Take this paper for example. See figure 2? Those numbers come directly from the trend lines on those figures. But look closely at the data. The shading effectively represents how much data they have each year. In the "Chickens" figure there is a box plot in 2000 that is barely discernible, but if you look carefully you see that the distribution matches recent years. How convenient that that data was hidden, since it directly refutes their conclusions.

In fact, the fact that they used bar graphs here is extremely questionable when a scatter plot would far better represent the data. We'd easily be able to glean what the box plots are trying to hide: that the data is extremely noisy, that past data is almost non-existent, and that every year the range of their distribution is nearly 0%-100%.

While there might indeed be an effect in the data over time, the fact is that the effect is far smaller than year-to-year variability.

I mean when the Black Death comes along and mops up 30-60% of a continent's entire population in half a decade, you get a little more respect for how terrifying nature has manifested in history...

With that said, we've been two key turns and a button press away from total annihilation since the mid-1950s when the US and Soviets started assembling their nuclear stockpiles.

The fact society still exists past the Cuban Missile Crisis should be considered history's greatest miracle.

That's the all gist about meat consumption: let's look at all the problems meat production has in emergent and 3rd world countries and then tell people in the West they shouldn't eat meat.

My point isn't to dismiss the problem, just that it would mean things like surgery being much riskier, not massive die offs.

The proportion would probably also be reduced in at least 2 ways. The geographic extent would be smaller, and in areas where there were outbreaks, fewer people would be infected.

If there was a good vaccine match for the virus, even more so.

This is definitely not my area, but as a lay person I've heard that because of the large increase in global travel, a dangerous flu strain could spread basically to basically every continent before we had time to meaningfully respond. Do you have reason to believe that isn't the case?

Population of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh 1900: 295m

Population of the UK and Ireland 2019: 68m (+70%)

Population of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh 2019: 1,700m (+576%)

"Earth's phosphorus is being depleted at an alarming rate. At current consumption levels, we will run out of known phosphorus reserves in around 80 years, but consumption will not stay at current levels. Nearly 90% of phosphorus is used in the global food supply chain, most of it in crop fertilizers. If no action is taken to quell fertilizer use, demand is likely to increase exponentially."

You can't assume that the virulence of bacteria with evolved antibiotic resistance will be like that of the strains that existed in 1900.

Before we invented artificial fertilizer, we were legitimately afraid that we're run out of land to grow food.

it's called capitalism, and "increasing shareholder value". This is why large corp lobby in the USA, this is why big pharma bribes anyone with a stethoscope, this is why big oil is trying to stop/slow/control progress of solar/wind.

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children" https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/22/borrow-earth/

Edit: for many people, today & money is far more important than tomorrow & children. I hope that humanity proves me wrong, but it will get darker before it gets brighter.

Now, if only scientists could learn how to point fingers...