4 ms·

This article is from 2014. The fact that it is 2018 and we still have to convince people this is a bad thing is alarming.

goatlover 9y ago
Problem is how many people really care enough to do much about it?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I think it's more brutal than that. How many humans are we willing to kill (or watch them die) in order to do much about it? Most humans care some about animals, but they care more about humans. (Yes, I am well aware that the developed world could accept a lower standard of living, and that would help. I question whether it's enough. And yes, I am aware that that is not an excuse for the developed world to do nothing.)
  - prepend 9y ago
    This is a good point as while there’s not an agreed upon formula for how many nonhumans are worth a human, I’m certain that the vast majority will prioritize human life over animals. Fortunately, the human growth rate is stabilizing so hopefully we can figure out how to have humans grow to a natural equilibrium AND keep diverse ecosystem. If the question is framed as either humans or animals, society will end up with only zoos, farms, and humans.
    - Parcissons 9y ago
      Sorry, to curb your optimism. The limitation on humans, does not correlate with reduced ressource consumption. That flatline is multiplied with the ideal of a western lifestyle, which results in a ecological footprint as if everyone was his own large third world family. My personal optimism regarding the wildlife comes from nature having assault weapons too- allergic substances, poisonous plants and multi-resistant vegies and bacterias and plagues. Ebola is the protector of monkeys- so if to carry ebola means your tribe is safe - that is a sickness that is a bonus point for continued existance. Same goes for nearly every human negative trait. Mother earth takes a long time to recover, but when she does, boy will she beat us to pulp. My assumption is, that even if global warming is not wipe us of the planet, we will be living in domed communitys by the end of the century, simply because every sentient and non-sentient beeing is profiting from beeing resistant to all we got and effective at killing us.
  - the_gastropod 9y ago
    I dislike this line of thinking. There's plenty we can do to reduce our impact on the Earth. Things like eating less beef, walking/bicycling when traveling short distances, reducing single-use plastic consumption, etc. go a long way. In the U.S., we think plastic takeout containers, driving 1/2 mi to the convenience store, eating meat every meal are normal. They're not; these are all absurd things the future will look back at with contempt. If the world's population lived more like an average Indian, the human population could still roughly double without issue. If the world's population lived like an average American, we'd need 3.1 additional Earths to sustain us. [1] We're kind of jerks. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
    - ptero 9y ago
      > Things like eating less beef, walking/bicycling when traveling short distances, reducing single-use plastic consumption, etc. go a long way I think the above things are useful, but I doubt that they would really go far -- the population growth of the past several decades is unlikely to be balanced by a few relatively minor adjustments you cite. I suspect technological advances like efficient vehicles (or synthetic beef as you put big emphasis on beef consumption) will help more than biking. I am all for biking, but you are unlikely to reduce car use by more than 20-30% by it (bad weather, aging) while increasing miles per gallon (or a similar metric) has more upside potential. In the end though I think we have too many people already and will have way more in 20 years; unless we address this somehow all of the above could be irrelevant. Just my 2c.
ataturk 9y ago
You don't get it--the people who you have to convince live in Africa, India, China, and Indonesia. These are the most hopelessly ignorant and poor masses on the planet.
lostmsu 9y ago
Why is it bad though? Unless it affects human population, I don't see why should I care. Do you consider it immoral? Well, morality is personal, and most don't agree.
- jefflombardjr 9y ago
  It does affect human populations[1] and morality is irrelevant. People don't think there's inherent value in biodiversity, but in reality there are certain ecological functions carried out by many species that we take for granted. These ecological functions are critical for the environments we live in. E.g. Water Filtration [2] Okay still don't buy it? Well let's talk about efficiency. There are a couple of startups who are working on carbon scrubbers. [3] They see it as a potential market as the amount of carbon increases. I think this is ridiculous... grasses are extremely efficient at sequestering carbon, specifically bamboo. The entire attitude of science being able to combat climate change smells of engineer's disease[4]. Bamboo has been evolving for millions of years to efficiently remove carbon from the atmosphere. A couple of engineers are not going to be able to compete with that in a realistic time frame. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11148 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11148 [2] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120925-natures-water-purifiers http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120925-natures-water-purif... [3] http://shanghaiist.com/2016/08/04/smog_diamonds.php http://shanghaiist.com/2016/08/04/smog_diamonds.php [4] https://ask.metafilter.com/297591/Origin-of-the-term-Engineers-Disease https://ask.metafilter.com/297591/Origin-of-the-term-Enginee...
  - lostmsu 9y ago
    Simple evolutional strategies are orders of magnitude less performant, than even relatively simple neural networks. I don't see how a mere million of years can compete with one dedicated 100 billion neuron network, let alone multiple of them. I mean, I admit I have what you call 'The Engineer Desease'. I believe in scientists more, than in plants.

goatlover 9y ago

Problem is how many people really care enough to do much about it?

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I think it's more brutal than that. How many humans are we willing to kill (or watch them die) in order to do much about it? Most humans care some about animals, but they care more about humans. (Yes, I am well aware that the developed world could accept a lower standard of living, and that would help. I question whether it's enough. And yes, I am aware that that is not an excuse for the developed world to do nothing.)
- prepend 9y ago
  This is a good point as while there’s not an agreed upon formula for how many nonhumans are worth a human, I’m certain that the vast majority will prioritize human life over animals. Fortunately, the human growth rate is stabilizing so hopefully we can figure out how to have humans grow to a natural equilibrium AND keep diverse ecosystem. If the question is framed as either humans or animals, society will end up with only zoos, farms, and humans.
  - Parcissons 9y ago
    Sorry, to curb your optimism. The limitation on humans, does not correlate with reduced ressource consumption. That flatline is multiplied with the ideal of a western lifestyle, which results in a ecological footprint as if everyone was his own large third world family. My personal optimism regarding the wildlife comes from nature having assault weapons too- allergic substances, poisonous plants and multi-resistant vegies and bacterias and plagues. Ebola is the protector of monkeys- so if to carry ebola means your tribe is safe - that is a sickness that is a bonus point for continued existance. Same goes for nearly every human negative trait. Mother earth takes a long time to recover, but when she does, boy will she beat us to pulp. My assumption is, that even if global warming is not wipe us of the planet, we will be living in domed communitys by the end of the century, simply because every sentient and non-sentient beeing is profiting from beeing resistant to all we got and effective at killing us.
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  I dislike this line of thinking. There's plenty we can do to reduce our impact on the Earth. Things like eating less beef, walking/bicycling when traveling short distances, reducing single-use plastic consumption, etc. go a long way. In the U.S., we think plastic takeout containers, driving 1/2 mi to the convenience store, eating meat every meal are normal. They're not; these are all absurd things the future will look back at with contempt. If the world's population lived more like an average Indian, the human population could still roughly double without issue. If the world's population lived like an average American, we'd need 3.1 additional Earths to sustain us. [1] We're kind of jerks. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
  - ptero 9y ago
    > Things like eating less beef, walking/bicycling when traveling short distances, reducing single-use plastic consumption, etc. go a long way I think the above things are useful, but I doubt that they would really go far -- the population growth of the past several decades is unlikely to be balanced by a few relatively minor adjustments you cite. I suspect technological advances like efficient vehicles (or synthetic beef as you put big emphasis on beef consumption) will help more than biking. I am all for biking, but you are unlikely to reduce car use by more than 20-30% by it (bad weather, aging) while increasing miles per gallon (or a similar metric) has more upside potential. In the end though I think we have too many people already and will have way more in 20 years; unless we address this somehow all of the above could be irrelevant. Just my 2c.

ataturk 9y ago

You don't get it--the people who you have to convince live in Africa, India, China, and Indonesia. These are the most hopelessly ignorant and poor masses on the planet.

lostmsu 9y ago

Why is it bad though? Unless it affects human population, I don't see why should I care. Do you consider it immoral? Well, morality is personal, and most don't agree.

jefflombardjr 9y ago
It does affect human populations[1] and morality is irrelevant. People don't think there's inherent value in biodiversity, but in reality there are certain ecological functions carried out by many species that we take for granted. These ecological functions are critical for the environments we live in. E.g. Water Filtration [2] Okay still don't buy it? Well let's talk about efficiency. There are a couple of startups who are working on carbon scrubbers. [3] They see it as a potential market as the amount of carbon increases. I think this is ridiculous... grasses are extremely efficient at sequestering carbon, specifically bamboo. The entire attitude of science being able to combat climate change smells of engineer's disease[4]. Bamboo has been evolving for millions of years to efficiently remove carbon from the atmosphere. A couple of engineers are not going to be able to compete with that in a realistic time frame. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11148 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11148 [2] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120925-natures-water-purifiers http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120925-natures-water-purif... [3] http://shanghaiist.com/2016/08/04/smog_diamonds.php http://shanghaiist.com/2016/08/04/smog_diamonds.php [4] https://ask.metafilter.com/297591/Origin-of-the-term-Engineers-Disease https://ask.metafilter.com/297591/Origin-of-the-term-Enginee...
- lostmsu 9y ago
  Simple evolutional strategies are orders of magnitude less performant, than even relatively simple neural networks. I don't see how a mere million of years can compete with one dedicated 100 billion neuron network, let alone multiple of them. I mean, I admit I have what you call 'The Engineer Desease'. I believe in scientists more, than in plants.