• PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Everyone in here acting like farming and livestock hasn’t been the cornerstone of human population since 400k years ago…

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It hasn’t. Livestock farming started about 10,000 years ago (give or take 1000 years), although this keeps getting refined with DNA studies and I’m not sure what the consensus is. But that also doesn’t mean it’s necessary in the modern era with modern agricultural practices.

      https://www.alimentarium.org/en/fact-sheet/history-pasture-farming

      Agriculture began in fits and starts, but the first permanent farms we knew of are even newer- taro farms in New Guinea about 9000 years ago.

      Also, homo sapiens have only been around for less than 300,000 years.

      • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        10k years is longer than recorded history. That doesn’t change anything that I said.

        Thank you for the corrections though.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It doesn’t change your claim that it’s been something we’ve been doing for thousands of years, but like I said- it isn’t necessary in the modern era with modern agricultural practices.

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          What is natural? There’s animals that dig into other animals brains and eat them slowly. There’s animals that paralyze their victims and eat them slowly. There’s parasites that infect their host and force them to get eaten by controlling them and removing their fear center. There’s animals that eat their own young. There animals that only eat the young of others.

          This notion that nature isn’t cruel and unforgiving is just a fairytale.

          The amazing thing about humans is that we can actually feel compassion for others, even other species and strive to reduce their suffering as much as possible. I’m really getting tired of people being so negative all the damn time.

          Our food production needs to do better and be better but it will only do so because of us, not because we “listen to nature” or whether else people love to spew out trying to sound enlightened.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            What is natural?

            There are certain ecological balances that develop over time, as species fill individual niches and create symbiotic bonds. The capacity for the given biome to support life is predicated on a certain cyclical exchange. And when that cycle is broken, you typically see a die-off caused by the imbalances.

            This notion that nature isn’t cruel and unforgiving is just a fairytale.

            The question isn’t of cruelty but sustainability. The mouse eats the corn. The snake eats the mouse. The bird eats the snake. The parasite eats the bird. The corn eats the corpses.

            But if you go through with a weed wacker and kill all the snakes, you get population spikes on one end of the food chain and collapses on others, in a way that ultimately reduces the amount of life the area can support.

            We saw this across the American Great Plains with the extermination of buffaloes and passenger pigeons. What was once lush and bountiful became barren and inhospitable, as industrial scale destruction of natural resources rendered territory uninhabitable. Reckless industrial development produces waste faster than the natural ecological conditions can process it. And this same development siphons off the natural bounty faster than it can be replaced.

            Our food production needs to do better and be better but it will only do so because of us, not because we “listen to nature”

            If we do not understand why certain natural cycles exist or how certain minerals and molecules are naturally derived and regenerated or what energy sources are available and at what rates, we risk exhausting the existing biological landscape and destroying the capacity for a particular piece of territory to sustain new life in future generations.

            This is as simple as looking at the Great Lakes or the Ogallala Aquifer or the Mississippi River and asking “Is there going to be enough water in these places in another 100 years to maintain our productive rate of agricultural development?” And at the current rate we’re exhausting these resources, the answer is no.

            If we hadn’t brought in so many thirsty commercial scale animal and plant species or attempted to generate such large surpluses that we could export them overseas at enormous profits or raised the temperature of the Earth such that we evaporated off too much surface water, we would not be in this situation.

            trying to sound enlightened

            You don’t need to be a guru to look at the Earth and look at Mars, then say to yourself “Maybe we keep the Earth-style ecology going a little longer”.

          • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I was directly responding to the previous commenter saying that it’s natural to hunt and eat. Our current system of industrial farming of animals is inhumane for both animals and farmers. Nature might be unforgiving and metal, but we have brought the unnecessary torture of sentient animals to unholy levels.

            That’s what I meant with my comment.

              • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Making something sit in one spot in a cage for their entire life to the point where they couldn’t move even if they wanted to isn’t torture?

                Do you also think solitary confinement in prison is natural?

                • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  in torture, the pain and discomfort is the point. prison is an excellent example of torture. by contrast, I think everyone agrees that we would prefer if no pain or discomfort were part of farming animals. this is probably especially true for the people actually doing the farming and slaughtering. in this case, the pain and discomfort are only incidental. it’s not torture.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Eating meat is very much a part of nature

        Trying to explain this to the guy getting chewed on by a tiger, but he’s too busy screaming and thrashing and bleeding everywhere.

  • Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is why I get so mad when people say “we don’t have an overpopulation problem, we have a resource allocation problem”.

    No. There are not supposed to be this many fucking humans. Where the fuck are the animals supposed to live???

    We need to return to preindustrial population levels so the animals can too

    • Promethiel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      We need to return to preindustrial population levels so the animals can too.

      What exactly are you proposing?

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If you had half as many humans in the world, but they all lived in suburbs, it would be much worse for the environment than having twice as many humans but they all live in cities.

      Compare America to India. If Americans lived the way Indians do, the population would be absolutely fine. So if you want to solve overpopulation problems, stop the American style suburbs before you worry about the actual population.

      • maniii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Actual Indian here, please DO NOT live the way Indians live in India. The worst unplanned urban sprawl and urban density and squatting and squalor and slums :-(

        If you are referring to the Ancient Civilization of local produce and local distribution and local Kingdom Tithes to the Empire while living in villages and the concentrating political, commercial and military power in the major cities. Education “institutes” in deep forest with no “fees” but labor for classes. Since that type of Civilization did once exist and thrived before being wiped out by repeated invasions and conquerors. Most definitely there were social and technology issues, but the slow pace of development did not destroy the landscape.

        Medicine, Technology, Transportation, Global Trade need tempering with ecological ethical and sustainable standards of implementation, research and development.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, I’m not idolizing the actual conditions of India, just pointing out an exception to what the person above is talking about.

          My ideal society would be a solarpunk version of soviet block housing with tons of bike paths and trams and high speed intercity rail. Cars and meat would be banned, but everyone would have gigabit fiber internet and induction stovetops. Also the thermal and sonic insulation would be fantastic

          • maniii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Soviet blocks are definitely better than urban sprawl when the maintenance and facilities are top-notch.

            Taking the single issue of Transportation pollution, when India was in lockdown during covid, we had pollution-free skies, and lo-and-behold the regular rains and normal weather patterns not seen for more than 40 or 50 years returned ! Human transport pollution is the worst in India.

            One of the first things Indian/foreign companies did was force workers to mandatorily return to office locations which increases transportation pollution by the bazillions as vehicles are needed to shuttle people, materials and maintenance for everything. And all these corporations talk the big talk of how ESG they are.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It’s really amazing how much damage his loss probably did to the world.

    I can’t think of any pro-wildlife “influencers” that would be at his level today, much less wherever he would have reached in the remaining years.

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      David Attenborough’s narrations for nature docs, maybe? But that’s not really the same as watching a wildlife fanatic like Steve Irwin.

      He has a son that seems eager to follow in his footsteps, so maybe he’ll fill that void one day.

    • FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      In the anglosphere maybe, which most of Lemmy seems to represent. I come across countless legends doing the same work but without the same recognition. When Greta Thunberg, who I admire, became big I read an article about all the people around her age that have been doing the same campaigning. They were mostly indigenous people so nobody came along with a TV show for them.

      • maniii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I shudder to think that Greta is attributed to Conservation in the same breath as Steve Irwin!

        Greta should be at home and in school and preparing to live her life as an adult. If she as an adult became a climate activist and held the Top-7 or Top-10 or Top-20 corporations accountable, sure that would be commendable.

        Nothing gets done blaming others and while taking no action against the wrongdoers. yourself

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          She’s 21. she’s been an adult for a few years now. She is still a climate activist and is still holding corporations accountable and she is still commendable.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I wish I could get the joy out of picking up an animal turd that Steve Irwin had. Every time I walk the dogs.