Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 329 posts

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#181

Post by greenshackle2 »

jonnybgood wrote: post #169
greenshackle2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you eat animal products? I find it much stranger that violence towards farm animals is ok but not pets. At least there are principled reasons to care less about insects (much less complex nervous system), I can find no principled reason to care more for dogs than pigs.

The principled reason to care more for dogs from my understanding is mutualism. Dogs are dogs because of humans. Same for cats.

It's the same for farm animals though, isn't it? Modern broiler chickens, egg-layers, dairy cows and beef cattle, turkeys, etc. are very different from their wild ancestors.

Farmed turkeys can't have sex, they have to be artificially inseminated, I don't know who made them that way if not humans.

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#182

Post by [deleted] »

jonnybgood wrote: post #169
greenshackle2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you eat animal products? I find it much stranger that violence towards farm animals is ok but not pets. At least there are principled reasons to care less about insects (much less complex nervous system), I can find no principled reason to care more for dogs than pigs.

The principled reason to care more for dogs from my understanding is mutualism. Dogs are dogs because of humans. Same for cats.

[deleted]

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#184

Post by Arizhel »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
sithadmin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kills people = bad stuff, keep it locked away is a pretty dangerous, slippery slope.

How so? Sweet smelling liquids that kill and children are not compatible in the same space. That's a pretty good reason to keep your various cleaning stuff out of the reach of toddlers whose need to experiment exceeds their capability to understand.

True, but isn't this basic common sense? We do exactly the same with other poisonous chemicals in the house: drain cleaner, etc. Of course, most of them aren't sweet-smelling like antifreeze, but you also don't use antifreeze in the house, only in the car.

I think the real problem with antifreeze is when people drain their radiators at home and then leave the old antifreeze out, either because they're too lazy to put it in a sealed container right away, or because they're letting it evaporate instead of figuring out how to dispose of it properly. Then, usually, some animal comes across it (and is attracted by the smell).

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#185

Post by root_axis »

dmix wrote: post #129
badosu wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how LSD was discovered [0]. It's so potent that it can be absorbed just by skin contact, that's why police must use gloves when seizing it. Imagine yourself coming home with your bicycle and having a massive (250 ug) LSD trip only having experienced it once, pretty scary and interesting at the same time [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hofmann#Discovery_of_LS... [1]: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.…

Despite the movies showing weird/scary trips, LSD is a very comforting, pleasant, and soft experience. You don't see things or talk to objects, at most you see some visual stimuli, like blending colors. People who say that they were hallucinating have never tried it or are lying. It would definitely be a surprise though if it was unexpected. A possibly pleasant experience depending on the person though... Definitely…

> LSD is a very comforting, pleasant, and soft experience

Not necessarily, it is a totally subjective experience and very much dependent on the individual and the dosage.

> at most you see some visual stimuli, like blending colors.

This is an incorrect and dangerous statement, the effects of LSD can be very intense and very easily traumatizing, even in a controlled environment. The intensity of the visual hallucinations has considerable variability between individuals and can most certainly include "seeing things" and "talking to objects". This is without considering the possible permanent side effects like HPPD or the serious risks to those predisposed or with a family history of certain psychological disorders.

> People who say that they were hallucinating have never tried it or are lying

Very wrong. I am going to flag your post because it contains serious misinformation that could be dangerous if taken as genuine by someone without accurate knowledge of the risks and effects of LSD.

edit: I am not against LSD usage and think it can be a very enlightening experience, but the glib dismissals of its potential side effects are wrong and dangerous.

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#186

Post by alistproducer2 »

dmix wrote: post #129
badosu wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how LSD was discovered [0]. It's so potent that it can be absorbed just by skin contact, that's why police must use gloves when seizing it. Imagine yourself coming home with your bicycle and having a massive (250 ug) LSD trip only having experienced it once, pretty scary and interesting at the same time [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hofmann#Discovery_of_LS... [1]: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.…

Despite the movies showing weird/scary trips, LSD is a very comforting, pleasant, and soft experience. You don't see things or talk to objects, at most you see some visual stimuli, like blending colors. People who say that they were hallucinating have never tried it or are lying. It would definitely be a surprise though if it was unexpected. A possibly pleasant experience depending on the person though... Definitely…

this is not true for everyone. people with anxiety issues will have absolutely terrifying trips more often than not.

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#187

Post by RealityVoid »

badosu wrote: post #136
dmix wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the movies showing weird/scary trips, LSD is a very comforting, pleasant, and soft experience. You don't see things or talk to objects, at most you see some visual stimuli, like blending colors. People who say that they were hallucinating have never tried it or are lying. It would definitely be a surprise though if it was unexpected. A possibly pleasant experience depending on the person though... Definitely…

The paranoic stimuli and possible unfolding of latent mental conditions can't be underestimated though.

"possible unfolding of latent mental conditions"

Interesting, can you expand on this? First time I hear this. I know someone that told me of a friend of his that hid some LSD at a border crossing close to the body and as a result of the trip, the guy got severe permanent psychatric damage in that he's currently residing in an institution.

I thought he was full of shit, but if what you're saying is true, he might not have been.

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#188

Post by semi-extrinsic »

greenshackle2 wrote: post #177
orthecreedence wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I advocate for animal rights on this forum, it's met with downvotes and people huffing and puffing about the benefit to humanity and science. Your argument is sound...flies are animals. They have exoskeletons, six legs, and compound eyes but they are animals nonetheless. However, our cultural "worth" of flies is much lower than that of dogs, so even people who supposedly value logic above all else would ra…

Do you have a fully-coherent, logical system for deciding which lives to care about, and how much? I'd be interested to hear. 'Animals' is not a natural kind. There's no logical reason to care about all animals just because they are animals. I care about dogs, pigs, other people, etc. not because they're 'animals', but because I think they are plausibly conscious (to varying degrees) and they can experience joy and s…

The utilitarian in me chooses to attach value to insects according to how I perceive their value in the ecosystem. Bees, bumblebees, spiders etc. are useful, so I don't kill those. Houseflies, gnats, ticks, mosquitoes on the other hand, I have zero problems killing when they annoy me.

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#189

Post by notpresident »

orthecreedence wrote: post #142
notpresident wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially related and I expect a 50% chance to be punished for this but it is really interesting and I think it deserves some thought: It always surprises me how a number of HNers worries about killing insects, even for science - all while supporting the killing of unborn children.

Perhaps I can answer your question. I catch flies and bring them outside when they are in my home. I also regularly go for walks outside. In doing so, I will step on ants, caterpillars , various plants, etc. Some of them surely die. In other words, I will show kindness to animals, but only to the point where it doesn't completely impede my life or my ability to find happiness. When I think of abortion, I don't think…

I don't see how one can say that a clump of 64 cells is a child, given that it has the potential to be one

Thats not what I'm talking about (although I admit I'm generally against.)

See "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" and "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" to get an idea.

Edit:

I think the first trimester is a fairly decent cutoff.

As far as I am aware this is not a general cutoff in the US.

Re: Caterpillar found to eat shopping bags, suggesting solution to plastic pollution

#190

Post by orthecreedence »

greenshackle2 wrote: post #177
orthecreedence wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I advocate for animal rights on this forum, it's met with downvotes and people huffing and puffing about the benefit to humanity and science. Your argument is sound...flies are animals. They have exoskeletons, six legs, and compound eyes but they are animals nonetheless. However, our cultural "worth" of flies is much lower than that of dogs, so even people who supposedly value logic above all else would ra…

Do you have a fully-coherent, logical system for deciding which lives to care about, and how much? I'd be interested to hear. 'Animals' is not a natural kind. There's no logical reason to care about all animals just because they are animals. I care about dogs, pigs, other people, etc. not because they're 'animals', but because I think they are plausibly conscious (to varying degrees) and they can experience joy and s…

So you argument is that it's fine to not care for insects because there are a lot of them, and because their lives are short and brutal.

I would say the opposite. Animals whose lives are rife with pain and misfortune can use all the help anyone is willing to offer. Granted, I will not seek out every fly and try to "save" it. But if I come across one I can help, I will do so. I think you're making the argument "either you HAVE to care about every fly or you CANNOT care about any flies." Perhaps that logic works for you, but I think it's a fallacy. I can care about flies without needing to care about the well-being of every fly. I also adhere to non-interference. If a fly is caught in a spider web, I will leave it. To free the fly is to starve the spider. Some things we just don't have control over. But I will do my best personally to not harm other animals.

I said this in another comment, but I'll repeat:

> I will show kindness to animals, but only to the point where it doesn't completely impede my life or my ability to find happiness.

In other words, it doesn't impede life or my happiness to catch a fly and bring it outside. Therefor it falls under the "show kindness to animals" category.

(I should add an addendum to that: any animal that is attacking me physically is subject to death (horse flies, mosquitoes, dogs, bears, etc)).

Given all that, I do not judge people who don't care about insects. I get it, completely. But that doesn't mean I won't stop challenging people's viewpoint on why it's ok to kill some animals and not others.

Post reply on HN