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

191–200 of 329 posts

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

#191

Post by fwefwwfe »

notpresident wrote: post #126
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try not to kill flies, no. The only exception is for multiple flies that won't go away. Ditto for ants. It's a bit strange that violence toward insects is fine, but violence towards dogs is not. Ever killed a dog because it annoyed you? That said, doing it for science at least has a justification.

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.

Just think of all the unborn insects that die!

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

#192

Post by dmix »

root_axis wrote: post #185
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…

> 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 hallucinati…

> 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.

Well I'd expect someone would do a bit more research than the four sentences I typed out here... Do you honestly think people are going to run out and get LSD, without any regard, after reading my comment?

The majority of people get their information from movies about LSD and that is far more wrong than anything I've said and I believe it scares too many people away from what it is a very safe enjoyable experience.

Responsible use of the drug is entirely safe. LSD is famously the safest drug of all recreational drugs.

While I may have been a bit laid back when sharing my perspective you've taken it to the far other extreme, spreading FUD about the drug which is exactly what I'm talking about. If you're in a comfortable controlled environment then the risks are very small. And yes I've also read books and read everything I could on the subject before doing it.

I suffer from anxiety and depression as well, so I wanted to be fully aware of the risks.

I was entirely shocked at how comfortable and pleasant the experience was because I read nothing but warnings and fear mongering like the above post seems to indicate. I hope not everyone gets scared away from it, like I was for so long.

The things you warn about are all uncommon side effects or based on other psychological issues outside of the drug, which should be indicators you shouldn't be experimenting with mind altering substances...

I actually found a reduction in my recurring mental health issues after using LSD for a least a few weeks after (same with psilocybin which I find is much more liable to cause a bad trip than LSD and I'm personally much more careful with, environment-wise).

> I am going to flag your post because it contains serious misinformation

Good thing you showed up to be the hero to save people reading about my positive experience /s

Hardly surprised at this over-protectiveness. This feeling of needing to control information because you believe people lack the most basic common sense to do their own research is sadly common in society. This is HN. This isn't a mainstream audience, I'm giving people a little benefit of the doubt here. I'm quite certain no one takes doing LSD lightly, you can relax.

So yes before doing a serious drug like LSD, do some basic 101 research. But understand the difference between possible side effects and real dangers based on your own psychological profile.

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

#193

Post by riskable »

rmason wrote: post #173

There's already a much better solution to deal with plastic pollution, a naturally degradable material made from corn. We heavily subsidize both wind power and solar. We even still subsidize gasohol even though it doesn't produce the environmental benefits we first thought that it did. But we don't subsidize degradable plastic made from corn which isn't used widely because it costs a few cents more than plastic made…

You are grossly oversimplifying the issues. You're referring to Polylactic Acid (PLA) which is made from corn and biodegradable. Except it only biodegrades when eaten by bacteria that only lives in soil.

Meaning: If plastic made from PLA ends up in waterways, the oceans, etc it won't degrade there and actually just breaks down into smaller parts creating the exact same sort of problem as microbeads (except PLA doesn't last nearly as long as other plastics regardless).

The other problem is that bioplastics have lower glass transition temperatures than, say, PET or ABS which is what most plastic products are made from. So you're not going to be using PLA in a car dashboard, for example since it would deform rather quickly on a hot summer's day.

"But there's high-temperature PLA now!" Yes, yes there is. You know how they make it "high temperature"? By adding fossil oil-based chemicals to the polymer. This process results in PLA that leaves residues after degrading. It's similar to "wood fill" or "bronze fill" filament in that a certain percentage of it is PLA whereas the rest is the usual does-not-break-down-ever stuff. Better? Yes. A long-term solution? Not really.

...and for reference, we do subsidize bioplastics to the tune of billions of dollars every year:

https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

PLA and most other bioplastics are made from corn husks.

"Wait: I thought it was pretty much all made from corn?" Nope! There's a teeny tiny percentage of bioplastics made from algae. Now there's the future!

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

#194

Post by semi-extrinsic »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #113
jacquesm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. > Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. Chemical weapons research is pure evil, I don't doubt tha…

> No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. I want to agree with this, but I'm not certain how I would act if I knew my options where a) continue weaponisation research or b) get shot in the face.

Crucially, option b) is actually "get shot in the face and then someone else weaponises the research".

Making a principled stand is only useful when it stands a non-zero chance of accomplishing something.

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

#195

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

adrr wrote: post #85
tuna-piano wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, have never understood the problem with landfills. There's tons of unused space left, and landfills take up a tiny fraction of that. Who cares if we make a trash hill somewhere and styrofoam sits there for a million years?

Think of all the carbon that is sequestered because of landfills. Makes you think twice when recycling paper products.

This is interesting, to someone not well informed in this, how do landfills sequester carbon?

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

#197

Post by riskable »

baq wrote: post #140
neikos wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the carboniferous period! [1] And it went on for about 60 Million years which seems an unfathomable timespan. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

yeah, imagine all the dead trees that basically don't decompose because nothing can eat them. that'd be a sight to behold.

It actually wasn't the trees it was mostly their bark!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Rocks_and_coal

So it wasn't mountains of wood that lay on the ground during the Carboniferous period, it was like, the best mulching job ever. The trees pwned all other species at that time. Can you imagine being a weed trying to grow up through all that bark? You'd have one hell of an up-hill battle!

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

#198

Post by Falling3 »

mikeash wrote: post #162
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try not to kill flies, no. The only exception is for multiple flies that won't go away. Ditto for ants. It's a bit strange that violence toward insects is fine, but violence towards dogs is not. Ever killed a dog because it annoyed you? That said, doing it for science at least has a justification.

It's because insects have such a primitive nervous system that we don't see them as being aware in the same way that a dog is. You draw the line somewhere , right? Drawing the line at a certain complexity of the nervous system is more sensible than drawing it at "animals" in general, IMO.

Err on the side of caution. Draw the line as far as practically possible. We have a long history of underestimating the mental abilities of other animals. Heck, now we've got evidence of ants passing the mirror test.

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

#199

Post by MichaelGG »

jacquesm wrote: post #45
smueller1234 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the antithesis to the discovery of antibiotics is the mostly accidental discovery of Tabun: "In January 1937, Schrader observed the effects of nerve agents on human beings first-hand when a drop of tabun spilled onto a lab bench." (Wikipedia) I think that one might stand out somewhat since I'd expect most accidental advances to be helpful to humanity. Or maybe I'm just an optimist. :)

Scientists that voluntarily work to bring such stuff in the world are amongst the people I least respect. It's one thing to be dumb, quite another to be extraordinarily gifted and to use that gift to do something which has no upside at all and plenty of downside. Exposing them to their own creations would be poetic justice.

>has no upside at all

Basically any powerful/impressive weapon can be justified to have upside as it might reduce further casualties by ending conflict sooner.

And looking at trench warfare, if there had been a way to make it completely unfeasible by being able to "permanently" poison an entire field at a time, perhaps that would have turned out better.

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

#200

Post by Falling3 »

ajross wrote: post #176
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…

Going further: if a few dead dogs were the price of some significant increase in human welfare (something more than bag recycling, I guess), I think most people would be OK with that. This is exactly the trade we make in the pharmaceutical industry every day (not with so many dogs per se, but with organisms at least as complex, cute and fuzzy). I don't see much evidence for a "shaky belief system". Or maybe you're ma…

Humans are not rational. It takes a lot of thought and discipline to attempt to come up with a coherent belief system and align your actions with it.
Post reply on HN