam on an anthropocentric earth, what's the downside?

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

#150
post #59

The sad thing is that 100 years ago humans and livestock accounted for around 5% of the biomass (all zoomass, not land mammals only), 95% being the wildlife. Now the numbers are reversed. We've stolen the land from the wildlife and dedicated it to a few species we consider edible (agriland is more than forests now, and 75% of it for animal agriculture). Is anybody surprised that we're living in the anthropocene, defi…

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for ? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainl…

Basically humans are a part of the ecosystem whether we realize it or not, so destroying the natural world to make room for power plants and landfills threatens our survival by threatening our water, oxygen, and food with pollution like microplastics, PFAS, overfishing, etc.
Post reply on HN