7 ms·
> Did you mean to qualify this somehow, like “non-livestock mammalian biomass”? That would still be incorrect, but at least might not be off by orders of magnit
by esarbe 5y ago
> Did you mean to qualify this somehow, like “non-livestock mammalian biomass”? That would still be incorrect, but at least might not be off by orders of magnitude.
Not necessary. The loss in biomass in fish[0][1] and insects[2][3] and tropical rainforests[4] can account for that. Birds have also taken a deep dive[6]. The most visible I think it is for fish. There alone we've lost an approximate 80% since the 1950ies. Imagine that. 80% of fish biomass, just gone. Similar for insects. German nature reserves have seen a decline of insect population by 75%. Really; non-livestock mammalian biomass is the least of our problems.
> Not really. Even desalination is cheap enough at this point (on the order of 1kL/$, last I checked) that we’d be fine with modest cost increases.
That only covers populations near bodies of water. Ironically these are the most vulnerable to climate change and threatened by the rising sea level.
And while it might be possible to build and maintain the desalination infrastructure for the 9M people in Israel, good look trying the same thing in countries like India[8] or Balgladesh[8a]?
Water crises have been ranked in the top five of the World Economic Forum's Global Risks by Impact list nearly every year since 2012[9].
A quarter of the world's population faces severe water shortage[10]. Are you going to provide water to 3 Billion people using desalination plants? In many of these places, even water treatment plants are too expensive to operate. What are you going to power these plants with? Coal? We don't even have a plan to migrate the already existing energy infrastructure to renewables.
> What exactly are you predicting here? This sounds very apocalyptic but doesn’t match any plausible model I’m aware of for ecological failure modes
Here's a helpful link[11].
The norther African coast of the Mediterranean used to be woodland. The continued depletion and over exploitation of the has led to it being the arid region it is today [12]. Now imagine that, but on a global scale. Because the last 250 years have been harsh for our ecosystem and it's now as threadbare as it can be. Ecosystem fragmentation is already a dire issue. The strings in the web are breaking, one by one [13].
[0] https://www.aaas.org/news/researcher-reports-stunning-losses-ocean-fish-biomass https://www.aaas.org/news/researcher-reports-stunning-losses...
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266684781_A_century_of_fish_biomass_decline_in_the_ocean https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266684781_A_century...
[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations
[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326657472_Loss_of_biodiversity_and_shifts_in_aboveground_biomass_drivers_in_tropical_rainforests_with_different_disturbance_histories https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326657472_Loss_of_b...
[5] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210225082525.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210225082525.h...
[6] https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Bird-Decline-paper_Science-formatted_final.pdf https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Bird-Decline...
[7] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309200743_Defaunation_and_biomass_collapse_of_mammals_in_the_largest_Atlantic_forest_remnant https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309200743_Defaunati...
[8] https://qz.com/india/1114843/chinas-grand-plan-for-the-brahmaputra-a-1000km-tunnel-to-divert-water-away-from-tibet/ https://qz.com/india/1114843/chinas-grand-plan-for-the-brahm...
[8a] https://undark.org/2021/08/04/the-water-crisis-in-climate-vulnerable-bangladesh/ https://undark.org/2021/08/04/the-water-crisis-in-climate-vu...
[9] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2021.pdf http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_202...
[10] https://news.trust.org/item/20200902202142-ku0o2 https://news.trust.org/item/20200902202142-ku0o2
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_collapse
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman...
[13] https://theecologist.org/2012/feb/27/humanity-has-already-had-four-major-ecological-collapses-how-can-we-avoid-fifth https://theecologist.org/2012/feb/27/humanity-has-already-ha...
- wyager 5y ago“Fish and insect population” != “biomass” No non-trivial total biomass change occurs on scales shorter than thousands of years
- esarbe 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology) "The biomass is the mass of living biological organisms in a given area or ecosystem at a given time." Of course fish and insects are part of the biomass.
- wyager 5y agoThey’re not the total biomass. Are you intentionally clowning me here? Just because a couple species types have declined by X%, the total global biomass has not declined by that much. This paper tries to measure the thing you claimed as 75% over the last hundred or so years as actually being around 45% over the last 5,000 years. http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs61... I found this on the greenpeace website, so if anything this is probably a gross overestimate.
- esarbe 5y ago> Are you intentionally clowning me here? Let's assume good faith on both sides, otherwise this discussion will go nowhere. Agreed? > They’re not the total biomass No, they're not. I never claimed that. My claim was that >> Of course fish and insects are part of the biomass. Anyway. That out of the way, let's have a look at > Just because a couple species types have declined by X%, It's not a couple of species. It's whole ecosystems that are being emptied. The Zoological Society of London report [0] monitors 4392 vertebrate species. There's a consistent and dramatic reduction. > This paper tries to measure the thing you claimed Thanks for the research and for taking it serious enough to do some data hunting. I'll happily dig into the report. Since it's from 2011, I wonder if there's an updated version that includes more recent data. I honestly don't have a better source that aggregates the loss globally over all species. I would be interested in more exact numbers. (Ask HN?!) >>>> but at least might not be off by orders of magnitude. I think we have established that the 75% is not "off by orders of magnitude". Could it be 60% reduction? Or 50%? Sure. Absent more data this could be possible, certainly. Given that it's only been a few decades, I don't think that matter too much - it's devastating in any case. But I think we can agree that it's definitively above 7.5% or 0.75%. I honestly think that 75% is not too far off. [0] https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/LPR%202020%20Full%20report.pdf https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/LPR%202020%20Full%20...