11 ms·

Why is human fecal matter worse for the environment than animal fecal matter? Something in our diets?

andy99 1y ago
I'd guess it worse for us because it's a vector for disease. (And grosser to see for related evolutionary reasons). There's probably a greater volume in heavily trafficked places vs similar predators. Otherwise doubtful that pound for pound it's actually worse for "nature".
- stefantalpalaru 1y ago
  [dead]
SR2Z 1y ago
We are apex predators, and our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain. The other extreme would be an animal like a cow, which shits basically smellier grass. That's basically it. A human being that's only eaten plants has much less devastating poops.
- dmurray 1y ago
  I don't think this last conclusion is true. It's really about harmful bacteria, not "toxins". Even vegetarians have a complex digestive system that can harbour pathogens. Perhaps their faeces are safer to use as manure than those from a meat-eating human, but much closer to that than to a cow.
  - SR2Z 1y ago
    I have heard that it's unusually nutrient rich - maybe not toxins, but human shit definitely causes algal blooms.
    - leksak 1y ago
      And human urine
    - raxxorraxor 1y ago
      Wouldn't be the first time humans tried to use human manure as fertilizer. It always ended quite shitty (for humans).
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      Dumping ANY manure into a body of water causes algal blooms. Fecal matter concentrates nutrients. This has happened with modern megafarms, when flooding overflows their manure pits.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  It is far from a certain that we are apex predators since we can survive on a largely herbivore diet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator#Human_trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator#Human_trophic_le... And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen.
  - sieabahlpark 1y ago
    [dead]
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen. I’m not who you’re asking, but I can only assume that they refer to the observed phenomenon of bioaccumulation, which was factor in the unexpected harms of pesticides such as DDT on bird populations. That said, I don’t know of any risks to wildlife or the environment from bioaccumulated toxins solely due to human waste. If I am reaching and wildly guessing, I suppose folks who eat a lot of fish might pass more mercury in their waste? From what I understood, most toxins like that are processed by the liver and don’t get flushed out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation
vbezhenar 1y ago
I think that the main reason is that human population is unusually huge, humans live in the huge dense groups. So there's just too many fecals and environment struggles to process them. Just to compare: there's an estimation that there are around 300 000 gorillas in the entire world. There are over 20 000 humans for every gorilla. Though I think that "environment" is too vague. Planet doesn't care. Some bacteria probably would think that it's pretty nice environment. It's more about human waste making environment bad for humans themselves. There are just too many of us, so we need artificial ways to produce food, artificial ways to protect from cold and heat. And also artificial ways to safely dispose of our waste.
- gyomu 1y ago
  Yes, this is a key thing to clarify anytime these conversations take place. The reason we want to preserve the environment, biodiversity, all that jazz is FOR US. It’s for our own comfort and survival that we should care about not polluting, stopping climate change, etc. The planet and life on it will be just fine, it made it through many extinction events and will make it through many more.
  - beng-nl 1y ago
    Wow, that is very insightful - all these years hearing and thinking about environment problems and I’d never looked at it that way. But everyone should look at it that way.
    - globular-toast 1y ago
      It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring. You have to remember many people can't even make decision that will benefit themselves even a few short hours later (see delayed gratification).
      - rendx 1y ago
        > It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring. Ha. I actually think it's going to make people potentially care even less? "Why would I need to preserve anything if nature and life is going to be fine no matter what?" Some even argue to better speed it up, so we don't destroy too many other species in our own downfall.
jofer 1y ago
In addition to disease, a key issue in many climates is toilet paper. Your average deer isn't leaving around white paper that takes a decade (in dry climates) to go away. That's a non issue in wet areas, but a large one in deserts and more arid regions.
verisimi 1y ago
I don't think it is particularly. I personally wonder why all that matter could not be managed by small systems that would process the solid waste into usable compost. Given enough time, waste would break down to pretty inert plant food. This must have been the common practise historically too.
- bawolff 1y ago
  Historically it was also common practise to die from diseases spread through fecal matter. Or if not death, bad outcomes like hookworms, which were common in the american south and literally caused people to be stupid. They mostly went away when people stopped pooping in the woods. Of course, it is all a matter of concentration.
  - notmyjob 1y ago
    This was part of the justification for the southern sodomy laws.
theshrike79 1y ago
If one person poops in the river, it's most likely fine. If 1000 people poop in the river, it's contaminated for everyone downstream.
thefz 1y ago
You can be infected by what infected another human. Cross species contamination is less likely.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Also what is left is what survives our digestive system. Or is adapted in it, but can thrive in wrong part.

I'd guess it worse for us because it's a vector for disease. (And grosser to see for related evolutionary reasons). There's probably a greater volume in heavily trafficked places vs similar predators. Otherwise doubtful that pound for pound it's actually worse for "nature".

stefantalpalaru 1y ago
[dead]

SR2Z 1y ago

We are apex predators, and our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain. The other extreme would be an animal like a cow, which shits basically smellier grass. That's basically it. A human being that's only eaten plants has much less devastating poops.

dmurray 1y ago
I don't think this last conclusion is true. It's really about harmful bacteria, not "toxins". Even vegetarians have a complex digestive system that can harbour pathogens. Perhaps their faeces are safer to use as manure than those from a meat-eating human, but much closer to that than to a cow.
- SR2Z 1y ago
  I have heard that it's unusually nutrient rich - maybe not toxins, but human shit definitely causes algal blooms.
  - leksak 1y ago
    And human urine
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    Wouldn't be the first time humans tried to use human manure as fertilizer. It always ended quite shitty (for humans).
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Dumping ANY manure into a body of water causes algal blooms. Fecal matter concentrates nutrients. This has happened with modern megafarms, when flooding overflows their manure pits.
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
It is far from a certain that we are apex predators since we can survive on a largely herbivore diet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator#Human_trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator#Human_trophic_le... And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen.
- sieabahlpark 1y ago
  [dead]
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen. I’m not who you’re asking, but I can only assume that they refer to the observed phenomenon of bioaccumulation, which was factor in the unexpected harms of pesticides such as DDT on bird populations. That said, I don’t know of any risks to wildlife or the environment from bioaccumulated toxins solely due to human waste. If I am reaching and wildly guessing, I suppose folks who eat a lot of fish might pass more mercury in their waste? From what I understood, most toxins like that are processed by the liver and don’t get flushed out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation

vbezhenar 1y ago

I think that the main reason is that human population is unusually huge, humans live in the huge dense groups. So there's just too many fecals and environment struggles to process them. Just to compare: there's an estimation that there are around 300 000 gorillas in the entire world. There are over 20 000 humans for every gorilla. Though I think that "environment" is too vague. Planet doesn't care. Some bacteria probably would think that it's pretty nice environment. It's more about human waste making environment bad for humans themselves. There are just too many of us, so we need artificial ways to produce food, artificial ways to protect from cold and heat. And also artificial ways to safely dispose of our waste.

gyomu 1y ago
Yes, this is a key thing to clarify anytime these conversations take place. The reason we want to preserve the environment, biodiversity, all that jazz is FOR US. It’s for our own comfort and survival that we should care about not polluting, stopping climate change, etc. The planet and life on it will be just fine, it made it through many extinction events and will make it through many more.
- beng-nl 1y ago
  Wow, that is very insightful - all these years hearing and thinking about environment problems and I’d never looked at it that way. But everyone should look at it that way.
  - globular-toast 1y ago
    It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring. You have to remember many people can't even make decision that will benefit themselves even a few short hours later (see delayed gratification).
    - rendx 1y ago
      > It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring. Ha. I actually think it's going to make people potentially care even less? "Why would I need to preserve anything if nature and life is going to be fine no matter what?" Some even argue to better speed it up, so we don't destroy too many other species in our own downfall.

jofer 1y ago

In addition to disease, a key issue in many climates is toilet paper. Your average deer isn't leaving around white paper that takes a decade (in dry climates) to go away. That's a non issue in wet areas, but a large one in deserts and more arid regions.

verisimi 1y ago

I don't think it is particularly. I personally wonder why all that matter could not be managed by small systems that would process the solid waste into usable compost. Given enough time, waste would break down to pretty inert plant food. This must have been the common practise historically too.

bawolff 1y ago
Historically it was also common practise to die from diseases spread through fecal matter. Or if not death, bad outcomes like hookworms, which were common in the american south and literally caused people to be stupid. They mostly went away when people stopped pooping in the woods. Of course, it is all a matter of concentration.
- notmyjob 1y ago
  This was part of the justification for the southern sodomy laws.

theshrike79 1y ago

If one person poops in the river, it's most likely fine. If 1000 people poop in the river, it's contaminated for everyone downstream.

thefz 1y ago

You can be infected by what infected another human. Cross species contamination is less likely.

Ekaros 1y ago
Also what is left is what survives our digestive system. Or is adapted in it, but can thrive in wrong part.