Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#221

Post by losteric » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:19 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #170

iN7h33nD wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg (Sources: https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite ) So even if FAO got it wrong, I just don't see beef not being a problem.

> Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. The "sources" in the link either reference to mistaken FAO stats, or give some numbers out of context and with no argument (e.g. "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" -- ok, but what's that compared to other consumers of such resources? Or "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat", ok so?)

Meat is not inherently bad, but there is clear scientific consensus that the world's current meat consumption is unsustainable.

Here's a list of problems with 105 sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...

At this point, denial is willful ignorance of evidence... falling in the same vein as antivaxxers and climate change denialists.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#222

Post by GVIrish » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #163

lallysingh wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. A bunch of tax law changes would do it. And that's a lot more passable than killing a bunch of people.

Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from…

The energy, land, and water required to produce 1 lb of beef is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of chicken, which in turn is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of the average vegetable.

Not only that, but methane emissions from cattle contribute to climate change. About a third of anthropogenic methane emissions in the US are from livestock.

Not saying we need to stop eating beef completely, but if diets shifted away from beef it would have a number of positive environmental impacts.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#223

Post by jahaja » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #205

jahaja wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? Kindergarden. > It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect. And rightly so after that comment.

Kindergarden is not an organization. If you want to decree that people who commit wrongthink offenses are by definition incorrect in everything they ever say, you need to provide a list of wrongthink offenses. I don't even know what you think is racist about that comment, much less how anyone could logically extrapolate that everything I say is wrong as a result.

Since what you call facts are clearly bullshit I think it's perfectly reasonable to "logically extrapolate" that henceforth everything you write should be assumed to be bullshit unless proven otherwise.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#224

Post by malvosenior » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

api wrote: post #219

malvosenior wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very interesting perspective and it's too bad it's being downvoted. I think there are three schools of thought around this: * Environmental conservatives who think change in ecosystem, populations... is bad. * Environmental objectivists who acknowledge that change is constant, species are still participating in evolution and that there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" as far as nature is concerned. * Nor…

I'm closer to the middle position. An alien watching Earth would not be making value judgements. It would be observing geological change. Moralistic value judgements like "we are destroying the Earth" are anthropocentric, even when they are self-condemnatory. Species self-hatred is historically pretty big with humans and it hasn't stopped us from doing what we're doing. If anything it contributes. Aggressive self-cri…

I agree with all of that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18107194 :)

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#225

Post by jamil7 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #163

lallysingh wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. A bunch of tax law changes would do it. And that's a lot more passable than killing a bunch of people.

Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from…

> You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef.

Exactly, environmental destruction caused by the beef industry, an incredibly inefficient process if you compare the land and water requirements vs other types of protein.

> There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production.

This is a huge blanket statement to make as well as being factually inaccurate.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#226

Post by code_duck » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

montenegrohugo wrote: post #90

code_duck wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With ‘enough’ technological progress, anything is possible since that’s the definition of enough.

No, technology is constrained by physical and logical laws. No amount of technological progress can make 1+1 = 2. Similarly, it can reasonably be stated that no amount of technological progress will make earth be able to sustain X population

I don’t find those examples persuasive. One is a very simple logical impossibility because 1+1=2 is a very basic assumption of our system of mathematics. The other is a very complex issue, and I also disageee with your conclusion. That with ‘enough’ technical progress the earth can support a given amount of life makes sense to me.

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#227

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

mlcrypto wrote: post #55

Those animals weren't suited to reproduce in the modern era and were thus eliminated. End of story

Reproduction isn't the problem, we're killing them and wrecking their habitat.

If I burn your lands and level your cities, killing the majority of your fellow beings in the process, would you just conclude you didn't reproduce enough in modern era?

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#228

Post by osense » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #163

lallysingh wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. A bunch of tax law changes would do it. And that's a lot more passable than killing a bunch of people.

Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from…

I think you may be wrong here. Firstly, most cattle is not grazed on open pastures:

"[…] the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply" [1]

Rather, they are kept on feed imported most likely from South America, and "Agriculture is the direct driver for worldwide deforestation" [2].

So how does attempting to minimize deforestation not address the issue?

[1] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925091608.h...

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#229

Post by elbear » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:31 PM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #205

jahaja wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? Kindergarden. > It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect. And rightly so after that comment.

Kindergarden is not an organization. If you want to decree that people who commit wrongthink offenses are by definition incorrect in everything they ever say, you need to provide a list of wrongthink offenses. I don't even know what you think is racist about that comment, much less how anyone could logically extrapolate that everything I say is wrong as a result.

From what I can tell, people have a problem with the fact that you said that "blacks are genetically incapable". Why do you think it's genetic? Why not cultural, social, economic?

Re: Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

#230

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:33 PM UTC

jamil7 wrote: post #225

deialtrous wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from…

> You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. Exactly, environmental destruction caused by the beef industry, an incredibly inefficient process if you compare the land and water requirements vs other types of protein. > There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. This is a huge blanke…

That's a story that's often repeated here on HN. But it doesn't hold up much under scrutiny. American pasture lands, for instance, are not normally arable lands (cannot be used for cropland). And meat animals use less resources per pound of protein that vegetable sources. Certainly less plowing.

I'm always stunned by the idea that somehow raising millions of cattle is destroying the planet, yet the millions of buffalo that roamed the prairie before we arrived were natural and therefor good.