4 ms·

I would expect that more developed countries would have had greater impacts on their biodiversity due to the development itself. Would you have expected it the

by IanCal 5y ago

I would expect that more developed countries would have had greater impacts on their biodiversity due to the development itself. Would you have expected it the other way around?

refurb 5y ago
Developed countries tend to have a far smaller footprint from industrialization per unit of output than developing countries. When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity even with minimal industrialization.
- p1esk 5y ago
  When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity I’d expect the opposite.
  - quesera 5y ago
    Fertilizer runoff creates a dead zone at the Mississippi River delta.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    There is an optimum in the middle. Too much organic matter is harmful, as bacteria decomposing it use the oxygen and emit nitrites.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity Yes, but enough about the UK 1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/17/rivers-in-england-fail-pollution-tests-due-to-sewage-and-chemicals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/17/rivers-i...
  - refurb 5y ago
    Haha… no. Failed tests is nowhere close to “so much shit nothing can survive”. Goes to show how out of touch that metric is.
    - toyg 5y ago
      You're literally commenting under a piece that says the Thames was (and largely still is) so shit that nothing could survive.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > Developed countries tend to have a far smaller footprint from industrialization per unit of output than developing countries. Source? If you're talking about semi-modern countries like India or China specifically it makes sense because they are torn between very poor and very rich areas, both having access to some level of industrial capitalist comforts (eg. people in slums have cell phones and industry-produced clothing). But, the matter central to this question is that these "developing" countries are in fact the ones producing all the shit we use in the "developed" countries. Production has been outsourced there not only for price of work, but also with the clear conscience that it would reduce pollution in the global north. [0] > When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity Yet that's not the only solution. Poop makes for very good compost. [0] Industry pollution is a well-known problem on a big scale since at least the 19th century, when English/French cities (or at least their popular districts) were filled with acid and lead and other industry byproducts killing the population very fast.

by IanCal 5y ago

I would expect that more developed countries would have had greater impacts on their biodiversity due to the development itself. Would you have expected it the other way around?

refurb 5y ago

Developed countries tend to have a far smaller footprint from industrialization per unit of output than developing countries. When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity even with minimal industrialization.

p1esk 5y ago
When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity I’d expect the opposite.
- quesera 5y ago
  Fertilizer runoff creates a dead zone at the Mississippi River delta.
- kergonath 5y ago
  There is an optimum in the middle. Too much organic matter is harmful, as bacteria decomposing it use the oxygen and emit nitrites.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity Yes, but enough about the UK 1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/17/rivers-in-england-fail-pollution-tests-due-to-sewage-and-chemicals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/17/rivers-i...
- refurb 5y ago
  Haha… no. Failed tests is nowhere close to “so much shit nothing can survive”. Goes to show how out of touch that metric is.
  - toyg 5y ago
    You're literally commenting under a piece that says the Thames was (and largely still is) so shit that nothing could survive.
southerntofu 5y ago
> Developed countries tend to have a far smaller footprint from industrialization per unit of output than developing countries. Source? If you're talking about semi-modern countries like India or China specifically it makes sense because they are torn between very poor and very rich areas, both having access to some level of industrial capitalist comforts (eg. people in slums have cell phones and industry-produced clothing). But, the matter central to this question is that these "developing" countries are in fact the ones producing all the shit we use in the "developed" countries. Production has been outsourced there not only for price of work, but also with the clear conscience that it would reduce pollution in the global north. [0] > When your entire population shits into the main river that does a pretty good job of killing biodiversity Yet that's not the only solution. Poop makes for very good compost. [0] Industry pollution is a well-known problem on a big scale since at least the 19th century, when English/French cities (or at least their popular districts) were filled with acid and lead and other industry byproducts killing the population very fast.