Live data from Hacker News

Insects Are in Serious Trouble

theatlantic.com

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#71
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…

> Banks are among the biggest culprits.

Wow. From an article about insects you arrived to banks in three sentences. Kind of impressive.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#72
post #67

Years ago when I lived in suburban Texas with a typical suburban house with a back yard that had open space behind it I had a terrible insect problem. Exposed skin would get a mosquito bite-per-minute, the dogs were coming inside covered in fleas, etc. So I went to Home Depot and bought this yard spray that promised to kill mosquitos, fleas, ticks, etc. and I hosed down the back yard in a desperate attempt to reclaim…

Remember fireflies? They've all but disappeared in cities because of mosquito spraying.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#73
post #69
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wealth ier ? Will you be more happy with three cars than with two? I think a lot of people have a limit to their material needs, when they are more happy catering for their real interests instead of chasing more wealth. It may be a cliché, but probably for a reason.

I think you might have missed the part where being able to work less is one potential result of being wealthier. Will I be more happy with another car? Probably not. Will I be more happy if I work 30 hours a week instead of 40? Probably.

Why not just say that? The wealth aspect seems distracting.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#74
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…

Modern capitalism can be easily sustainable. You just have to do two things. 1) Legislate frameworks for market based solutions to externalities i.e. tragedies of the commons such as air pollution, water quality, etc. Cap and trade would be one framework for addressing CO2. 2) Eliminate mercantilism, where government policies are used to interfere in market forces, usually for the benefit of wealthy business owners.…

>For those of you who say yea, but it's impossible that those 2 things could ever be legislated successfully, I say, yea, your right. But that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the solution. And for those of you who say, but capitalism bad! I say, yea but those two things are just as impossible to implement under socialism, communism, marxism or any other system you can devise.

It is curious to argue that something is a solution, and also assert that it is impossible.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#75
post #72
post #67

Years ago when I lived in suburban Texas with a typical suburban house with a back yard that had open space behind it I had a terrible insect problem. Exposed skin would get a mosquito bite-per-minute, the dogs were coming inside covered in fleas, etc. So I went to Home Depot and bought this yard spray that promised to kill mosquitos, fleas, ticks, etc. and I hosed down the back yard in a desperate attempt to reclaim…

Remember fireflies? They've all but disappeared in cities because of mosquito spraying.

I just moved from California to Tennessee and only recently got to experience fireflies for the first time in my life. They're incredible :) I don't see them in the city, but that doesnt surprise me... there are tons once you leave downtown, though.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#76
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there "growth" without consuming physical resources? If not, we have to accept OP's POV that economic growth is by definition unsustainable. "Anyone who thinks exponential growth can continue forever is either a madman or an economist"

There is absolutely 'growth' without consuming resources. Economic growth also includes improvements in efficiency, which typically reduce the amount of physical resources used. Also, look at the transition in our lives from physical media to digital media. Digital channels have brought massive growth while reducing the need for paper, CDs, DVDs, etc.

Hmm, reducing the need for long lasting and easily recyclable paper by replacing it with mostly-plastic stuff (including packaging) that becomes obsolete in less than a decade?

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#77
post #18
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…

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron.

The economy is a dissipative system.

It consumes energy/creates entropy to sustain itself. In its current state it already consumes more than the earth/sun can supply. Having it grow even more means consuming ever more energy (fossil and nuclear fuel is finite, the sun light is constant), and generating ever more entropy (i.e. pollution, heat, and ecosystems destruction).

Edit: also, improvements in efficiency have historically lead to a global increase in energy consumption because of the growth they spurred, and you can't get past 100%.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#78
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there "growth" without consuming physical resources? If not, we have to accept OP's POV that economic growth is by definition unsustainable. "Anyone who thinks exponential growth can continue forever is either a madman or an economist"

There is absolutely 'growth' without consuming resources. Economic growth also includes improvements in efficiency, which typically reduce the amount of physical resources used. Also, look at the transition in our lives from physical media to digital media. Digital channels have brought massive growth while reducing the need for paper, CDs, DVDs, etc.

There's a hard ceiling on efficiency though. You can't get past (or even near) 100%.

Historically efficiency improvements have lead to such an increase in productivity that the total energy consumption went up anyways.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#79
post #69
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wealth ier ? Will you be more happy with three cars than with two? I think a lot of people have a limit to their material needs, when they are more happy catering for their real interests instead of chasing more wealth. It may be a cliché, but probably for a reason.

I think you might have missed the part where being able to work less is one potential result of being wealthier. Will I be more happy with another car? Probably not. Will I be more happy if I work 30 hours a week instead of 40? Probably.

But it's been stuck at 40 for a long time

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#80
post #67

Years ago when I lived in suburban Texas with a typical suburban house with a back yard that had open space behind it I had a terrible insect problem. Exposed skin would get a mosquito bite-per-minute, the dogs were coming inside covered in fleas, etc. So I went to Home Depot and bought this yard spray that promised to kill mosquitos, fleas, ticks, etc. and I hosed down the back yard in a desperate attempt to reclaim…

We do know how to control insects in ways that only target the insects we actually want to get rid of, and leave everything else alone, but we aren't willing to put in the effort.

There are two major categories of ways to kill an insect.

1. Attack it with chemicals that interfere with its biologically processes in such a way that it dies.

2. Physically attack its body causing sufficient damage to kill it, such as by crushing it, or shredding it.

(I'll include things like burning it with fire or acid as physical attacks rather than chemical attacks because they kill by destroying the body. I'll count drowning as a physical attack, too).

Within each of these categories there are simple methods that are effective and cheap, but are also not very discriminatory. In the chemical category, that would be pesticides that attack some widespread biological process that is shared by many insects, or in many cases all animals or even all cellular life.

To use this kind of pesticide safely you have to find ways to confine its application to things you are willing to kill, or you have to rely on it taking a lot less of it to kill the "bad" insects than it takes to harm a human and so with some care you can kill the bugs and not make too many people sick.

There are also within each of those categories ways to kill that will only affect one species.

In the chemical category, the key is hormones. An insect is like a little robot that has several built-in behaviors that normally play out in a specific sequence. The timing of when these behaviors happen is controlled by hormones. They are essentially the clock that drives the program.

So let's say you've got some insect that is bothersome. It hatches in the spring, is a pain in the ass all summer, and lays eggs and dies in the fall. If you study it you will find something like the cooling weather in fall triggers a hormone change, and that hormone invokes the "lay eggs and die" behavior.

Congratulations! You now have a way to make a safe pesticide for that insect! You just need to make a pesticide based on that hormone, and apply it sometime between spring and fall before the insect has matured enough to have viable eggs. The hormone will still trigger "lay eggs and die", but the eggs won't be viable. So not only have you killed the insects that summer, you've also decimated the next generation.

The beauty of a hormone approach is that these hormones are already out there in the ecosystem. Every time some predator eats one of the target insects in the fall, that predator is eating the hormone. The hormone is already spread up the food chain, and so things are already adapted to an environment where they are exposed to it. The extra exposure when we start using it in a pesticide will cause little or no harm to other species.

So why don't we do this more? I'll cover that below, after first talking about the physical category of killing insects.

In the physical category, the key is other insects. For a large variety of insects we consider pests, there exists some other insect that either preys upon it or is a fatal parasite to it or that it depends on in some way.

If you know enough about your target insect, you can often bring in one of its predators or parasites, or attack something it depends on, and indirectly control the target that way. This can be especially good when the target is an invasive species.

In many cases insect predators are very specific in their prey, only preying on one specific species. If you pick such a predator to import to attack your target, that is safe because the predator cannot turn to other insects after wiping out the target. Once the target is gone, the predator dies.

So why don't we do this more?

Same reason we don't do the hormone-based pesticides more. Both of these approaches require a much deeper understanding of the insect and its environment than the broad poison approach does.

A lot of this is covered in the excellent book "Life on a Little Known Planet" by Howard Ensign Evans [1]. In the book he mentions an incident where California was suffering large citrus crop losses from some invasive insect. In Florida that insect was kept under control by a particular predator insect. California officials imported that predator--and nothing happened. It turned out that there was another species related to the predator, but it preyed on something other than the species that was invading California. These two predator species were similar enough that no one knew there were two of them. Even though this predator species played a major role in keeping a major agricultural pest at bay, there was only one or two scientists who actually studied them, and they weren't very well funded. There had simply not been enough research put in to notice that they were dealing with two species.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Life-Little-Known-Planet-Biologists/d...

Post reply on HN