4 ms·

In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%. I can't help but wonder how it would be without any animal agriculture.

hinkley 4y ago
Someone about ten years ago worked out that the snows of Kilimanjaro are fed by the vegetation upwind from the mountain. Whatever global warming is doing, deforestation is doing faster.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Do you have data/source for this? Interested in learning more, didn't think it was this much.
- karmakurtisaani 4y ago
  Sorry I'm writing this on my phone holding a baby, so not the best situation for in depth research. The numbers I quote are from memory based on watching the latest David Attenborough documentary. Not a great reference, I know. Edit: highly recommend the documentary though.
- Fezzik 4y ago
  https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests and the rate at which we deforest and destroy grassland to make grazing land is ever-increasing.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Thanks very much for posting. I'd point out that the numbers from that very useful link are wildly, wildly different from what the parent commenter posted: 1. The graphs appear to be showing that 29% of the Earth's land surface is "barren land", i.e. deserts, glaciers, rocky terrain, etc. In 1900, 48% of the NON barren land was forests, so 34% of the Earth's total land was forested. 2. In 2018 the percentage of forested non-barren land was down to 38%, or 27% of Earth's total land. 34% to 27% of total land area from 1900 to 2018 is a major difference from the parent commenter's assertion of "In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%".
bmitc 4y ago
It is a really depressing reality that we have carved out. It isn't even clear to me at all what we've gained through this destruction. It also isn't clear if the Green Revolution was a net long-term benefit. You might be interested in the book Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James C. Scott. I have it sitting on my desk and have watched some talks by the author, but I haven't gotten to the book yet.
- RhysU 4y ago
  That is an excellent book.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Would you happen to have any links to the talks you mentioned?
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Here's two I recently watched. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVwrUsib4vU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVwrUsib4vU They are a bit dry, as he is an academic through and through, but he is an academic that has spent a large amount of time in the field.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Thank you!
sorenjan 4y ago
Humans and our domesticated animals really dominate the planets resources. I wonder how long it can sustain us mistreating it like we do. "Humans and their livestock represent 96% of all mammals on earth in terms of biomass, whereas all wild mammals represent only 4%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#/media/File:Distribution-of-earths-mammals.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#/media/F... "The standing biomass of domesticated poultry, mostly chickens, has been calculated as 5 Mt C, about three times higher than the total biomass of all wild bird species combined" https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.180325 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.180...
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
carderne 4y ago
Please edit your post, this is very wrong. It’s more like 50% to 40%. https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests
choxi 4y ago
How does that square with this Nature paper claiming the tree coverage is increasing globally? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
cheese_goddess 4y ago
It would look about the same: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#more-plant-based-diets-tend-to-need-less-cropland https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#more-plant-based-d... The article that I linked above looks at how much cropland we'd need to feed the entire world population if we gave up on farming animals completely. It turns out that we would end up with about the same amount of cropland, but that's only to match the current production in calories (and nothing else). Assuming the human population continued to grow, we'd have to use even more land to grow crops. There is of course a lot of pasture that could be turned back to forest, or left to turn back to forest, on its own. But not all pasture is ancient forests. I have no idea how much forest we would regain by ceasing to feed animals on pature.

hinkley 4y ago

Someone about ten years ago worked out that the snows of Kilimanjaro are fed by the vegetation upwind from the mountain. Whatever global warming is doing, deforestation is doing faster.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Do you have data/source for this? Interested in learning more, didn't think it was this much.

karmakurtisaani 4y ago
Sorry I'm writing this on my phone holding a baby, so not the best situation for in depth research. The numbers I quote are from memory based on watching the latest David Attenborough documentary. Not a great reference, I know. Edit: highly recommend the documentary though.
Fezzik 4y ago
https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests and the rate at which we deforest and destroy grassland to make grazing land is ever-increasing.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Thanks very much for posting. I'd point out that the numbers from that very useful link are wildly, wildly different from what the parent commenter posted: 1. The graphs appear to be showing that 29% of the Earth's land surface is "barren land", i.e. deserts, glaciers, rocky terrain, etc. In 1900, 48% of the NON barren land was forests, so 34% of the Earth's total land was forested. 2. In 2018 the percentage of forested non-barren land was down to 38%, or 27% of Earth's total land. 34% to 27% of total land area from 1900 to 2018 is a major difference from the parent commenter's assertion of "In 70 something years we went from 60% forest coverage of earth's land mass to 30%".

bmitc 4y ago

It is a really depressing reality that we have carved out. It isn't even clear to me at all what we've gained through this destruction. It also isn't clear if the Green Revolution was a net long-term benefit. You might be interested in the book Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James C. Scott. I have it sitting on my desk and have watched some talks by the author, but I haven't gotten to the book yet.

RhysU 4y ago
That is an excellent book.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Would you happen to have any links to the talks you mentioned?
- bmitc 4y ago
  Here's two I recently watched. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVwrUsib4vU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVwrUsib4vU They are a bit dry, as he is an academic through and through, but he is an academic that has spent a large amount of time in the field.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Thank you!

sorenjan 4y ago

Humans and our domesticated animals really dominate the planets resources. I wonder how long it can sustain us mistreating it like we do. "Humans and their livestock represent 96% of all mammals on earth in terms of biomass, whereas all wild mammals represent only 4%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#/media/File:Distribution-of-earths-mammals.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#/media/F... "The standing biomass of domesticated poultry, mostly chickens, has been calculated as 5 Mt C, about three times higher than the total biomass of all wild bird species combined" https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.180325 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.180...

jiggawatts 4y ago
https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/

carderne 4y ago

Please edit your post, this is very wrong. It’s more like 50% to 40%. https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests

choxi 4y ago

How does that square with this Nature paper claiming the tree coverage is increasing globally? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9

cheese_goddess 4y ago

It would look about the same: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#more-plant-based-diets-tend-to-need-less-cropland https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#more-plant-based-d... The article that I linked above looks at how much cropland we'd need to feed the entire world population if we gave up on farming animals completely. It turns out that we would end up with about the same amount of cropland, but that's only to match the current production in calories (and nothing else). Assuming the human population continued to grow, we'd have to use even more land to grow crops. There is of course a lot of pasture that could be turned back to forest, or left to turn back to forest, on its own. But not all pasture is ancient forests. I have no idea how much forest we would regain by ceasing to feed animals on pature.