Humans Take Out More Wild Species Than Any Other Predator on Earth, we kill, collect or otherwise use about 15,000 vertebrate species.

Humans hunt, kill or capture a massive number of species. Surprisingly, most of this is for non-food reasons.

Some people may be picky eaters, but as a species we are not. Birds, bugs, whales, snails, we’ll eat them all. Yet our reliance on wild animals goes far beyond just feeding ourselves. From agricultural feed to medicine to the pet trade, modern society exploits wild animals in a way that surpasses even the most voracious, unfussy wild predator. Now, for the first time, researchers have attempted to capture the full picture of how we use wild vertebrates, including how many, and for what purposes. The research showcases just how broad our collective influence on wild animals is.

Previously, scientists have tallied how much more biomass humans take out of the wild than other predators. But biomass is only a sliver of the total picture, and researchers wanted a fuller understanding of how human predatory behavior affects biodiversity. Analyzing data compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, researchers have now found that humans kill, collect or otherwise use about 15,000 vertebrate species. That’s about one-third of all vertebrate species on Earth, and it’s a breadth that’s up to 300 times more than the next top predator in any ecosystem.

The predators that give us the biggest run for our money, says Rob Cooke, an ecological modeler at the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology and a co-author of the study, are owls, which hunt a notably diverse array of prey. The Eurasian eagle owl, for instance, is one of the largest and most widely distributed owls in the world. Not a picky eater, this owl will hunt up to 379 different species. According to the researchers’ calculations, humans take 469 species across an equivalent geographical range.

Yet according to Chris Darimont, a conservation scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia and a co-author of the study, the biggest shock isn’t how many species we affect but why we take them. The “ta-da result,” he says, “is that we remove, or essentially prey on, more species of animals for non-food reasons than for food reasons.” And the biggest non-food use, the scientists found, is as pets and pet food. “That’s where things have gone off the rails,” he says.

There is some nuance to this broad trend. When it comes to marine and freshwater species, our main take is for human consumption. For terrestrial animals, however, it depends on what kind of animal is being targeted. Mammals are mostly taken to become people food, while birds, reptiles and amphibians are mainly trapped to live in captivity as pets. In all, almost 75 percent of the land species humans take enter the pet trade, which is almost double the number of species we take to eat.

The problem is especially acute for tropical birds, and the loss of these species can have rippling ecological consequences. The helmeted hornbill, a bird native to Southeast Asia, for example, is captured mainly for the pet trade, or for its beak to be used as medicine or to be carved like ivory. With their massive bills, these birds are one of the few species that can crack open some of the largest, hardest nuts in the forests where they live. Their disappearance limits seed dispersal and the spread of trees around the forest.

Another big difference between humans’ influence on wild animals and that of other predators is that we tend to favor rare and exotic species in a way other animals do not. Most predators target common species, since they are easier to find and catch. Humans, however, tend to covet the novel. “The more rare it is,” says Cooke, “the more that drives up the price, and therefore it can spiral and go into this extinction vortex.”

That humans target the largest and flashiest animals, Cooke says, threatens not only their unique biological diversity and beauty, but also the roles they play in their ecosystems. Of the species humans prey on, almost 40 percent are threatened. The researchers suggest industrialized societies can look to Indigenous stewardship models for ways to more sustainably manage and live with wildlife.

Andrea Reid, a citizen of the Nisg̱a’a Nation and an Indigenous fisheries scientist at the University of British Columbia, notes that people have been fishing for millennia. “But the choices that shape industrial fishing,” she says, like how people consume fish that were caught far away from their own homes, “are what contribute to these observed high levels of impact on fish species.”

If we want wild species—fish and beyond—to survive, Reid says, we need to reframe our relationship with them, perhaps from predator to steward.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humans-take-more-wild-species-than-any-other-predator-on-earth-180982478/

Yeah, we get it. Humans are bad and the world population should be culled down to under a billion to save the rest of the planet.

Only thing is we have a taboo on killing other humans on such a large scale. Historical mass killers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao etc are not exactly idolised around the world.

party_pants said:

Yeah, we get it. Humans are bad and the world population should be culled down to under a billion to save the rest of the planet.

Only thing is we have a taboo on killing other humans on such a large scale. Historical mass killers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao etc are not exactly idolised around the world.

Maybe not around the world.

There’s certainly parts of India, and South America, where Hitler is held to have been a basically well-intentioned chap, who was perhaps a bit premature and hasty in trying to achieve some of his long-held ambitions.

party_pants said:

Yeah, we get it. Humans are bad and the world population should be culled down to under a billion to save the rest of the planet.

Only thing is we have a taboo on killing other humans on such a large scale. Historical mass killers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao etc are not exactly idolised around the world.

It is attitudes like yours that belittles the huge problems that we face, but why worry when you are sitting pretty.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Yeah, we get it. Humans are bad and the world population should be culled down to under a billion to save the rest of the planet.

Only thing is we have a taboo on killing other humans on such a large scale. Historical mass killers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao etc are not exactly idolised around the world.

It is attitudes like yours that belittles the huge problems that we face, but why worry when you are sitting pretty.

We’re all sitting pretty posting from our comfortable homes on our high speed internet on the latest devices. As I suggested yesterday we could all turn vegan, ditch everything but public transport, enforce only city living and return most of the world to reforestation but that might all be a little too difficult for even the best of us.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Yeah, we get it. Humans are bad and the world population should be culled down to under a billion to save the rest of the planet.

Only thing is we have a taboo on killing other humans on such a large scale. Historical mass killers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao etc are not exactly idolised around the world.

It is attitudes like yours that belittles the huge problems that we face, but why worry when you are sitting pretty.

We’re all sitting pretty posting from our comfortable homes on our high speed internet on the latest devices. As I suggested yesterday we could all turn vegan, ditch everything but public transport, enforce only city living and return most of the world to reforestation but that might all be a little too difficult for even the best of us.

Well, what you say is what I have been inferring. If we want to get out of our environmental problems, we have to change our attitudes drastically which as you rightly suggest is unlikely to happen due to our reluctance to give up on things we hold most dear. If you and others what to follow on with your attitudes and letting everything going to the devil, then I can’t do much about it.

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

I do think that most business-travel is unnecessary these days.

dv said:

I do think that most business-travel is unnecessary these days.

Except if is by electric trains powered by renewables :)

… but even then you’d have to bulldoze a route through some forests somewhere to lay down the tracks.

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

>…………Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.”

is that really the case, poor people have the greater negative impact, or is it a twisted projection, an expression of superiority

transition said:

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

>…………Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.”

is that really the case, poor people have the greater negative impact, or is it a twisted projection, an expression of superiority

That is not necessarily what I was saying. I am saying that there is some irony in only the rich developed nations having time to care about the environment when their lifestyles are big contributors to the problem. Rich nations (apart from the UK) tend to have cleaner and more protected environments than some busted arse shithole country in Africa or Asia.

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception, also to stop paying subsidies to those who wish to have children. If they want them, then they should pay most of the costs themselves. Reducing human population should be the easiest to do and at relatively small cost.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception, also to stop paying subsidies to those who wish to have children. If they want them, then they should pay most of the costs themselves. Reducing human population should be the easiest to do and at relatively small cost.

Fair enough. I can agree with that.

transition said:

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

>…………Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.”

is that really the case, poor people have the greater negative impact, or is it a twisted projection, an expression of superiority

These poor people with few exceptions want to be rich too, they want more, just like us. They only use fewer resources because they cannot afford to purchase more. The only solution is to reduce their population numbers as well.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception, also to stop paying subsidies to those who wish to have children. If they want them, then they should pay most of the costs themselves. Reducing human population should be the easiest to do and at relatively small cost.

Fair enough. I can agree with that.

Pleased to hear that, now all you have to do is change the attitude of money-hungry big business and politicians who want to look good by producing higher growth figures. Plus, most others who have been told life will be better when there are more people, because logically it cannot.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception, also to stop paying subsidies to those who wish to have children. If they want them, then they should pay most of the costs themselves. Reducing human population should be the easiest to do and at relatively small cost.

At as you say small cost but is it not already too late? By the time population falls in 50 years or so we will already have missed our chance to limit rising temperature to 1.5°.

We have made our bed already and pretty much the only way to limit damage is to spend our way towards net-zero by embracing new technologies and dare I say it using market forces to encourage consumption and investment that is environmentally friendly. A hefty global consumption tax on meat would be a good start.

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception

—

FUCK OFF!

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception, also to stop paying subsidies to those who wish to have children. If they want them, then they should pay most of the costs themselves. Reducing human population should be the easiest to do and at relatively small cost.

At as you say small cost but is it not already too late? By the time population falls in 50 years or so we will already have missed our chance to limit rising temperature to 1.5°.

We have made our bed already and pretty much the only way to limit damage is to spend our way towards net-zero by embracing new technologies and dare I say it using market forces to encourage consumption and investment that is environmentally friendly. A hefty global consumption tax on meat would be a good start.

It is accepted by most that the 1.5C will not be a holding temperature as it will sail right passed that to what many think will be over 2.5C and 2.7C by 2050. We are slipping into a series of tipping points where we start to lose control and unless we can extract co2 from the atmosphere to reverse the heating trend, then where we end up is anybody’s guess.

Reducing the human population is a very hard one, but we must make a serious start and hope that something will turn up very soon to aid it on its way. With higher temperatures, droughts and difficulties growing food, anything can happen.

Ian said:

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception

—

FUCK OFF!

I take it you don’t agree, well who cares, only things are going to change whether you like them or not, and it may not be our decision to make.

There are many (probably most) women in undeveloped countries who would like to have fewer children but lack the means to effectively do so. The same applies to Catholic countries where effective means are denied them. These generally have the fastest growing populations.

PermeateFree said:

Pleased to hear that, now all you have to do is change the attitude of money-hungry big business and politicians who want to look good by producing higher growth figures. Plus, most others who have been told life will be better when there are more people, because logically it cannot.

I’m an atheist, miracles are not really my area of expertise.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Pleased to hear that, now all you have to do is change the attitude of money-hungry big business and politicians who want to look good by producing higher growth figures. Plus, most others who have been told life will be better when there are more people, because logically it cannot.

I’m an atheist, miracles are not really my area of expertise.

Me neither, sad to see the greedy and self-serving win against such an outstanding cause.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception, also to stop paying subsidies to those who wish to have children. If they want them, then they should pay most of the costs themselves. Reducing human population should be the easiest to do and at relatively small cost.

At as you say small cost but is it not already too late? By the time population falls in 50 years or so we will already have missed our chance to limit rising temperature to 1.5°.

We have made our bed already and pretty much the only way to limit damage is to spend our way towards net-zero by embracing new technologies and dare I say it using market forces to encourage consumption and investment that is environmentally friendly. A hefty global consumption tax on meat would be a good start.

It is accepted by most that the 1.5C will not be a holding temperature as it will sail right passed that to what many think will be over 2.5C and 2.7C by 2050. We are slipping into a series of tipping points where we start to lose control and unless we can extract co2 from the atmosphere to reverse the heating trend, then where we end up is anybody’s guess.

Reducing the human population is a very hard one, but we must make a serious start and hope that something will turn up very soon to aid it on its way. With higher temperatures, droughts and difficulties growing food, anything can happen.

Correction:
Not 2.7C by 2050, but by the end of the century.

PermeateFree said:

Ian said:

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception

—

FUCK OFF!

I take it you don’t agree, well who cares, only things are going to change whether you like them or not, and it may not be our decision to make.

Twas a pun

Ian said:

PermeateFree said:

Ian said:

As you rightly point out, it is our high population that is the root-cause of most of our problems. And as you say to make everyone rich, it would only increase our demand for resources, therefore we should be doing everything we can to quickly reduce our numbers. The only humane way to do this is to supply everyone in the world with free contraception

—

FUCK OFF!

I take it you don’t agree, well who cares, only things are going to change whether you like them or not, and it may not be our decision to make.

Twas a pun

Yes get it now. The mind was not in a jovial mood at the time.

party_pants said:

transition said:

party_pants said:

Absolutely everything we humans do has an environmental impact. Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.

The logical answer is to make all the poor nations rich, so people will have the “luxury” (not the right word but I can’ think of a better one) of devoting time and resources to the environment. But that means consuming vast amounts of additional resources, which all have to come at great cost to the environment.

The best we can is to minimise the impact we have on the environment in our opulent lifestyles. Cut down on iwaste and unnecessary impacts. But there is still going to be a cost to the environment somewhere, it is unavoidable. Even for example switching from fishing to fish farming in order to protect wild fish populations and ecosystems is going to come at some cost. Environmentalists hate fish farms with a passion because of all the poo it creates.

If you take a fundamentalist approach to the environment then the only solution is to have less humans alive and consuming. Humans are the enemy to the fundamentalist.

>…………Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.”

is that really the case, poor people have the greater negative impact, or is it a twisted projection, an expression of superiority

That is not necessarily what I was saying. I am saying that there is some irony in only the rich developed nations having time to care about the environment when their lifestyles are big contributors to the problem. Rich nations (apart from the UK) tend to have cleaner and more protected environments than some busted arse shithole country in Africa or Asia.

In fairness the Europeans already chopped down most of their trees and exterminated most of the large animals…

dv said:

party_pants said:

transition said:

>…………Most of the people in this world are poor and struggle every day to keep themselves going. They don’t have time to worry about the environment. The great irony is that it is only in the rich developed nations where the environment gets consideration.”

is that really the case, poor people have the greater negative impact, or is it a twisted projection, an expression of superiority

That is not necessarily what I was saying. I am saying that there is some irony in only the rich developed nations having time to care about the environment when their lifestyles are big contributors to the problem. Rich nations (apart from the UK) tend to have cleaner and more protected environments than some busted arse shithole country in Africa or Asia.

In fairness the Europeans already chopped down most of their trees and exterminated most of the large animals…

Yeah, by medieval times.

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

Cymek said:

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

If there was a purpose to life surely this could be it?

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

If there was a purpose to life surely this could be it?

High up on the list anyway if not the top

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

If there was a purpose to life surely this could be it?

High up on the list anyway if not the top

Trouble is, getting the rest of the world to see it and choose it.

Cymek said:

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

The reason we did it was our “take it if we want it” attitude regardless. Long surviving Indigenous people’s attitude was for the health and welfare of their country and consequently the outcome was very different.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

The reason we did it was our “take it if we want it” attitude regardless. Long surviving Indigenous people’s attitude was for the health and welfare of their country and consequently the outcome was very different.

Indeed it was.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

The reason we did it was our “take it if we want it” attitude regardless. Long surviving Indigenous people’s attitude was for the health and welfare of their country and consequently the outcome was very different.

Yes I was just hypothesising its not humanity that is an exception to being self destructive but some sort of universal constant built into the fabric of reality and all “intelligent tool users” end up this way without a huge effort to change their way. Perhaps even ones own extinction so the rest of the planet can heal and survive.
Personally I think perhaps we can only change so much as our behaviour has evolved for survival at all costs including our long term existence. We’d need to breed/engineer our this aggressiveness.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Hypothetical question obviously

Lets say humanity discovers a big old galactic community out there in space and the way we act, exploitation of our world is the norm and most intelligent species do it.
Should we still set an example and try to change, extermination of most life on Earth would still be shameful though wouldn’t it

The reason we did it was our “take it if we want it” attitude regardless. Long surviving Indigenous people’s attitude was for the health and welfare of their country and consequently the outcome was very different.

Yes I was just hypothesising its not humanity that is an exception to being self destructive but some sort of universal constant built into the fabric of reality and all “intelligent tool users” end up this way without a huge effort to change their way. Perhaps even ones own extinction so the rest of the planet can heal and survive.
Personally I think perhaps we can only change so much as our behaviour has evolved for survival at all costs including our long term existence. We’d need to breed/engineer our this aggressiveness.

Most of nature can withstand a certain amount of predation, the problems usually begin with an over-population of the top predator and the over-predation and destruction of the ecosystem. Apart from a few indigenous peoples, who control their numbers by accident or design, they eventually destroy their environment, or is impacted by things such as climate change, that it no longer remains viable and the predator either moves elsewhere or dies out.

This inability to control our numbers and not being able to supply its growing needs has nearly always caused massive problems and caused the downfall of many societies when conflicts arise from other groups wanting more space and resources for themselves. Even hunter/gatherers would have had this problem as they slowly grew their population and the ability to just move over the hill to exploit new hunting grounds could no longer take place, as it was already occupied by another group of hunter/gatherers.

I suspect the continual growth of hunter/gatherers became so dense and difficult to maintain that they were forced into farming to maintain their growing populations. This desire for continual growth and need for new land has in one way or another largely caused the numerous wars since farming practices with their even larger populations began. We are now at a stage when the size of our population is so large and our demands so big that nature can no longer support it and is beginning to fall apart.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

The reason we did it was our “take it if we want it” attitude regardless. Long surviving Indigenous people’s attitude was for the health and welfare of their country and consequently the outcome was very different.

Yes I was just hypothesising its not humanity that is an exception to being self destructive but some sort of universal constant built into the fabric of reality and all “intelligent tool users” end up this way without a huge effort to change their way. Perhaps even ones own extinction so the rest of the planet can heal and survive.
Personally I think perhaps we can only change so much as our behaviour has evolved for survival at all costs including our long term existence. We’d need to breed/engineer our this aggressiveness.

Most of nature can withstand a certain amount of predation, the problems usually begin with an over-population of the top predator and the over-predation and destruction of the ecosystem. Apart from a few indigenous peoples, who control their numbers by accident or design, they eventually destroy their environment, or is impacted by things such as climate change, that it no longer remains viable and the predator either moves elsewhere or dies out.

This inability to control our numbers and not being able to supply its growing needs has nearly always caused massive problems and caused the downfall of many societies when conflicts arise from other groups wanting more space and resources for themselves. Even hunter/gatherers would have had this problem as they slowly grew their population and the ability to just move over the hill to exploit new hunting grounds could no longer take place, as it was already occupied by another group of hunter/gatherers.

I suspect the continual growth of hunter/gatherers became so dense and difficult to maintain that they were forced into farming to maintain their growing populations. This desire for continual growth and need for new land has in one way or another largely caused the numerous wars since farming practices with their even larger populations began. We are now at a stage when the size of our population is so large and our demands so big that nature can no longer support it and is beginning to fall apart.

Yes this could be the hardest stage of the Fermi paradox all civilisations go through and come out the other end intact.
We could survive but be poorer off for it, as life on Earth is lacking

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Yes I was just hypothesising its not humanity that is an exception to being self destructive but some sort of universal constant built into the fabric of reality and all “intelligent tool users” end up this way without a huge effort to change their way. Perhaps even ones own extinction so the rest of the planet can heal and survive.
Personally I think perhaps we can only change so much as our behaviour has evolved for survival at all costs including our long term existence. We’d need to breed/engineer our this aggressiveness.

Most of nature can withstand a certain amount of predation, the problems usually begin with an over-population of the top predator and the over-predation and destruction of the ecosystem. Apart from a few indigenous peoples, who control their numbers by accident or design, they eventually destroy their environment, or is impacted by things such as climate change, that it no longer remains viable and the predator either moves elsewhere or dies out.

This inability to control our numbers and not being able to supply its growing needs has nearly always caused massive problems and caused the downfall of many societies when conflicts arise from other groups wanting more space and resources for themselves. Even hunter/gatherers would have had this problem as they slowly grew their population and the ability to just move over the hill to exploit new hunting grounds could no longer take place, as it was already occupied by another group of hunter/gatherers.

I suspect the continual growth of hunter/gatherers became so dense and difficult to maintain that they were forced into farming to maintain their growing populations. This desire for continual growth and need for new land has in one way or another largely caused the numerous wars since farming practices with their even larger populations began. We are now at a stage when the size of our population is so large and our demands so big that nature can no longer support it and is beginning to fall apart.

Yes this could be the hardest stage of the Fermi paradox all civilisations go through and come out the other end intact.
We could survive but be poorer off for it, as life on Earth is lacking

I don’t think so, but never mind.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Most of nature can withstand a certain amount of predation, the problems usually begin with an over-population of the top predator and the over-predation and destruction of the ecosystem. Apart from a few indigenous peoples, who control their numbers by accident or design, they eventually destroy their environment, or is impacted by things such as climate change, that it no longer remains viable and the predator either moves elsewhere or dies out.

This inability to control our numbers and not being able to supply its growing needs has nearly always caused massive problems and caused the downfall of many societies when conflicts arise from other groups wanting more space and resources for themselves. Even hunter/gatherers would have had this problem as they slowly grew their population and the ability to just move over the hill to exploit new hunting grounds could no longer take place, as it was already occupied by another group of hunter/gatherers.

I suspect the continual growth of hunter/gatherers became so dense and difficult to maintain that they were forced into farming to maintain their growing populations. This desire for continual growth and need for new land has in one way or another largely caused the numerous wars since farming practices with their even larger populations began. We are now at a stage when the size of our population is so large and our demands so big that nature can no longer support it and is beginning to fall apart.

Yes this could be the hardest stage of the Fermi paradox all civilisations go through and come out the other end intact.
We could survive but be poorer off for it, as life on Earth is lacking

I don’t think so, but never mind.

“For First Nations people around the world, land has been stolen,” Lui said.

“And the idea of the poor, plucky farmer — and when I think of a white American poor, plucky farmer, it’s a white guy in some overalls with straw.

“In Australia, I think of an Akubra.”

Lui said that image is a smoke screen because family farms are essentially stolen land that’s being handed down throughout the generations.

“They’re actually massive corporations, these ‘family businesses’, and I say that in quotations,” she said.

“So, I think that image, that myth is really there to disguise the impact of colonisation. To hide it. Not justify it, to completely hide it because land was stolen.

“And then land was farmed using slaves. And that’s the story around the world. It’s the story in Australia as well.”

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Yes this could be the hardest stage of the Fermi paradox all civilisations go through and come out the other end intact.
We could survive but be poorer off for it, as life on Earth is lacking

I don’t think so, but never mind.

“For First Nations people around the world, land has been stolen,” Lui said.

“And the idea of the poor, plucky farmer — and when I think of a white American poor, plucky farmer, it’s a white guy in some overalls with straw.

“In Australia, I think of an Akubra.”

Lui said that image is a smoke screen because family farms are essentially stolen land that’s being handed down throughout the generations.

“They’re actually massive corporations, these ‘family businesses’, and I say that in quotations,” she said.

“So, I think that image, that myth is really there to disguise the impact of colonisation. To hide it. Not justify it, to completely hide it because land was stolen.

“And then land was farmed using slaves. And that’s the story around the world. It’s the story in Australia as well.”

Just about everywhere and when land has been a commodity to be bought and sold, its should be a basic human right to have somewhere to call home that you don’t have to pay for.
It’s seen as normal to pay a large sum of money for a vastly overvalued piece of land so you can build a home on it.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t think so, but never mind.

“For First Nations people around the world, land has been stolen,” Lui said.

“And the idea of the poor, plucky farmer — and when I think of a white American poor, plucky farmer, it’s a white guy in some overalls with straw.

“In Australia, I think of an Akubra.”

Lui said that image is a smoke screen because family farms are essentially stolen land that’s being handed down throughout the generations.

“They’re actually massive corporations, these ‘family businesses’, and I say that in quotations,” she said.

“So, I think that image, that myth is really there to disguise the impact of colonisation. To hide it. Not justify it, to completely hide it because land was stolen.

“And then land was farmed using slaves. And that’s the story around the world. It’s the story in Australia as well.”

Just about everywhere and when land has been a commodity to be bought and sold, its should be a basic human right to have somewhere to call home that you don’t have to pay for.
It’s seen as normal to pay a large sum of money for a vastly overvalued piece of land so you can build a home on it.

I’m afraid we have fallen foul of those who call themselves developers.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t think so, but never mind.

“For First Nations people around the world, land has been stolen,” Lui said.

“And the idea of the poor, plucky farmer — and when I think of a white American poor, plucky farmer, it’s a white guy in some overalls with straw.

“In Australia, I think of an Akubra.”

Lui said that image is a smoke screen because family farms are essentially stolen land that’s being handed down throughout the generations.

“They’re actually massive corporations, these ‘family businesses’, and I say that in quotations,” she said.

“So, I think that image, that myth is really there to disguise the impact of colonisation. To hide it. Not justify it, to completely hide it because land was stolen.

“And then land was farmed using slaves. And that’s the story around the world. It’s the story in Australia as well.”

Just about everywhere and when land has been a commodity to be bought and sold, its should be a basic human right to have somewhere to call home that you don’t have to pay for.
It’s seen as normal to pay a large sum of money for a vastly overvalued piece of land so you can build a home on it.

You make it sound like people don’t have a choice.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Yes this could be the hardest stage of the Fermi paradox all civilisations go through and come out the other end intact.
We could survive but be poorer off for it, as life on Earth is lacking

I don’t think so, but never mind.

“For First Nations people around the world, land has been stolen,” Lui said.

“And the idea of the poor, plucky farmer — and when I think of a white American poor, plucky farmer, it’s a white guy in some overalls with straw.

“In Australia, I think of an Akubra.”

Lui said that image is a smoke screen because family farms are essentially stolen land that’s being handed down throughout the generations.

“They’re actually massive corporations, these ‘family businesses’, and I say that in quotations,” she said.

“So, I think that image, that myth is really there to disguise the impact of colonisation. To hide it. Not justify it, to completely hide it because land was stolen.

“And then land was farmed using slaves. And that’s the story around the world. It’s the story in Australia as well.”

That was certainly the case in Australia, but even here there were part with abnormally high Aboriginal populations like parts of the Murray River where food was more readily available. However, imagine those high populations in other parts of Australia it would simply not work due to its fickle food availability. Now if you take other parts of the world where the climate was more reliable and hunter/gatherers increased in numbers until game became scarce thereby making a living increasingly difficult, in such conditions any change that offered relief would be eagerly grasped and so permanent settlement and agriculture would have had a welcome acceptance.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

“For First Nations people around the world, land has been stolen,” Lui said.

“And the idea of the poor, plucky farmer — and when I think of a white American poor, plucky farmer, it’s a white guy in some overalls with straw.

“In Australia, I think of an Akubra.”

Lui said that image is a smoke screen because family farms are essentially stolen land that’s being handed down throughout the generations.

“They’re actually massive corporations, these ‘family businesses’, and I say that in quotations,” she said.

“So, I think that image, that myth is really there to disguise the impact of colonisation. To hide it. Not justify it, to completely hide it because land was stolen.

“And then land was farmed using slaves. And that’s the story around the world. It’s the story in Australia as well.”

Just about everywhere and when land has been a commodity to be bought and sold, its should be a basic human right to have somewhere to call home that you don’t have to pay for.
It’s seen as normal to pay a large sum of money for a vastly overvalued piece of land so you can build a home on it.

You make it sound like people don’t have a choice.

Not much of a choice. NO.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Just about everywhere and when land has been a commodity to be bought and sold, its should be a basic human right to have somewhere to call home that you don’t have to pay for.
It’s seen as normal to pay a large sum of money for a vastly overvalued piece of land so you can build a home on it.

You make it sound like people don’t have a choice.

Not much of a choice. NO.

Peer group pressure?

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You make it sound like people don’t have a choice.

Not much of a choice. NO.

Peer group pressure?

Can’t afford to pay and there aren’t enough houses. About 15,000 Australians sleep homeless and around 29% of them have jobs. Which means that they have to get up get off the footpath, drag a comb a cross their heads and get to work each day and often have to find a new sleeping place each night.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Not much of a choice. NO.

Peer group pressure?

Can’t afford to pay and there aren’t enough houses. About 15,000 Australians sleep homeless and around 29% of them have jobs. Which means that they have to get up get off the footpath, drag a comb a cross their heads and get to work each day and often have to find a new sleeping place each night.

That’s a separate issue to whether people feel forced to purchase houses beyond their means.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Peer group pressure?

Can’t afford to pay and there aren’t enough houses. About 15,000 Australians sleep homeless and around 29% of them have jobs. Which means that they have to get up get off the footpath, drag a comb a cross their heads and get to work each day and often have to find a new sleeping place each night.

That’s a separate issue to whether people feel forced to purchase houses beyond their means.

True but we are doing everything beyond our means so again it is all a part of where we are at.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Can’t afford to pay and there aren’t enough houses. About 15,000 Australians sleep homeless and around 29% of them have jobs. Which means that they have to get up get off the footpath, drag a comb a cross their heads and get to work each day and often have to find a new sleeping place each night.

That’s a separate issue to whether people feel forced to purchase houses beyond their means.

True but we are doing everything beyond our means so again it is all a part of where we are at.

Stop bringing in more people – it drives up the cost of living

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described the head of NATO as a “friend” of Australia’s while trying to distance himself from former prime minister Paul Keating who labelled the secretary-general a “complete fool”.

wookiemeister said:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described the head of NATO as a “friend” of Australia’s while trying to distance himself from former prime minister Paul Keating who labelled the secretary-general a “complete fool”.

didn’t keating man handle the queen and didn’t his mrs refuse to curtsey for the queen?

monkey skipper said:

wookiemeister said:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described the head of NATO as a “friend” of Australia’s while trying to distance himself from former prime minister Paul Keating who labelled the secretary-general a “complete fool”.

didn’t keating man handle the queen and didn’t his mrs refuse to curtsey for the queen?

curtseying and bowing to the royals is not required. you can still do it if you feel like it.

ChrispenEvan said:

monkey skipper said:

wookiemeister said:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described the head of NATO as a “friend” of Australia’s while trying to distance himself from former prime minister Paul Keating who labelled the secretary-general a “complete fool”.

didn’t keating man handle the queen and didn’t his mrs refuse to curtsey for the queen?

curtseying and bowing to the royals is not required. you can still do it if you feel like it.

it did send a message tho

monkey skipper said:

wookiemeister said:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described the head of NATO as a “friend” of Australia’s while trying to distance himself from former prime minister Paul Keating who labelled the secretary-general a “complete fool”.

didn’t keating man handle the queen and didn’t his mrs refuse to curtsey for the queen?

That is fairly minor compared to being a Russian and Chinese shill, and saying that those countries should be free to do as they like (even harm the collective West) because they are nuclear armed. It really leads down the road of undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty if everyone takes up that point of view: i.e. if you are a nuclear power you get to do as you like. Everyone would end up doing going nuclear and doing as they like. Not a great place for the world to be in.

Anyway as yous know we have no friends but that doesn’t mean we can’t understand that it’s possible for someone to be a complete fool and still be considered a friend.