News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What's Earth's dominant species by mass? by bjoli on Thursday October 08, 2026 @06:13AM (#50003988)
Which of course is a very priviliged way of looking at the choice. The people most affected are the ones hardly using any resources in the first place.
Re:What's Earth's dominant species by mass? by DennisP on Thursday October 08, 2026 @09:11AM (#50005426)
I think you're pattern-matching into a different discussion. The people most affected by what?

By eating less beef? The people hardly using resources aren't eating much of that anyway.

By biodiversity loss? We'd do a better job with that if we stop looking at in terms of effect on people and start caring about wildlife for its own sake, and that's the perspective I take when I say the planet is crowded: not just crowded for people, but people overcrowding the rest of nature.

But if you insist on focusing on people, we're all going to regret the loss of fish from the oceans.

Side note: I'm not sure who you meant but in some of those third-world countries that "hardly use resources," there are people doing major damage to biodiversity by burning down rainforests and hunting endangered animals. Their countries just aren't burning much fossil fuel.

Re:What's Earth's dominant species by mass? by bjoli on Thursday October 08, 2026 @10:10AM (#50006023)
The discussion started about "resources to feed the planet". The people most hurt by a lack of resources to feed the planet are not you and I. Framing it as a choice between biodiversity or "eating a lot fewer burgers and steaks" while claiming both is an overpopulation problem is the priviliged position, and saying it is about overpopulation is not going to help anyone.