10 ms·

African fauna are finished. Is there any doubt of this? Over a billion more people there by 2050 and the continent will be the hardest hit by climate change. W

African fauna are finished. Is there any doubt of this? Over a billion more people there by 2050 and the continent will be the hardest hit by climate change. We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it.

k__ 9y ago
Won't we adapt?
- jonjojr 9y ago
  yes we will and billions will die in the process.
  - Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
    Everyone dies in the end, no matter what anyone does. It's nature.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Right, which is why murder is legal.
      - KON_Air 9y ago
        Well isn't it if the organization is large enough?
    - emiliobumachar 9y ago
      That's not a good argument in favor or against any particular policy.
  - 2ion 9y ago
    Unsustainable (human) populations should shrink, which is alright and can't happen fast enough. A pragmatic and realist approach to demographic management, long overdue by today, I think, was last workable on a large scale in China (1-Child-Policy) and is never going to be effectively implemented again unless a major collapse happens. Ideally, that collapse would be local to areas where pressure on resources is especially high and the cost to civilization is relatively low, like in Africa, so that humanity overall can develop further.
- teej 9y ago
  The giraffes won’t.
neveroffensive 9y ago
> We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it. As a US citizen, what can we really do. I realize our country shares responsibility for climate change, but isn't a major problem here also poaching? To really solve this, wouldn't Africa have to step up and crack down locally on industry damaging the environment, and poaching? I don't think anyone is burring their heads in the sand, we just have no power to change things here or abroad. Half of our country still thinks climate change is a hoax...
- ythn 9y ago
  AFAIK climate change is a small factor in the endangerment of African species. I could be wrong, but is seems like it's not even close at this point compared to poaching.
  - jorblumesea 9y ago
    The idea is climate change + population growth will stress humans on the continent and increase environmental destruction and poaching.
    - ythn 9y ago
      What is the relationship between overpopulation/climate and poaching? I was under the impression poaching was more of a consequence of China's huge homeopathic market than Africa's temperature or population density.
      - jorblumesea 9y ago
        Bushmeat consumption is a huge problem for many African countries and will only get worse when climate change wipes out other crop sources and populations increase. Africa already has massive issues as it stands, and climate change will only make it worse. If you really think it's going to get better, it won't.
    - neveroffensive 9y ago
      > climate change + population growth will stress humans on the continent and increase environmental destruction I find it interesting that population growth is discussed so little in the context of climate change. It seems like simple incentives/restrictions could be imposed to reduce birth rates. This would have a major impact on both climate change, and the depletion of the planets resources.
shp0ngle 9y ago
We Europeans (and to some extent Asians and Americans) killed our local fauna to make space for our cities, our farms and our factories. Now Africa is growing very quickly. We should let it grow as we once did. Saying that they don't have the right to build cities and factories, since African nature is so nice and our isn't anymore, is a bit Euro centric.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  Exactly. If you look at Harari's book Sapiens, he has a timeline where shortly after human colonization of an area, megafauna are wiped out. I think this push to save endangered species is basically a form of colonialism where rich white people (whose ancestors destroyed their native fauna) tell poor brown people what they should value even when it gampers development.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Most modern preservation plans are about offering even stronger economic incentive to locals than other development would allow.
- ohmatt 9y ago
  I agree in theory, but (in my opinion) the difference is that we now realize how much we screwed things up in other places, so we don't want more people to do it. It's a flawed argument, seeing as modern civilization isn't really doing everything it can to prevent climate change, so the obvious, easy answer is to not let underdeveloped civilizations follow in our footsteps. Again, I don't disagree with your reasoning, and it is easy to back up by saying everyone else has done it, why would we stop them from doing it. I guess my argument against this point is that every society in the world should be doing their best to try to prevent things like this, so we shouldn't just let people do obviously terrible things to the environment, just because we have previously done it. This is obviously a high-level response, not getting into particulars, but I hope you get the point at least.
  - scoggs 9y ago
    I was thinking how maybe industrialization in general led to the killing off of many of the larger and more rare fauna around the globe so would that mean that Africa following in our more industrialized footsteps, even if it isn't us directly guiding their hands in doing so, is still somewhat our fault for inspiring that notion? People cite their distaste and dislike of American and European all over the world yet the vast majority of those places champion all things American or European / white, if only in things like food, music, entertainment, fashion, and lifestyle -- if not more / everything. I know it's not "our" responsibility after a certain point so I'm just being curious on a very "surface level" here.
TomMckenny 9y ago
It is not African fauna that is guaranteed extinction, it is humanity. Our species will come and go having done little more than left an mass extinction event in the fossil record. A record that will never be perceived since our specie's experiment in sentience was clearly a serious evolutionary error. All Giraffes or any species need do is wait out the storm. Thus, if we care to, all that needs happen is to convince humans to keep a given species around in a wild state until humanity finally wipes it self out. I imagine a millennia at most.
- qplex 9y ago
  Extinction in the long term is pretty much guaranteed for any large animal that doesn't evolve the capability of getting off this planet, or an alternative method for surviving huge rocks falling from the sky. As it stands humans have the best shot at doing this. Perhaps we'll manage to save the giraffes as well and take some of them with us.
  - TomMckenny 9y ago
    The meteor impact threat is just a few steps from being solved. The serious problem is that humans continuously desire to kill each other on large scales. That psychological flaw won't disappear just by changing planets. Previous this was only a mortal danger to the small percentage of young men fooled into dying. As of the 20th century however, species endangering percentages of the population could die in war. Furthermore, advancing technology makes smaller and smaller groups with smaller and smaller budgets, more and more deadly. If there remains even a modest chance of a species ending war per century century, then our remaining time as a species is very short indeed. So while they are certainly worth doing, the species can not be saved by something as simple shifting asteroid orbits or colonizing Mars. We have to solve the other much harder problem.
    - qplex 9y ago
      I'll agree that there are many more difficult issues to be solved, but the fatalist position takes us absolutely nowhere. As somebody else in the thread pointed out already, violence has actually decreased since the days of bashing each other to death with stones - and it definitely was not just the foolish young men getting killed. Also the meteor impact threat is far from being solved apart from some theoretical viewpoint, to begin with the percentage of the sky we are actually able to actively scan for such objects.
grecy 9y ago
I'm driving a complete circumnavigation of the continent - I have just driven through 21 countries in West Africa, and I'm aiming North to drive through another ~15 in the next 12 months [1] I have also driven Alaska - Argentina [2] The more I travel, and the more I see and learn about the world, humans, population and the environment, the more I am dead-set on the idea of mandatory population control. We need to put limits on how many children a couple can have. I know China's policy had some serious downsides, but at this point I fear much, much worse if we don't. Let's reverse the trend and start offering financial rewards to people that don't have children. [1] http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview [2] http://theroadchoseme.com/expedition-overview http://theroadchoseme.com/expedition-overview
- PaulMest 9y ago
  What do you think the benefits of mandatory population control are? Have you seen any of Hans Rosling's [1] talks on the topic of population growth? After watching, would you still think there is need for mandatory population control? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
  - grecy 9y ago
    > What do you think the benefits of mandatory population control are? We need to do everything we can to stop population growth. 7 billion is more than enough. I strongly believe we should get it back down below 5. We're killing the planet, making species go extinct, don't have enough food, drinking water or energy for what we already have. > have you seen any of Hans Rosling's [1] talks on the topic of population growth? I have not, and my internet is a bit too expensive to watch YT right now, sorry.
    - meko 9y ago
      Ending meat subsidies would make a huge impact, probably a more feasible step too. Outright banning meat would be even better. Animal agriculture produces as much (if not more) pollutants than the entirety of transportation. http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
jcl 9y ago
> We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it. A note of irony: ostriches are African fauna that are unlikely to soon go extinct, because they've become livestock.
wolfgke 9y ago
> Over a billion more people there by 2050 and the continent will be the hardest hit by climate change. We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it. I do not bury my head in the sand. Instead I try to convince people on HN all the time that people in Africa should stop procreating to solve these problems.

k__ 9y ago

Won't we adapt?

jonjojr 9y ago
yes we will and billions will die in the process.
- Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
  Everyone dies in the end, no matter what anyone does. It's nature.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Right, which is why murder is legal.
    - KON_Air 9y ago
      Well isn't it if the organization is large enough?
  - emiliobumachar 9y ago
    That's not a good argument in favor or against any particular policy.
- 2ion 9y ago
  Unsustainable (human) populations should shrink, which is alright and can't happen fast enough. A pragmatic and realist approach to demographic management, long overdue by today, I think, was last workable on a large scale in China (1-Child-Policy) and is never going to be effectively implemented again unless a major collapse happens. Ideally, that collapse would be local to areas where pressure on resources is especially high and the cost to civilization is relatively low, like in Africa, so that humanity overall can develop further.
teej 9y ago
The giraffes won’t.

neveroffensive 9y ago

> We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it. As a US citizen, what can we really do. I realize our country shares responsibility for climate change, but isn't a major problem here also poaching? To really solve this, wouldn't Africa have to step up and crack down locally on industry damaging the environment, and poaching? I don't think anyone is burring their heads in the sand, we just have no power to change things here or abroad. Half of our country still thinks climate change is a hoax...

ythn 9y ago
AFAIK climate change is a small factor in the endangerment of African species. I could be wrong, but is seems like it's not even close at this point compared to poaching.
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  The idea is climate change + population growth will stress humans on the continent and increase environmental destruction and poaching.
  - ythn 9y ago
    What is the relationship between overpopulation/climate and poaching? I was under the impression poaching was more of a consequence of China's huge homeopathic market than Africa's temperature or population density.
    - jorblumesea 9y ago
      Bushmeat consumption is a huge problem for many African countries and will only get worse when climate change wipes out other crop sources and populations increase. Africa already has massive issues as it stands, and climate change will only make it worse. If you really think it's going to get better, it won't.
  - neveroffensive 9y ago
    > climate change + population growth will stress humans on the continent and increase environmental destruction I find it interesting that population growth is discussed so little in the context of climate change. It seems like simple incentives/restrictions could be imposed to reduce birth rates. This would have a major impact on both climate change, and the depletion of the planets resources.

shp0ngle 9y ago

We Europeans (and to some extent Asians and Americans) killed our local fauna to make space for our cities, our farms and our factories. Now Africa is growing very quickly. We should let it grow as we once did. Saying that they don't have the right to build cities and factories, since African nature is so nice and our isn't anymore, is a bit Euro centric.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Exactly. If you look at Harari's book Sapiens, he has a timeline where shortly after human colonization of an area, megafauna are wiped out. I think this push to save endangered species is basically a form of colonialism where rich white people (whose ancestors destroyed their native fauna) tell poor brown people what they should value even when it gampers development.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Most modern preservation plans are about offering even stronger economic incentive to locals than other development would allow.
ohmatt 9y ago
I agree in theory, but (in my opinion) the difference is that we now realize how much we screwed things up in other places, so we don't want more people to do it. It's a flawed argument, seeing as modern civilization isn't really doing everything it can to prevent climate change, so the obvious, easy answer is to not let underdeveloped civilizations follow in our footsteps. Again, I don't disagree with your reasoning, and it is easy to back up by saying everyone else has done it, why would we stop them from doing it. I guess my argument against this point is that every society in the world should be doing their best to try to prevent things like this, so we shouldn't just let people do obviously terrible things to the environment, just because we have previously done it. This is obviously a high-level response, not getting into particulars, but I hope you get the point at least.
- scoggs 9y ago
  I was thinking how maybe industrialization in general led to the killing off of many of the larger and more rare fauna around the globe so would that mean that Africa following in our more industrialized footsteps, even if it isn't us directly guiding their hands in doing so, is still somewhat our fault for inspiring that notion? People cite their distaste and dislike of American and European all over the world yet the vast majority of those places champion all things American or European / white, if only in things like food, music, entertainment, fashion, and lifestyle -- if not more / everything. I know it's not "our" responsibility after a certain point so I'm just being curious on a very "surface level" here.

TomMckenny 9y ago

It is not African fauna that is guaranteed extinction, it is humanity. Our species will come and go having done little more than left an mass extinction event in the fossil record. A record that will never be perceived since our specie's experiment in sentience was clearly a serious evolutionary error. All Giraffes or any species need do is wait out the storm. Thus, if we care to, all that needs happen is to convince humans to keep a given species around in a wild state until humanity finally wipes it self out. I imagine a millennia at most.

qplex 9y ago
Extinction in the long term is pretty much guaranteed for any large animal that doesn't evolve the capability of getting off this planet, or an alternative method for surviving huge rocks falling from the sky. As it stands humans have the best shot at doing this. Perhaps we'll manage to save the giraffes as well and take some of them with us.
- TomMckenny 9y ago
  The meteor impact threat is just a few steps from being solved. The serious problem is that humans continuously desire to kill each other on large scales. That psychological flaw won't disappear just by changing planets. Previous this was only a mortal danger to the small percentage of young men fooled into dying. As of the 20th century however, species endangering percentages of the population could die in war. Furthermore, advancing technology makes smaller and smaller groups with smaller and smaller budgets, more and more deadly. If there remains even a modest chance of a species ending war per century century, then our remaining time as a species is very short indeed. So while they are certainly worth doing, the species can not be saved by something as simple shifting asteroid orbits or colonizing Mars. We have to solve the other much harder problem.
  - qplex 9y ago
    I'll agree that there are many more difficult issues to be solved, but the fatalist position takes us absolutely nowhere. As somebody else in the thread pointed out already, violence has actually decreased since the days of bashing each other to death with stones - and it definitely was not just the foolish young men getting killed. Also the meteor impact threat is far from being solved apart from some theoretical viewpoint, to begin with the percentage of the sky we are actually able to actively scan for such objects.

grecy 9y ago

I'm driving a complete circumnavigation of the continent - I have just driven through 21 countries in West Africa, and I'm aiming North to drive through another ~15 in the next 12 months [1] I have also driven Alaska - Argentina [2] The more I travel, and the more I see and learn about the world, humans, population and the environment, the more I am dead-set on the idea of mandatory population control. We need to put limits on how many children a couple can have. I know China's policy had some serious downsides, but at this point I fear much, much worse if we don't. Let's reverse the trend and start offering financial rewards to people that don't have children. [1] http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview [2] http://theroadchoseme.com/expedition-overview http://theroadchoseme.com/expedition-overview

PaulMest 9y ago
What do you think the benefits of mandatory population control are? Have you seen any of Hans Rosling's [1] talks on the topic of population growth? After watching, would you still think there is need for mandatory population control? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
- grecy 9y ago
  > What do you think the benefits of mandatory population control are? We need to do everything we can to stop population growth. 7 billion is more than enough. I strongly believe we should get it back down below 5. We're killing the planet, making species go extinct, don't have enough food, drinking water or energy for what we already have. > have you seen any of Hans Rosling's [1] talks on the topic of population growth? I have not, and my internet is a bit too expensive to watch YT right now, sorry.
  - meko 9y ago
    Ending meat subsidies would make a huge impact, probably a more feasible step too. Outright banning meat would be even better. Animal agriculture produces as much (if not more) pollutants than the entirety of transportation. http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

jcl 9y ago

> We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it. A note of irony: ostriches are African fauna that are unlikely to soon go extinct, because they've become livestock.

wolfgke 9y ago

> Over a billion more people there by 2050 and the continent will be the hardest hit by climate change. We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it. I do not bury my head in the sand. Instead I try to convince people on HN all the time that people in Africa should stop procreating to solve these problems.