UKH

I'm part way through the "Extinction" documentary, and the main conclusion is that we are screwed, together with the adjunct idea, that I want to torture the people who work in the live animal markets in Asia and China, in the same way that they maltreat the animals under their vile control.

This is what you want.

This is what you get.

Actually I neither want maltreatment of animals, nor do I want the rape of the land by developers across the world.

I agree with your initial observation.

So the rest of you are unaffected by the poor prognosis for us all?

Had to stop watching.  Don’t currently feel up to dealing with the level of despair it was inducing.

I felt similarly. Yet we have to face it and try to change the ways of the world, including other powers that seem to be in denial about their illogical practices.

Are you a vegan? 

No. I'm an omnivore, but I do eat quite a lot of home-made vegan meals, and I do have a fair number of vegan meals in the freezer. After that program, I wonder about eating fish, although I mainly eat farmed salmon on that score. (Yes I know that there can be issues with farmed salmon). I also have not eaten beef since 1988.

What are your nutritional requirements?

Like sealwife I wasn't up to watching it. I've seen it all before, and the world won't do a thing to stop it.

TBH I don't watch wildlife films anymore, because I know that in the end, and quite possibly in my lifetime, much of the beauty being filmed will be gone forever.

The only thing that will protect species other than humans is something far more infectious and deadly than Covid 19.

Like others I didn't feel I could watch the program.  It would probably have affected me for a week. 

There's a lot on twitter about farmed salmon at the moment. A couple of days following an e-diary from someone who lives local to a farm was enough to stop me buying it ever again. 

My take on humanity in my darker moments:

youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M&

(Not really, but I do think the extinction of humanity wouldn't be a bad thing for the planet).

Sadly it is more than that which will happen. This is about the survival of the world as we know it, and the survival of the human species as well. If there are not enough insects, including bees, and moths, and birds to pollinate plants, then even vegans will not survive. None of us will. 

I reiterate what many have said, i.e. that you just do not see the same number of insects landing on your windscreen when driving; which is just one example of how things are rapidly changing for the worse..

Our posts seem to have crossed. What is so special about humanity, (other than we're part of that group)?

We're an incredibly destructive predator that's predated so much that we've destroyed our food supply/ecosystem. 

Hopefully nature will take its course before we take every other species with us.

Never watched it. Thanks for sharing, that’s absolutely brilliant.

I thought it was one of  most depressing and sobering pieces of TV Ive watched.  It’s up there with the world at war episode on the concentration camps, for those of a certain vintage.  It was heartbreaking to see the two northern white rhinos.  No idea what the answers are, except maybe erase us from the planet earth and allow it to recover from the carnage we are visiting on it at the moment. 

A vegan diet is one of the best ways to reduce your carbon footprint. Farming meat uses a lot more land than plants so it destroys more habitat for wild animals. Animals eaten in the western world are often treated awfully and no doubt it would be considered torture if it was done to people. 

A vegan diet can also provide you with all the nutrition you need. Why is it OK for you to consume animal meat and products but not OK for the people you mentioned in your first post? (BTW I'm not saying eating meat is wrong, that's your choice, it just seemed to me that your views regarding the environment and your diet are a little contradictory).

I generally agree with your sentiments. It is the ignorant, the stupid, the uncaring, and above all else, the politicians, who make matters worse.

Got to work just now, but briefly: The people in the documentary showed no care for the animals that they dealt with. We have no allowance of similar practices in this country. Animals are not confined to such tiny spaces. We do not pick up young calves, the size of a German Shepherd dog by the scruff.

I do not eat lots of meat.

I do eat mutton. You could not grow crops on the hills where a lot of the mutton comes from.

I buy free range poultry products, though I know that that does not always resolve all the issues.

Intensive farming is the problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-...

Thing is. If we did get wiped out there’s no saying in a million years another species wouldn’t rise to the top and create the same global carnage. 

I don't know about that. This is just one article I remember you seeing. I'm sure there are others out there. Battery farmed chickens are still in use. Perhaps we're not as cruel to our animals but I wouldn't want to be one. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/morrisons-amazon-uk-spanish...

A huge amount of intensive farming is done to feed animals though. Cows, pigs and sheep (even chickens) are a less efficient way of producing calories by farming.

Also animals contribute to climate change more as they release greater amounts of greenhouse gasses.

Thirdly you can be vegan and avoid soya products. Soya isn't the only alternative to all things animal based. 

Wouldn’t some attempt to cut food waste, estimated to be around 40 % help.  It’s shameful this is so high

Agreed, did you read the article? The model of farming talked about does not use soya.

Food products produced intensively meat or otherwise is not sustainable. Parts of Spain where the grow vegetables have fewer than 100 cycles left. What are you going to do when the soil runs out? 

One of the major problems is an ever increasing world population. This demands more space to live, more food and more resources and produces more waste.

The Earth is not infinite in resources and space so we cannot go on increasing the population. The population growth is slowing down and one estimate suggests the population will level out at or soon after the end of this century -

"Based on this, the UN Population Division expects world population, currently (2020) at 7.8 billion, to level out at or soon after the end of the 21st Century at 10.9 billion (the median line),[4][5] assuming a continuing decrease in the global average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman during the 2015–2020 period to 1.9 in 2095–2100, according to the medium-variant projection.[6]"

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

However, that means still 80 years of growth. Given that people are living longer and even allowing for an increase in the working life we will still need to address how the increasing older population are looked after and cared for.

We need to move away from the current system of pensions for the elderly being paid for from the National Insurance contributions of today's working population and towards a personal state pensions system  - ie you pay in while you are working and those contributions pay for your pension. This is not perfect, as someone who lives a long time could run out of pension, which will not happen under the current system. However, the present system encourages/needs a sizeable and increasing younger working population, or more taxation.

Dave

The sooner human beings become extinct, the better. Only then will planet earth and nature be able to begin to heal itself. 

This is just hype to scare folk. Technically you don't need soil to grow anything, it's just a medium to contain the components, it could be any material that will hold moisture, nutrients and fungus. 

I'm not suggesting it's a good thing. But number of 'theoretical' cycles left is just unconfirmed nonsense. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodsmith_Mine

We currently waste a shocking amount of the stuff fields need through disposing of sewage; I suspect the mass safe conversion of sludge to fertiliser is going to be a growth area.

There’s more and more containerised underground of vertical hydroponic farming of salad and vegetables near cities that uses no soil; currently it only makes sense where freshness has a premium and transport costs are significant.  

I’m much more concerned about the endless conversion of habitat and forest into farm land than the exhaustion of soil.

100% agreed

Human stupidity. But unfortunately that's the cause, not the answer.

Yes, this is how I feel too. I watched the programme because I felt I should but it made me feel physically sick and in despair.

David Attenborough hasn't been a happy bunny for ten or fifteen years or so.  I gave up watching his programmes because they were too depressing.  I know that things are bad and if we carry on this way we're screwed, I don't need telling.

But many others may do, so Saint David can keep on telling them till the penny drops.  I shan't be watching though.

T.

Humanity is the only manifestation of the Universe (that we know of) that is able to comprehend itself and its place in the Universe, experience itself objectively and question itself. We are capable of extreme cruelty but also of extreme sacrifice and compassion. Most of us are not inherently bad, but the nature of the threat is what makes it incredibly difficult to organise a collective response to meet the threat.

I share your despair about the future, but I sincerely hope that humanity survives along with the planet. But it's clear that right now, we're not in any sort of enlightened state but are stuck in the same cycles of progress and destruction that have plagued us since the dawn of recorded history.

I stumbled across the Facebook page of the 'UK Prime Minister' last night. The comments on that left me very depressed, too...

The point still remains that meat farming is inefficient. You're better off eating the crops yourself then feeding the crops to animals. And the farming talked about in that article is still worse for the environment than the forest that could be in its place.  And how much meat can be produced using the methods in the article? Not enough to allow for the current rate of meat consumption.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-one-kilogram-of...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/28/can-we-ditch-intensive-farming...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/19/wh...

I had to stop watching it, as found it pretty depressing.

I'm not one for head in sand behavior, and I'm aware of the huge damage we're are collectively doing, but when drawn together in such a stark and terrifying way it all looks rather bleak.

I watched a bit with my daughter and just felt pretty ashamed that we've f****ed it up so badly.

Thing is, we’ve been f***ing it up for thousands of years. We’re doing nothing now that we didn’t do since we could make tools. We’ve just got significantly better at doing it.

Agreed. Its just the acceleration in the rate of destruction in the last 40-50 years or so is terrifying (i.e. 2/3 of biodiversity lost, population from 3 to nearly 8 billion, etc). I dread to think what it will be like when my kids are my age, in another 30 years or so.

Given that the avoidance of painful truth is the source of denialism, the very people who really should have watched the programme, probably didn't.

It was despairing viewing for me. The wet market footage and cruelty to animals also made me feel physically sick, depressed, frustrated and angry. Which I guess was the point of the hard-hitting nature of the programme. The trouble is, it was largely preaching to the converted.

It is difficult to know what to do with all this frustration and visceral outrage, given that nearly all channels of accountability of those who have the wherewithal to do something about climate change, are becoming more and more closed off. Voting doesn't change anything much, petitioning is ignored, peaceful protest is impotent. Even the rule of law is becoming a weakened overseer of basic morality and ethics.

When all accountability becomes so far removed from public scrutiny, there are very few other options left open. Even British reserve will become tested to its limit, and I shudder to think what will almost inevitably happen next.

Edit: typos

If your so keen for humans to disappear, why not volunteer to disappear yourself to help reduce population? Or are you wishing extinction on the rest of us?

Unless your a hermit living deep in the forests with complete self sufficiency and harmony with your surroundings then your benefiting from a long history of human existence, ingenuity, art and culture. Everything you known is of human construction, or your rely on human made equipment and skills to survive in the non-human environment. 

Is your plan to kill all humans so goats and deer can wander the earth pointlessly reproducing until, what? A time when they evolve sentience and repeat the same mistakes? Why not dedicate your life to solving the issue rather than wishing us dead. Pretty pathetic and ill considered stance in my opinion.

Depends whether the DeathRay6000 laser gun (the XL version) I ordered from Amazon ends up arriving; it’s already more than a week late.

I can't speak for plyometrics, but the mess that an ever expanding human population are making of the planet is a key factor in our decision not to have children.

So what?

Humans wander the planet pointlessly reproducing. It's just our arrogance and unique combination of intelligence and absolute stupidity than makes us 'special'.

The only way to solve the issue is either humanity evolves into something less destructive than apes with advanced machinery and weapons or a cataclysm that reduces the population and sends us back to pre-industrial times. We are the problem.

Agreed and thanks for demonstrating the patience I didn’t have to respond in a considerate way. 😊

A well constructed and articulate response. Until you had to go and fire out an insult in the last sentence.

I only argue against wishing us all extinct and challenge anyone who wants less humans to be the first in line volunteer to be euthanized and composted for the greater good.

If we're all pointless replicators then forgive me for wanting to survive just as any other pointless replicator aims to. If humans aren't special, then neither are other animals. If your claim is that animals are more special than humans and deserve to live more than us then say that. I feel more special than a wasp, the sheer arrogance!

The Eden like paradise people think the world becomes if humans no longer exist is a pure fantasy. I'm not against evolving and improving all aspects of life on earth, but lets be real.

Fair criticism, that was me venting the irk I felt from such a blasé suggestion that we all cease breathing for the sake of some imagined human free utopia.

Hi Tom,

Sorry the post irked you, not my intention.

However, for clarity, not once did I suggest, in a blasé way, that anyone ceases breathing. 

ATB,

Plyometrics. 

What's sooner than the present moment?

I’m afraid I’ll have to leave that one to the astrophysicists in the room.

No one is advocating killing people*, just reducing numbers by natural wastage, so to speak, and not mindlessly churning out more people that can't be sustained.

*Although plenty probably deserve it.

Agreed, but surely a self sustaining, bio diverse planet is has more "value" than a monoculture (that will destroy itself anyway)?

If you're alking me if  I think humanity should survive at the expense of almost every other species on the planet then my answer would be no.

The reality is 10 billion people on a single planet will inevitably destroy it. We are truly f*cked, we'll kill each other over water and other resources.

It's that problem of exponential growth again. Viral infections, dominant species...

This from the last episode of David Attenborough's Living Planet is well worth giving up about three minutes of your time. The video quality is a bit poor but at about 35 years old (first broadcast in April 1984) it is to be expected.

Although some progress has been made since then, the message could easily be from today. We don't seem to have learned a lot since then.

youtube.com/watch?v=zNhwLe8hSfQ&

Dave

I share your sentiments about it being too depressing to watch. The only hopeful thing I can find to do, is to think about my diet and lifestyle and stick to wild Muntjac from the UK as my meat and a protein source, and ponder dairy alternatives while sharing that I'm doing that with people in a way which doesn't make them feel moralised at (I didn't take much notice of my friend when she did that with me). 

It's a small thing, but beef farmers in the UK are apparently noticing that fewer people are buying beef, and feeling the financial hit, which is a sign that people can change their lifestyles in response to information. 

The water sources is a difficult one, because the world's mountains are responsible for supplying much of our fresh water, which is where the snows and glaciers are gradually melting, they're places of mineral reserves  and are 'hot spots' politically and militarily too. It's why China wants to keep hold of Tibet, IIRC it supplies water to India and Pakistan IIRC and other parts of Asia (and China of course)...

And fair play for coming back to me. I agree it’s a somewhat strange position to wish humanity wiped out, when you’re part of humanity.

I've slightly concluded that 'humans are daft', when after 20 years of us being told about climate change, people still fly off to snowy places and express disappointment at seeing not very much snow. I know it's grumpy of me, but we've had ages of being told about the impact of flying. Join the dots, peeps? It's down to oneself as much as everybody else.

It can be hard not to be a bit 'bah humph' when it's not that complicated, though I appreciate it does me no good.

"Humanity is the only manifestation of the Universe (that we know of) that is able to comprehend itself and its place in the Universe, experience itself objectively and question itself."

Do you think we are gods? A pinnacle of existence?

From our perspective animals are pretty dumb. Yet many species have been able to survive for millions of years. Our race still has a long way to go to prove itself.

What an extraordinary non sequitur your second and third sentence is.

'Your second and third sentence' was shorthand for 'the argument contained in your second and third sentence'.

Or, it could have been put this way round: 'The argument contained in your second and third sentence is an extraordinary non sequitur'. A non sequitur, by its nature, is singular.

No, that's certainly not what I was attempting to say. More that in the absence of any evidence of gods or alien civilisations, we're the best there is.

My original dispute was with plyometrics saying "the sooner we're extinct the better". The rest is adding stuff I didn't dispute or raise in the first place. 

"a non sequitur, by its nature, is singular."  (Should there not be a hyphen in non-sequitur?)

Yet you had the word "and" in there; thus it was not singular, since you did not include the words "the argument....."

Whatever the case, the context is not keeping to the sentiment of the thread.

The argument was implied ('it was shorthand for'). I could probably have saved myself this complication if I'd just said his second sentence was a non sequitur. According to Fowler, Oxford Book of English Usage, Bryson, etc., non sequitur is not hyphenated.

In what way?

...or eat animals that have eaten grass. Humans can't digest grass

"... we're the best there is."

We define what "the best" means: being smart, and then we declare ourselves winners. But do we know what the name of the game is? Survival? Happiness? Salvation?

Let's consider survival. Being brainy certainly helps, but it also has costs. One side effect of the big brain is that our social interactions are complex and expensive. We need big cars, big houses and cruise trips to impress others.

Due to our technical skills (which served us well in many aspects of our existence), we have the means to destroy humankind. Other animals do not have to carry any such burden. We have already decimated other large mammals except for domesticated animals. What or who will be next? Us?

I do not claim that the future is necessarily bleak. I simply do not think that after 100.000 years, modern humans have already proved themselves.

yes, the case is restated here - it's the intensive production at fault

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/13-reasons-boycottbigmeat-and-build-b...

point No.12 is worthy of note also:

'12. Protect against future pandemics'

Really, I think you're reading too much into this, I'm not laying out a thorough and consistent philosophical position. I'm not claiming a universal meaning or moral framework. I just think that while we can do utterly idiotic things like elevate people like Trump and Johnson to leadership positions, we can also do incredible things like sequence the human genome or detect the collisions of black holes billions of years ago. We're not all bad and I don't want to see us wipe ourselves out.

A jazz quartet is a singular thing, but people still say 'What a good quartet those musicians are'. I don't understand why the same grammar rule wouldn't apply to a singular non sequitur, or why an unspoken context would change it?

Whilst I’m not sure you’d ever phrase it like that, I’d argue that statement is grammatically correct as it’s the ‘musicians’ (plural) you are referring to. 

Perhaps it’s more likely you’d phrase it:

‘What a good quartet that is‘

Or

’What good musicians they are’

Either way, it’s another great UKC thread diversion!

Perhaps I'm from parents who've spoken quite formally, but it's how I've heard things put, or more informally 'They are a talented quartet'. Having a teacher and engineer as parents possibly seems to have meant they liked to be accurate.

Yes it is, a classic UKC diversion It'd just stuck in the back of my mind, I couldn't dislodge it.

At a time when the world has never needed great / visionary political leaders more....... here we are....not in a good place. How will we be judged by those who come after us?

A sis in law says we can be pedantic, so maybe it's just that.

A pedant with no hyphens!

If things go really badly, those who come after will be struggling badly, just in order to survive. They may not survive.

Otherwise we will be seen to be the ultimate of the self-centred, and foolish generation. The ones who wasted resources, almost endlessly, and without a true care.

Too right. 

It is not just the Chinese wet markets that are responsible, our consumerism and expanding population.

The more people the more food is needed. 

No one is telling us to stop reproducing. 

MS

Too right.

Why do people need to have more than 2-3 children? 

Why get drunk and accidently get someone pregnant? 

In my opinion a lot of overpopulation could be avoided by our own actions.

In the third world children are dying of things can be cured and prevented. 

Too right. 

I don't think it is too late.

MS

I'm am omnivore to but more vegetarian than meat eater. 

Too right. 

We are at the top of the food chain and our population is still growing exponentially. 

Look at the R numbers in highly densely populated cities! 

In my honest opinion, I think overpopulation is one of the reasons why COVID 19 spread so quickly. 

The reply from the scientist who was asked the question "Will the planet survive?" Was "Yes".  "But we won't be on it anymore".  We are running out of time to correct this.

The human species will be around, it won't cause our extinction. There might be mass migration, wars, starvation, disease... but we won't be extinct. 

What we are is running out of time to protect the environment that other species inhabit. How much effort we put in is relative how to how high a value we've placed on those species. In a million years time this little blip will just be another barely distinguishable thin line in the rock strata.

There might be mass migration, wars, starvation, disease... but we won't be extinct. 

I don't think so either, but I do wonder what demographic would be the ones most likely to survive if we manage to avoid extinction?

Would it be those who are wealthy enough to buy enough protection (and property in cooler latitudes...note Trump's bid for Greenland), or those who have the intelligence and resilience to adapt using what little they have at hand?

Maybe it's a bit of both, but I'd like to think intelligence and adaptability would win hands down, since genetically, educationally and socially that would be by far the most desirable - and more likely to perpetuate a more respectful, symbiotic relationship with ecosystems in those who are able to survive. 

All creatures have sentience already.

In my honest opinion there needs to a Balance It Is (E7 6c) and Equilibrium (E10 7a) with both humans and other sentien beings and with the population spread.

Are you Russian Orthodox? Do you know that it if you have 5 or more children the Russian Orthodox Church will give you reward you well?! 

Agreed 

Intelligent, wealthy and a hint of a psychopath would seem beneficial to prosper in climate change. 

In UK yes, but in some EU countries and America they still have large battery hen farms.

You have forgotten about the exotic pet trade, horse racing and dog racing. 

It was not long ago fox hunting was banned. 

MS

Can you inform me if the issues regarding farmed salmon please and does this affect tins bought at Aldi or there packs of smoked salmon.

ta

I came to know of it via https://twitter.com/saveourlochs?s=21 ..plenty more reading on from there! Can't help with the Aldi question, but would like to know as it's where I do my shopping and I have previously enjoyed their salmon!

maybe Musk et al *really* think the the (s)elect few will all end up on another planet which they can also rape of all natural worth

As we are just a collection of particles grouped together, for a very short length of time in a very vast universe would it matter if they did or didn't? 

I am not sure if this appropriate here or I should start a new thread but In my honest opinion I believe that if we don't change  a version what we see in the film Elysium is the future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)

It maybe scifi but the link says there is social commentary on many relevant topics. 

MS

Given this topic was started with an emphasis on animal ethics, I'd implore everyone to watch this short British made film, documenting farming practices here in the UK. It is not just 'China' that exploit and mistreat animals.

youtube.com/watch?v=dvtVkNofcq8&

I think I've mentioned the mistreatment of animals in the UK in this thread.

Did you happen to catch the Channel 4 series where people look after farm animals in their homes and at the end they decide what to do with them and if they - the people - give up meat or not?

Bye 

MS

Any creature raised under intensive 'factory' conditions has been mistreated, to the detriment of health & hygiene - for the creatures, we who eat them, and ruination of the planet 

I'm afraid this can only add to the pessimism:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/29/australia-joins-us-chin...

To be fair they are probably subject matter experts in mistreatment of animals though.

On what basis did you form that opinion?

I saw that Boris Johnson signed the biodiversity pledge on the news - even the Queen now supports biodiversity and has turned her back on grouse shooting. 

You have access to google?

Tried to watch it but only managed to watch a few minutes as I found it deeply upsetting. 

Forget google with all it's data mining, censoring and bias. There re plenty of better alternatives.

Startpage

SearX

MetaGer

SwissCows

Qwant

DuckDuckGo

Mojeek

YaCy

Givero

Ecosia

I have Qwant now - 'The Search Engine which Respects your Privacy'

Fair point, but if mattck wants to watch animals being skinned alive and blowtorched even google will do.

I saw the documentary and honestly it is such a heartbreak. Humans is the asteriod destroying the paradise once we have.

I agree absolutely that suffering of domestic animals should be minimised. But we need to keep this in proportion with the creatures which never suffer - but are symptoms of a greater problem. Extinct animals no longer suffer !

It may only be a small step to quit google - but google is part of the american beast which devours liberty in all corners of the globe. REM it's not so long ago they overturned UK intiative to refuse factory raised chicken meat. 

refuse google and anything else possible to weaken american strangle-hold

I don't think Google had any particular hand in that.

Although Google is an American company, or at least started as one, whatever your views on its behaviour and practises it isn't an arm of the government

You forgot Ecosia. I'm avoiding buying a Google Chromebook. 

Pefa,

Russia is one of the countries that have refused to sign the biodiversity act?

What are your thoughts on this? 

Ostensibly one would hope this to be correct. However, as for the NGOs, by the time you have investigated funders, donors and fact-checkers which all steer information, the overall ownership and influence cannot be impartial

A coronavirus walks into a bar

Bartender: Sorry we don't serve the causes of diseases in here. Only cures to disease.

Coronavirus: But I'm curing the planet of the human race. 

That, and the matters highlighted by David Attenborough, may end up being the final common pathway of Mankind....... 

Severe accelerating decline before the unimpressive small squeak of our departure.

In relation to my previous reply. I didn't see Ecosia at the bottom there. 

I am tending towards Robert Harris and "The Second Sleep" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43561172-the-second-sleep

I guess that one problem is that waste water contains a lot of much pollution from tens of millions of UK homes putting out washing powder, shampoo, bleach, body-wash etc.

This web page is a quick look at quantifying the harmful effect of biofuel crops.

http://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/blog/PoweringTransport.html?fbclid=...

Summary: For a given rate of energy production, fuel crops displace about a hundred times more land (e.g. for wildlife or food production) than solar or wind power.  It looks clear that fuel crops are a big problem for our environment.

Having lived and worked in many 3rd world counties around the world, you see the problem.

they dont and cant in many cases look 50-100 years in the future, they see next week, month maybe year but no further.

The west have been a catalyst of so many of the problems, now the East is just carrying on with the same mindset we had, however we now understand its unsustainable. Problem is the brake pads are worn and we cant stop it, lots of species are in the throws. Sad times