Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    76 points rntn | 23 comments | | HN request time: 1.055s | source | bottom
    1. amarant ◴[] No.45086858[source]
    Why is human fecal matter worse for the environment than animal fecal matter?

    Something in our diets?

    replies(7): >>45086913 #>>45086925 #>>45087305 #>>45089322 #>>45090105 #>>45090202 #>>45090752 #
    2. andy99 ◴[] No.45086913[source]
    I'd guess it worse for us because it's a vector for disease. (And grosser to see for related evolutionary reasons). There's probably a greater volume in heavily trafficked places vs similar predators. Otherwise doubtful that pound for pound it's actually worse for "nature".
    replies(1): >>45086993 #
    3. SR2Z ◴[] No.45086925[source]
    We are apex predators, and our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain. The other extreme would be an animal like a cow, which shits basically smellier grass.

    That's basically it. A human being that's only eaten plants has much less devastating poops.

    replies(2): >>45087200 #>>45087202 #
    4. dmurray ◴[] No.45087200[source]
    I don't think this last conclusion is true. It's really about harmful bacteria, not "toxins". Even vegetarians have a complex digestive system that can harbour pathogens. Perhaps their faeces are safer to use as manure than those from a meat-eating human, but much closer to that than to a cow.
    replies(1): >>45088602 #
    5. FollowingTheDao ◴[] No.45087202[source]
    It is far from a certain that we are apex predators since we can survive on a largely herbivore diet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator#Human_trophic_le...

    And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen.

    replies(2): >>45088694 #>>45089341 #
    6. vbezhenar ◴[] No.45087305[source]
    I think that the main reason is that human population is unusually huge, humans live in the huge dense groups. So there's just too many fecals and environment struggles to process them.

    Just to compare: there's an estimation that there are around 300 000 gorillas in the entire world. There are over 20 000 humans for every gorilla.

    Though I think that "environment" is too vague. Planet doesn't care. Some bacteria probably would think that it's pretty nice environment. It's more about human waste making environment bad for humans themselves.

    There are just too many of us, so we need artificial ways to produce food, artificial ways to protect from cold and heat. And also artificial ways to safely dispose of our waste.

    replies(2): >>45089990 #>>45094254 #
    7. SR2Z ◴[] No.45088602{3}[source]
    I have heard that it's unusually nutrient rich - maybe not toxins, but human shit definitely causes algal blooms.
    replies(3): >>45089849 #>>45092852 #>>45103445 #
    8. jofer ◴[] No.45089322[source]
    In addition to disease, a key issue in many climates is toilet paper. Your average deer isn't leaving around white paper that takes a decade (in dry climates) to go away. That's a non issue in wet areas, but a large one in deserts and more arid regions.
    9. aspenmayer ◴[] No.45089341{3}[source]
    > And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen.

    I’m not who you’re asking, but I can only assume that they refer to the observed phenomenon of bioaccumulation, which was factor in the unexpected harms of pesticides such as DDT on bird populations.

    That said, I don’t know of any risks to wildlife or the environment from bioaccumulated toxins solely due to human waste. If I am reaching and wildly guessing, I suppose folks who eat a lot of fish might pass more mercury in their waste? From what I understood, most toxins like that are processed by the liver and don’t get flushed out.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation

    10. leksak ◴[] No.45089849{4}[source]
    And human urine
    11. gyomu ◴[] No.45089990[source]
    Yes, this is a key thing to clarify anytime these conversations take place.

    The reason we want to preserve the environment, biodiversity, all that jazz is FOR US. It’s for our own comfort and survival that we should care about not polluting, stopping climate change, etc.

    The planet and life on it will be just fine, it made it through many extinction events and will make it through many more.

    replies(1): >>45091355 #
    12. verisimi ◴[] No.45090105[source]
    I don't think it is particularly. I personally wonder why all that matter could not be managed by small systems that would process the solid waste into usable compost. Given enough time, waste would break down to pretty inert plant food. This must have been the common practise historically too.
    replies(1): >>45090413 #
    13. theshrike79 ◴[] No.45090202[source]
    If one person poops in the river, it's most likely fine.

    If 1000 people poop in the river, it's contaminated for everyone downstream.

    14. bawolff ◴[] No.45090413[source]
    Historically it was also common practise to die from diseases spread through fecal matter.

    Or if not death, bad outcomes like hookworms, which were common in the american south and literally caused people to be stupid. They mostly went away when people stopped pooping in the woods.

    Of course, it is all a matter of concentration.

    replies(1): >>45091606 #
    15. thefz ◴[] No.45090752[source]
    You can be infected by what infected another human. Cross species contamination is less likely.
    replies(1): >>45092592 #
    16. beng-nl ◴[] No.45091355{3}[source]
    Wow, that is very insightful - all these years hearing and thinking about environment problems and I’d never looked at it that way.

    But everyone should look at it that way.

    replies(1): >>45092539 #
    17. notmyjob ◴[] No.45091606{3}[source]
    This was part of the justification for the southern sodomy laws.
    18. globular-toast ◴[] No.45092539{4}[source]
    It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring. You have to remember many people can't even make decision that will benefit themselves even a few short hours later (see delayed gratification).
    replies(1): >>45097137 #
    19. Ekaros ◴[] No.45092592[source]
    Also what is left is what survives our digestive system. Or is adapted in it, but can thrive in wrong part.
    20. raxxorraxor ◴[] No.45092852{4}[source]
    Wouldn't be the first time humans tried to use human manure as fertilizer. It always ended quite shitty (for humans).
    21. BobaFloutist ◴[] No.45094254[source]
    We also tend to congregate in high concentrations, since we have communication (and now social media!) to show all the best places. If everyone was dispersed camping on BLM land, somehow equally distributed regardless of distance from the road, it would probably be less of a problem, but when everyone wants to do ~the same extra special hikes and camp in the sameish spots, the concentration would get pretty high.

    Also, animal shit can be bad for the local environment. There's a lovely lake near us, and a nice big tree with a sign on it from the municipal parks department saying "Cormorants are using this tree to nest. Eventually, their droppings with kill the tree."

    22. rendx ◴[] No.45097137{5}[source]
    > It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring.

    Ha. I actually think it's going to make people potentially care even less? "Why would I need to preserve anything if nature and life is going to be fine no matter what?"

    Some even argue to better speed it up, so we don't destroy too many other species in our own downfall.

    23. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45103445{4}[source]
    Dumping ANY manure into a body of water causes algal blooms. Fecal matter concentrates nutrients. This has happened with modern megafarms, when flooding overflows their manure pits.