Live data from Hacker News

75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

journals.plos.org

161–170 of 454 posts

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has a simple explanation, though. Monarch caterpillars can only survive on milkweed, and we've decimated the amount of milkweed around because we see it as, well, a weed.

So basically the planet is starting to treat us as a kind of a ... weed, in return.

George Carlin called it.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#162
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically the planet is starting to treat us as a kind of a ... weed, in return.

The planet isn't conscious and can't "treat us" as anything. We are doing this to us. We are changing the environment to support short-term wants/needs at the expense of its human habitability in the future.

Of course the planet is conscious. The entire consciousness of the human race combined is a lower bound on the consciousness of the planet.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#163
post #3

Yes. This is a case of hard data confirming what we already know. As in - few types of butterflies I used to like, and see yearly as a kid - are gone. I see them now once in 5 years, if lucky. I bring my kids to look because it's a first time for them. On the other hand, some types of beetles, ants, flies, mosquitoes, even wasps - are just new. They were not here 20-30 years ago. Now, what are the consequences of all…

This is making the headlines in Germany right now: http://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2017-10/insektensterben-flu... http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/insekten-in-deutsch... http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/insektensterben-dramatisch... Der Spiegel discusses issues in the methodology of the data collection. The intervals over the years weren't uniform, data was collected by volunteers/hobbyists and they did not…

That unsuredness may be true about the collective data here but we definitely know that one particular species is in precipitous decline - the Monarch butterfly with it's 3400 mile annual journey to go north/south with the seasons. Since they only eat one plant, we could eliminate some causes directly (although they could be secondary causes - like making other plants/insects thrive).

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0301/Mexico-s-monarch...

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think donating to pro environmental lobbying groups. You be surprised how little large corporations spend on lobbying to influence politicians.

I'm surprised by what you're saying about the small amount destined to lobbying. Do you have numbers about this?

You have to dig a little, but the average cost for the votes against net neutrality cost about 16,000 per US congressman who voted against it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#165

I live in Minneapolis. The city fumigates regularly in the summer by aircraft and ground-based methods both, which is why I can go running around the lakes in mid July and get maybe one mosquito bite. I think most US cities are like this. It's a policy that should be scrapped in spite of the risk of West Nile and Lyme Disease.

They're not fumigating, they're spreading a bacteria that kills (only supposedly) mosquito larva. http://www.mmcd.org/mosquito-control/larva-control/

[deleted]

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#166
post #3

Yes. This is a case of hard data confirming what we already know. As in - few types of butterflies I used to like, and see yearly as a kid - are gone. I see them now once in 5 years, if lucky. I bring my kids to look because it's a first time for them. On the other hand, some types of beetles, ants, flies, mosquitoes, even wasps - are just new. They were not here 20-30 years ago. Now, what are the consequences of all…

This year, I left a portion of my lawn unmowed. I seeded it with a $10 bag of wildflower seeds. It's given me 4 months of beautiful flowers, loads of polinators, many butterflies, and it's given me less yard to mow. I now think that lawns of neatly trimmed grass are about as dumb as it gets.

Ha, did exactly the same thing, since I noticed nearly no bees or other insects last year. I dedictated around 200 m² of my lawn to nature. I think it helped: This year, there where so much more of them to see.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#167
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, don't let my depression lead you to the wrong conclusion. I'm am (somewhat) active - I donate to climate causes, it's my number one issue when voting, I drive a hybrid, only buy organic food, minimize eating meat, minimize consumption, grow some of my own food, bike when I can, minimize electricity use, etc. I do recognize that it's not enough and we all need to basically go back pre-industrial lifestyles to re…

Yeah, that wasn't aimed at you. More a general observation that one of the biggest problems with climate change is how we think about it. I'll bet there are a lot of people who have more or less given up. I've talked to some people who are not really deniers but rather people who don't want to know, and find it easiest to not think about it at all.

I think part of that "giving up" comes from there not being a plausible vision to a sustainable future. If all it took was cutting down, even significantly, on daily indulgences, and a clear set of numbers showed that, then I believe we could get people on board. But the main issue is that power brokers, both in policy and in media, refuse to make those sacrifices, and their decisions have several of orders of magnitude more effect than individual actions. And the individuals know it.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#168
It's pot-boilerish, a good deal of the science (i.e. why the insects disappear) is bonkers, and the author's reputation is somewhat tarnished these days, but oh boy did it make an impression: I read Charles Pellegrino's Dust almost twenty years ago, and this talk of insect die-off still brings the terrifying plot to the front of my mind.

Also, for a 1998 novel, it had a pretty decent future scenario of people somewhere around now using all-powerfull 'pads' for their web and mail and video chats and general computing.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#169

Being an earth dwelling human, this seems pretty bad. Aside from buying ammo or survival rations, what's something proactive that I can do? Is there an organization that is trying to rid the world of pesticides (assuming that's the cause)? If I opt to call my representatives, what am I calling in support of/against? Over the last year, reading the news had made me more passive and worried. I want to dedicate a slice…

Plant _local_ pollinating flowers and other plants that the insects rely upon, and encourage everyone you know that can do so to do the same.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#170
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just speculating wildly and looking at Sweden, for example meadows have more or less disappeared since 30-40 years. I mean flowering meadows, not pastures for grazing. The meadows have been turned into forests and to a lesser extent pastures. It's not a few percent, it's 30% of the land, probably more in Germany where there are much lest forests than in Sweden. The bio-diversity in a meadow strikes me as much higher…

Not sure if this is case in Sweden, but here in the US the reforestation is actually a return to the natural state. Much of the country was logged repeatedly in the last few centuries. Modern sustainable logging and the transition to other energy sources is resulting in the land returning to the endless forest it was before settlers arrived. This is mostly clearly seen on the east coast because most of the Midwest is…

I think the point was made at the end of the previous post that pine (or other non-deciduous) forests are being planted there. I think it's a similar story across Europe, but I'm most familiar with Ireland where modern forestry has used Sitka Spruce which is non-native and impacts biodiversity.
Post reply on HN