Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by rbg246 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:05 AM UTC

_jahh wrote: post #153

rbg246 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From all the history I have read of civilisation, it's been grain that has been the foundation of human society as we know it, meat couldn't get us anywhere. Meat eating among the poor in European societies and derived societies is a new phenomenon at least in the idea that every meal has meat in it. Take a look outside of Europe or even within less wealthy areas of Europe and their diets are magnitudes lower in thei…

its appropriate both you and op can be right in that he said meat was essential for mankind and you say grain is foundation for society. grain was the way civilization was enforced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist...

'The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it'

The only was I can read that quote is mankind as we know it is the grain society that was enforced you point out.

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

#172

Post by burlesona » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:06 AM UTC

e_dv1 wrote: post #137

julienb_sea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fragile species will continue to be in decline. Long term, large species will remain in protected environments like national parks. The idea that humans are incapable of protecting larger species is belied by a visit to Yellowstone. Our living environments create opportunities for well-adapted species to flourish. This will certainly shift the makeup of our planet's biodiversity. You mention all of this in passing, b…

The United States went through a roughly 100 year period or so where conservation efforts were... er, not terribly great. It took about 100 years for humans to shoot an incredibly large passenger pigeon population into extinction, and bison which once numbered millions on the plains was reduced to mere hundreds. Fortunately, in the mid 19th century to early 20th century in particular, people began to notice and start…

Unfortunately that period also roughly corresponded with the rise of the middle class and lifting the majority of the population to a level of material comfort that was (at it's peak at least) the envy of the world.

Most of the worst environmental damage today is not happening in the highly developed west, it's happening in the rest of the world that - understandably - doesn't care as much about saving the local animals as it cares about catching up to the material standards of the wealthy world.

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

#173

Post by aaron695 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:06 AM UTC

cleandreams wrote: post #122

aaron695 wrote: post #30

Lucky we have the doomsday cult to keep telling us the world is warming and will wipe out the animals in 100 year so let's not concern us with local problems. In reality it has and always will be local. And the solution has and will be for a few more decades use fossil fuels to help. (The doomsday cult sunk nuclear) This applies to both the environment and if you have empathy, other humans.

A member of the 'doomsday cult' here. From the West Coast, I see global warming out my window in the form of unprecedented wildfire, in part caused by warming and related drying out of the landscape. Denial doesn't fix this problem.

> In part caused by warming and related drying out of the landscape.

Nope. Maybe a small part than makes it happen at best 10% more often. But insignificant. You and those around you are worth well more than 10% than your parents.

You could have managed it locally at a state level, through education, prevention, preparation, treatment, mitigation, harm minimisation and repair but you didn't.

It's on you. You chose big screen TV's and pretending recycling matters instead.

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

#174

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:09 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #162

atweiden wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Hedging language aside — i.e. "humans evolved because X to some extent" — I recently had an epiphany touring the north island of New Zealand by minibus. Productivity utterly collapses when you have to frequently move from one (temporary) settlement to another. What you eat isn't nea…

“Plants can provide every nutrient required for human survival save for vitamin B12.” Which is what’s interesting to me, you basically cannot actually be vegan without supplements. Maybe this is where we should go as a specifies for ethical reasons. But it’s a mental leap to rely on supplements for vital nutrients.

All of the B12 consumed anywhere in the world -- and all animals need it -- comes exclusively from bacteria. The bacteria in your colon produce thousands of times as much as you need, but you do not absorb so much as a nanogram of it. (Dogs and rabbits eat their own crap to get it.)

The process for absorbing B12, in the upper intestine, is the most intricate of any vitamin, starting with saliva. Apparently the huge variety of almost-B12 variants have to be filtered out, so as not to gum up the works.

It is common for Americans (and maybe others?) over 50 to develop an autoimmune reaction to some part of the process, and lose most ability to absorb B12. (You may notice shooting pains in your arms if you get this.) Then you need to take 5mg daily supplements. The micrograms in meat and dairy are then not enough.

So, if you think you are eating meat for the B12, surprise! that is not where it comes from. Homo erectus probably got enough from the dirt on everything, and grubs.

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

#175

Post by drewm1980 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:10 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #162

atweiden wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Hedging language aside — i.e. "humans evolved because X to some extent" — I recently had an epiphany touring the north island of New Zealand by minibus. Productivity utterly collapses when you have to frequently move from one (temporary) settlement to another. What you eat isn't nea…

“Plants can provide every nutrient required for human survival save for vitamin B12.” Which is what’s interesting to me, you basically cannot actually be vegan without supplements. Maybe this is where we should go as a specifies for ethical reasons. But it’s a mental leap to rely on supplements for vital nutrients.

We used to get B12 from bacteria in the soil, but these days we clean our food immaculately, and we're also ruining our soil. My understanding is that B12 deficiency is a potential problem for everyone; vegan diets are just under more scrutiny. Also, the whole notion of "supplements" is not very useful; it's all just food. I don't know how B12 is produced, but if they're growing it by culturing the same bacteria we used to get B12 from, we have only industrialized the same symbiotic relationship we already had with certain microbes.

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

#176

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:14 AM UTC

atweiden wrote: post #169

bamboozled wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Plants can provide every nutrient required for human survival save for vitamin B12.” Which is what’s interesting to me, you basically cannot actually be vegan without supplements. Maybe this is where we should go as a specifies for ethical reasons. But it’s a mental leap to rely on supplements for vital nutrients.

My B12 supplement is derived from plant sources, which I find far preferable to secondary B12 consumption from injected grain-fed animal tissue which is the modern status quo. [1]: https://www.gardenoflife.com/content/product/mykind-organics...

There are exactly zero plant sources of B12. Or animal sources, either.

100.0000% of B12, anywhere in the world, comes from bacteria.

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

#177

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:16 AM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #117

50% of habitable land on earth is taken up by agriculture, 77% of which is used for meat & diary (including the crops grown for livestock to eat), which contributes only 18% to the global calorie supply because of the inefficiency of animal products: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets I wonder how much of an impact it would have to return the land used by meat & diary to nature (40 million k…

"lab based meat will save us at some point in the future and then I'll probably switch if they're indistinguible from real meat"

Why isn't that the answer? Nobody wants to be out of the animal husbandry business more than the meat producers do. Even if they haven't realized it yet.

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

#178

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:27 AM UTC

acituan wrote: post #168

throwaway894345 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glimmer of hope that I have is that the same sort of market forces that create these problems can be marshaled to solve them. For example, if the wealthiest countries implemented a carbon tax including a border adjustment (accounting for goods from countries with a laxer carbon policy) would give governments a single, simple dial that the could turn to lower carbon emissions. Similarly, we ought to be able to imp…

> market forces that create these problems can be marshaled to solve them. For example, if the wealthiest countries implemented a carbon tax including a border adjustment (accounting for goods from countries with a laxer carbon policy) would give governments a single, simple dial that the could turn to lower carbon emissions. Taxes are not market forces, they are exogenous interventions on markets. Which means having…

Just about everything humans do is an exogenous intervention on markets, one way or another. And markets respond to them, via the cited market forces. The notion of the "free market" is a toxic fiction. Any market that works for its participants is intricately curated.

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

#179

Post by atweiden » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:29 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #151

ubertoop wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate reality is that mankind as we know it, probably developed to the level it did, in part due to the consumption of meat. Meat is absolutely PACKED with bioavailable nutrients in a way that most plant products simply aren't. Add to that, the growing evidence that much of the plant material we're eating may have inflammatory side effects of consumption. The point I am making is that a solution isn't a sol…

Do you have any good sources on the bioavailability of meat vs. plant nutrients? I've tried giving up meat before and have found that I feel noticeably worse both physically and mentally when I don't eat it, even if I eat a lot of plant protein and take supplements. I don't know if this simply due to my own unique biochemistry or what, but it's not subtle. I have a fast metabolism, so that may have something to do wi…

> Do you have any good sources on the bioavailability of meat vs. plant nutrients? I've tried giving up meat before and have found that I feel noticeably worse both physically and mentally when I don't eat it, even if I eat a lot of plant protein and take supplements.

> I don't know if this simply due to my own unique biochemistry or what, but it's not subtle. I have a fast metabolism, so that may have something to do with it?

For better or worse, it's very easy to end up eating a caloric deficit on a plant-based diet. I'm very glad I use a kitchen scale and small script I wrote to calculate how much kcal/protein/carbs/fat I'm actually getting in comparison to what I should be getting. To put it mildly, plant-based diets take some getting used to.

Protein is important, but beyond 1.4-1.6 grams of protein per kg body weight, your body increasingly relieves itself of any excess. Particularly if you stick to eating low-fat legumes, grains and greens per Esselstyn [1], getting enough protein isn't a concern. In fact, I have to consciously choose low protein foods like potatoes and rice just to ensure I don't get too much protein.

[1]: http://www.dresselstyn.com/

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

#180

Post by danimal88 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:34 AM UTC

chongli wrote: post #130

seanwilson wrote: post #117

50% of habitable land on earth is taken up by agriculture, 77% of which is used for meat & diary (including the crops grown for livestock to eat), which contributes only 18% to the global calorie supply because of the inefficiency of animal products: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets I wonder how much of an impact it would have to return the land used by meat & diary to nature (40 million k…

I think these figures are pretty misleading. First of all, they only look at calories, not protein. If you wanted to replace all the meat and dairy with equivalent protein substitutes you’d be looking at huge amounts of land for growing soybeans, peanuts, tree nuts. Replace all the milk with almond milk and you’re still dealing with huge water and land use for a product that has inferior protein and nutrients. Second…

As I understand it, humans are overconsuming proteins