
Statement about the 480M animals killed in NSW bushfires since September - vo2maxer
https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-statement-about-the-480-million-animals-killed-in-nsw-bushfire.html
======
geddy
Ironically, hundreds of billions of animals are killed every year for food,
contributing massively to climate change, which is the root cause of these
massive fires. But no one seems to care about _those_ animals.

EDIT: This was linked below which further illustrates my point:
[https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1212959832522625024?s=21](https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1212959832522625024?s=21)

"if you find the death of 500,000,000 mammals, birds and reptiles in weeks of
australia wildfires mind blowing and horrifying, note that more were killed
worldwide for food in the same period of time - and these facts are not
unlinked"

~~~
deanCommie
1) That's not ironic

2) Do you not see the massive obvious difference between killing an animal
with a PURPOSE (sustenance), vs ones that die completely without any side
benefit?

3) Plenty of people care about animals being killed for food. That's why there
is continuous progress and campaigns to A) change how they are raised (more
humanely), B) how they are killed (ditto), C) reduce overall consumption of
meat by meat eaters, and D) change entire diets to cut out meat entirely.

4) The animals killed for food are MOSTLY (exceptions - certain forms of
hunting and fishing) raised for that purpose, and therefore their populations
and species are entirely sustainable. The animals that died in wildfires are
wild ecosystems, some of which may not recover (see: Koala population)

~~~
geddy
The irony I see is that people suddenly care about animals being killed for no
purpose.

Regarding your #2, no, it is not a necessity to raise and slaughter animals.
You can survive just fine on an entirely plant-based diet. It's detrimental to
the world which is literally on fire right now. To add to this, there is no
sustainable way we can raise them "more humanely" as the population increases
and countries like China raise the demand exponentially. Factory farming
exists for a reason.

Regarding #3, there is no way to humanely raise an animal only to kill it
unjustifiably. If we needed them to survive, that would be a different story.
But we do not.

#4, I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

~~~
thrwaway69
> no, it is not a necessity to raise and slaughter animals. You can survive
> just fine on an entirely plant-based diet. It's detrimental to the world
> which is literally on fire right now.

Surviving purely on plant based diet and remaining in your top form will
require more than stop eating meat and solving

\- Cost \- Availability \- Education

and few more major issues. That is for consumers only, corporations have
different problems. They won't suddenly disappear and if they did, it might
become a problem for you indirectly through state.

> the population increases and countries like China raise the demand
> exponentially.

Population is declining everywhere except Africa and some odd balls.

> there is no way to humanely raise an animal only to kill it unjustifiably.

That depends entirely on you. Although I agree humanely way to kill is more of
a need for humans than animals, it seems.

~~~
geddy
Consumers need to be educated, you are right on that. But corporations will
evolve like they always have - look at Nestle buying SweetEarth brands. Tyson
entering the plant-based market. They will adapt and overcome. But it all
starts with the consumer.

>Population is declining everywhere except Africa and some odd balls

Then why do projections put us around 10 billion people in the next 30 years?

>That depends entirely on you

It depends on individual morals yes, but on the grand scale of things, I don't
think any sound-minded human would, without outside influence, find it
completely alright to murder an animal. If you give a child an apple and a
bunny, do you think they'd kill the bunny or eat the apple?

~~~
thrwaway69
> Then why do projections put us around 10 billion people in the next 30
> years?

I didn't mean population globally but China isn't contributing to it as much
as you think it is anymore.

> I don't think any sound-minded human would, without outside influence, find
> it completely alright to murder an animal. If you give a child an apple and
> a bunny, do you think they'd kill the bunny or eat the apple?

Let's do an extreme take, giving apple is not comparable as it is [1][2]
already 'murdered' compared to a bunny. A better comparison would be prepared
bunny meat and sliced apple. Would you say the kid will choose one over other
out of instincts?

1] [https://m.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-
ouch/a-510552-1](https://m.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1)

2] [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-
intelligen...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-
plant)

Just meant to illustrate that when we think of suffering, it needs to be
visible for us to do something about it and see it as a problem. Buying meat
from a grocery store doesn't help your perception, so I wouldn't blame people
for not caring as much.

I think it is hypocritical to neglect plants that can show stress and feel
that they are being literally eaten alive and advocate for less suffering by
asking people to eat them instead of meat but that's not pragmatic.

------
cyorir
"The figure includes mammals, birds and reptiles and does not include insects,
bats or frogs."

I wonder what the figure for just mammals would be.

------
anotheryou
Can someone tell me how quick and easily nature can bounce back? I guess the
speed of tree growth might be a bottleneck.

~~~
cmdshiftf4
>I guess the speed of tree growth might be a bottleneck.

Also depends on what grows back in their place. For example, re-forestation
efforts in places like Ireland have lead to an "ecological dead zone" [0] due
to the choice of the trees that have been planted, the Sitka spruce and its
sheddings offering or removing habitable areas for animals to prosper.

Without an expensive and concerted effort to clear the floors of ash and re-
plant animal-friendly, indigenous fauna I would imagine we won't see much of a
recovery in our lifetimes, if ever.

[0][https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/trees-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/trees-
ireland-biodiversity-sitka-birds-extinction)

~~~
perilunar
This is Australian bush we are talking about: there won't be any ash clearing
or replanting. The indigenous flora will regrow by itself.

