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

Insects Are in Serious Trouble

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 168 posts

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#21

Post by pps43 »

b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

5% interest rate does not imply 5% business growth. Interest rate simply reflects the fact that people prefer $1 right now to $1 a year later. In this context banks are time machines, moving money through time (glossing over credit risk, inflation, and other complexities).

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#23

Post by 49para »

l_camacho wrote: post #15
b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

That's circular economy at the purest level. More and more I think we need to degrow. It's not a question of starting the green economy. That should had happen years before now. We were informed by environmentalist about the limits of growth. Now we need to act fast on reducing unnecessary consumption and also unethical/unsustainable productivity.

'degrow' == collapse

The monetary system is based on debt, debt requires growth to service the interest, growth, at some point, is unsustainable. Collapse occurs at the point of 0.0 growth, i.e. the top of the curve.

The question is : does growth stop voluntarily or when one of the feedstocks of growth reach a limit ?

I find it odd that the people most associated with 'green' thinking, climate change etc, are the ones that seem to want growth in other areas, i.e. immigration to offset natural western population decline. I read comments from leftward progressives that they want to take Canada's population to 100m from 35m, given Canadian's comsume the most energy per capita, that sounds insane.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#24

Post by pc86 »

b0rsuk wrote: post #19
mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like growth. I want to be wealthier or be able to work less (which is really just an aspect of being wealthier). I want everybody else to be wealthier too. I want my children to be better off than I am. The problem is growth without care for the consequences. Making some people wealthier at the expense of killing the planet is a bad plan. But I think that it goes too far the other way to turn around and say that gr…

Then build a bigger planet.

This is unnecessarily argumentative and intentionally misses the point of the response.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#25

Post by mikeash »

b0rsuk wrote: post #19
mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like growth. I want to be wealthier or be able to work less (which is really just an aspect of being wealthier). I want everybody else to be wealthier too. I want my children to be better off than I am. The problem is growth without care for the consequences. Making some people wealthier at the expense of killing the planet is a bad plan. But I think that it goes too far the other way to turn around and say that gr…

Then build a bigger planet.

Growth does not necessarily need more planet. The same amount of natural resources produces a lot more wealth today than it did a thousand years ago. The style and amount of growth we've seen in the past couple of centuries uses up more and more, but that doesn't have to be the only way.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#26

Post by b0rsuk »

leephillips wrote: post #16
b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

I think the idea of "external wealth" is interesting. But how are banks culprits here? Are they forcing you to borrow money? Should they charge no interest so your business doesn't need to grow? Also, I don't follow. You need revenue to pay the interest (and principle), not constant growth.

I'm repeating that argumentation after Marcin Popkiewicz, a Polish climate expert. He wrote a few fat books about it.

No one forces you to take bank loans, but banks definitely foster geometric growth. They want geometric returns on investment. If you don't have constant business growth, borrowing money from bank is losing money.

I don't know what would be the right answer. I know what human population is growing at a geometric rate, and the planet is finite in size. If a colony of bacteria doubles in size every 30 minutes, and it fully covers a petri dish at 12:00 am, the dish would be half covered at 11:30. 25% covered at 11:00. My point is that when there's geometric population growth, saying "oh, we still have 75% of the planet left" is just stupid. At that point the time is almost up.

Also, countries have a geopolitical interest to have as high population as possible, to have a manpower advantage over neighbors. This is why birth control - probably necessary at some point if the planet is finite - is bloody unlikely to happen. It would need to be introduced simultaneously in all countries. It reminds me of the story of Europeans buying African slaves at African shore. If there was a kingdom which refused selling slaves, they went to your neighbors and sold them rifles.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#27

Post by xoa »

I'm glad to see some of the recent research on threats to insect populations getting more attention, HN recently had a good discussion on this in "75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas" [1]. But in reading through that thread I saw a lot of discussion about pesticides but surprisingly nothing at all regarding nighttime light pollution, and in that context I think another Atlantic piece is of interest, "Night Lights Drive Pollinators Away from Plants" [2]. In particular I think that's an area where it seems like there is more direct action potential for technologists. Both individually and in terms of community ordinances we should push to better take advantage of advances in LEDs and sensors to try to reduce color temperature at light and try to better ensure that lighting exists only when and where humans actually directly need it at the time, rather then the current dumblight defaults of "always on, lots of spread, and always at the same temperature".

This should be an area where at least some level of technological win-win is possible, because we generally only need lighting on when a human is not present. Permanent-on has just been that way by default because there was no better way to ensure it would be on if somebody came around. Fixed color temperatures too have been a matter of simple necessity given the technology available. So there should be a lot of room to reduce wasted light (and in turn energy) and simultaneously benefit pollinators via smarter lighting tech.

From a personal perspective, this provided me the impetus to get my camera, door sensors, and other presence detectors all linked up with my lighting at long last so that my outdoor lighting is by default off at night except when directly needed. I'd support a national push to develop more directed, warmer, and smarter street lighting and the like as well.

----

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15502074

2: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/confirme...

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#28

Post by b0rsuk »

mikeash wrote: post #25
b0rsuk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then build a bigger planet.

Growth does not necessarily need more planet. The same amount of natural resources produces a lot more wealth today than it did a thousand years ago. The style and amount of growth we've seen in the past couple of centuries uses up more and more, but that doesn't have to be the only way.

It doesn't have to be that way ? What else could people compete for ? Facebook likes ? So far, almost all wealth is material in nature. As for digital rewards, data-centers and other computer infrastructure needs constant input of energy. Human population is growing, humans love to copulate and take pride in having children. We need bigger and bigger internets for bigger facebooks.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#29

Post by leephillips »

b0rsuk wrote: post #26
leephillips wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea of "external wealth" is interesting. But how are banks culprits here? Are they forcing you to borrow money? Should they charge no interest so your business doesn't need to grow? Also, I don't follow. You need revenue to pay the interest (and principle), not constant growth.

I'm repeating that argumentation after Marcin Popkiewicz, a Polish climate expert. He wrote a few fat books about it. No one forces you to take bank loans, but banks definitely foster geometric growth. They want geometric returns on investment. If you don't have constant business growth, borrowing money from bank is losing money. I don't know what would be the right answer. I know what human population is growing at…

I'm no economist, but: If I borrow from a bank to buy a hotdog stand, and the payback is two years at $500/month, I need to earn $500/month + other expenses + profit every month for two years (or default and give the bank the stand, which is the collateral). I don't need to grow. The bank gets its interest, and I get an income from my business. Win-win. Where is "growth" required?

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#30

Post by njarboe »

mikeash wrote: post #18
b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

I like growth. I want to be wealthier or be able to work less (which is really just an aspect of being wealthier). I want everybody else to be wealthier too. I want my children to be better off than I am. The problem is growth without care for the consequences. Making some people wealthier at the expense of killing the planet is a bad plan. But I think that it goes too far the other way to turn around and say that gr…

I think one of the main problems is that GDP is used as the measure of national prosperity. GDP goes down when people decide to work less. Some kind of net wealth measurement would be much better parameter for a country to try and maximize. Include natural resources and the biosphere in that wealth. In this scheme taking oil from the ground and burning it would likely be a net negative on national wealth while using oil to make carbon fiber for an airplane would be a net positive. Growing a crop that builds the soil instead of depleting might add more to Gross Domestic Wealth than a more "profitable" crop.
Post reply on HN