Live data from Hacker News

Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

nytimes.com

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#41

"The causes of the pressure on these creatures intertwine: aggressive agricultural practices that grow crops on every available acre eliminate patches of wildflowers and cover crops that provide food for pollinators. Farming also exposes the creatures to pesticides, and bees are under attack from parasites and pathogens, as well." Seems like this should self-regulate quite well. If there are no bees to pollinate the…

Most crops don't need pollinators. Corn uses wind, and wheat and soybeans self pollinate. The farms that do rely on pollinators are careful not to spray too much.

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of field crops self or wind pollinate. Corn, wheat, soy, rice, etc.

That's interesting, I didn't know. Honest question though: Is this relevant to my argument?

I think so, the lack of pollinators won't curtail aggressive practices associated with those crops.

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#43
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of conspiracy theory in one sentence. I'd be disappointed if the WHO ran after every breath of witchcraft published in somebody's blog.

I meant news stories from real rather reputable newspapers, not from random blogs. Call it what you want. We just need objective independent research about that topic, opinionated one won't help general public nor the bees and other declining species.

Do you have any examples of those news stories?

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#44
I've read a few things about this issue and I'm not entirely sure how I feel. There are a lot of alarmist comments and articles, and people who don't understand what is going on because of them. This is going to be a stream of my thoughts and things I've learned, not really arguing for any "side".

The main problem seems to be with honey bees, and in North America. Honey bees are not native, or wild. I believe they are somewhat inbred or at least have a founder effect. And they are transported around the country every year by farmers, spreading whatever pathogens they have to every colony rapidly.

We also steal their honey (and breed them to over produce it in the first place). And in some cases replace it with shitty substitutes like corn syrup. But I'm not a beekeeper and I'm sure they know what they are doing, but still. It's not a very natural environment for the bees.

There are native species of bees. E.g. bumblebees. I do not know whether or not they are declining. I found a single study about their long term population. Some species are declining, but others are not. I am very confused about this result and don't know what to make of it. These bees have an advantage being native to this environment, having more genetic diversity, and not being vulnerable to the same pathogens.

It's not clear if native bees would be able to take over for industrial agriculture, which is optimized around honey bees.

The actual number of honey bee colonies in the US has not declined, despite these issues. However this may be due to intensive efforts by farmers to keep them alive, and operating at a loss. It might not be sustainable.

It's not clear if insecticides are really to blame. Since the insecticides in question have been around for a long time before this was an issue. It's likely a contributing factor though.

Mostly this affects the fruit industry. Most staple crops, or at least grains, do not require insect pollination. Humanity is not at any risk of starving to death, even in the worst case scenario.

Honey bees are actually super inefficient. In a farm in China, they died off, so they had to pay humans to pollinate all the trees manually. Production increased by 30%, since the bees missed a lot of flowers. While paying humans is a bit expensive, it's possible technology could replace the need for honey bees and improve agriculture.

On that note, we could also replace insecticides with better technology. E.g. insect zapping lasers, or robots that seek them out. Chemical pesticides are really really awesome, contrary to popular belief. But they do seem crude to me.

And GM crops have literally nothing to do with any of this. As far as I can tell. Glyphosate is a herbicide, not an insecticide.

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#46
post #2

> The agricultural system, for which pollinators play a key role, creates millions of jobs worldwide. This sentence feels weird and misplaced. Compared with the agricultural system's main task – keeping us from starving to death – its role as a job provider seems utterly insignificant.

The problem is that stupid businessman just can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that the environment might just be important. The only language they understand is money. Gonna be the death of us all. Idiots.

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#47
post #2

> The agricultural system, for which pollinators play a key role, creates millions of jobs worldwide. This sentence feels weird and misplaced. Compared with the agricultural system's main task – keeping us from starving to death – its role as a job provider seems utterly insignificant.

From http://data.worldbank.org/topic/agriculture-and-rural-develo... : For the 70 percent of the world's poor who live in rural areas, agriculture is the main source of income and employment.

It would make more sense to me to say:

"The purpose of the economy is to grow food sustainably."

Then it would it say:

"The purpose of sustainable agriculture is to support the economy"

The economy is a tool we use to manipulate our own behavior. The idea that it's a goal in and of itself is pretty confusing to me.

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#48
post #34
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does government interference in a market make it near-perfectly free? The U.S. agriculture market is infamous as a source of government waste and pork barrel spending: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-pr...

Sorry, perfectly competitive is the phrase I'm looking for.

I don't think that's correct either. Many of the crops grown in the american west wouldn't be profitable if it weren't for huge subsidies. In the most egregious cases Californian farmers have grown thirsty, low value crops while their counterparts in the Southeast were being paid to destroy them.

https://mises.org/library/water-subsidies-and-shortages-amer...

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot of agricultural isn't to keep people from starving to death - think hemp, cotton, tea/coffee, sugar cane, natural rubber, chocolate, and coca in places it is legal. None of those things prevent people from starving at all. A lot of agricultural foodstuff is terribly inefficient at meeting the goal of "keeping people from starving." We grow them though (and produce in the case of meat) because humans reall…

> Agriculture's purpose is economic. Eating (and eating tasty food) does have a large demand though. I'm maybe just repeating what the parent comment said, but that seems backwards to me. If we treat agriculture's purpose as economy for economy's sake, which we have been doing, it seems counter-productive to our goals of staying alive sustainably.

This really should be no surprise. Mainstream economics practices that the environment is a subset of the economy and not the other way around.

"Sure, I can live without fresh water and clean air, but a market? I need a market." /s

Re: Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply

#50
post #46
post #2

> The agricultural system, for which pollinators play a key role, creates millions of jobs worldwide. This sentence feels weird and misplaced. Compared with the agricultural system's main task – keeping us from starving to death – its role as a job provider seems utterly insignificant.

The problem is that stupid businessman just can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that the environment might just be important. The only language they understand is money. Gonna be the death of us all. Idiots.

According to historian Dr. Joseph Tainter's book 'The Collapse of Complex Societies', if you exclude isolated groups such as tribes, there have been 23 distinct civilizations throughout the course of human history and 22 have failed. Hypercomplexity and specialization tend to be common characteristics, as well as, misuse of resources.
Post reply on HN