Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

corvusmonedula OP t1_je4x6f8 wrote

Reply to comment by Ayzmo in UK Roadkill recorded on iNaturalist by species (Sankey) [OC] by corvusmonedula

iNaturalist is for the recording of wild specimens, domesticated or captive species are excluded from the records. I think you'd find reliable numbers for dogs elsewhere (by UL law every dog is RFID chipped), but for cats it may be more difficult, many are just ditched or left to rot and the bodys never recovered.
The distinction of wild/captive is something I could have mentioned clearly.

1

JCPRuckus t1_je4wvwq wrote

Reply to comment by Tilapiatitty in [OC] Mothers in the EU are on average 29,7 years old at the birth of their first child by 23degrees_io

>Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

Until any country anywhere successfully manages to stabilize or reverse a below replacement birthrate we are, within the next 100 years, on our way to a declining global population. And once the pop starts declining, we obviously can't reverse that with below replacement birthrates.

That observation contains within it the possibility of a change in outcome. But personally, I'd like to see evidence that the change is actually possible before we happily tip ourselves into decline.

>So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

Links to an article about timber that says the main reason for increased demand is increased urbanization, not increasing population.

>population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

Links to an article that just says literally the same things they've already said, because it also doesn't acknowledge that "happier" , "better off" people doesn't count for much if the long term cost is NO people... On top of ignoring that once economies start shrinking due to population loss people won't be "happier" or "better off".

−1

Tilapiatitty t1_je4tnwh wrote

Reply to comment by JCPRuckus in [OC] Mothers in the EU are on average 29,7 years old at the birth of their first child by 23degrees_io

Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

A population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

1

XMORA t1_je4s88p wrote

Reply to [OC] Research Funding vs Human Development: a country's R&D spending correlates with its societal well-being by latinometrics

There is not direct correlation, there are historical facts. Many countries in green were pioneers or grew during the industrial revolution from way back like 100-150 years ago. They are now rich countries and they can invest profits in more R&D. Latinoamerican countries have to do a lot more than increasing a couple of percentage points of their small GDP in R&D, the gap is huge, probably decades and economical miracles will be needed.

26

Moist-Meat-Popsicle t1_je4oh1i wrote

Reply to [OC] Research Funding vs Human Development: a country's R&D spending correlates with its societal well-being by latinometrics

Interesting graph. I wonder if this is a “what comes forest, chicken versus egg?” phenomenon. Correlated but not causal, perhaps? Those poor countries don’t have sufficient money for basic needs, infrastructure, law enforcement, etc., so they may not even have money for R&D when basic human needs are not being met.

7

JCPRuckus t1_je4lc7v wrote

Reply to comment by Tilapiatitty in [OC] Mothers in the EU are on average 29,7 years old at the birth of their first child by 23degrees_io

>I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration.

Not by much, if at all.

>The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing.

It's declining everywhere, and in many countries it is already below replacement. There no reason to believe that it won't eventually drop below replacement everywhere. And no country has ever reversed, or even restabilized a below replacement birthrate.

>There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.

No, there is overconsumption. Far better to move to more sustainable lifestyles rather than risk the global population dip into an (as far as we know) unrecoverable spiral.

>I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.

It won't be a win once populations start declining and economies start shrinking.

1