91–100 of 134 posts
There exists an automatic bird-repellent system: [1]. Can't we use the same idea for insects? [1] https://birdcontrolgroup.com/agrilaser-autonomic/
https://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_z...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment Almost nobody in the world is 'anti-environment'. That's a ludicrous claim. Many people think other things matter more than the environment, or don't care about the environment at all, sure, but if you think any people, let alone major political parties, are working against the environment deliberately for its own sake I think you're barmy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/eva...
> Environmentalism, as a movement, is an alternative world view and a substitute for Christianity.
They aren't against the environment itself. I'm sure they don't particularly care about it, but they don't hate the environment for the sake of it as far as I can see.
I wonder what the effect of neonicotinoids on humans is... it can’t be good
Your question is interesting but might be better restated as: "What is the effect on humans if there is a drastic decline in flying insects?"
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's that supposed to happen? I'd suspect drainage would flow vertically into the ground water. Is the water table as high as to level with the river so the pesticide can move sideways?
A river's depth is basically defined by the water table. That's how it stays full of water instead of simply draining into the ground. The first diagram on the Wiki article for water tables shows this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table (The first time I heard this was a big "aha" / "of course it works that way, how else would it work" moment for me. Ala XKCD 10000 [0]. Hopefully you're one of today's lucky wi…
A friend of mine once told me that swimming in Thames would be a serious mistake as its water is poisonous. Are the neonicotinoids the reason or are there other dangerous chemicals too?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-tham...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. [ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect... ]
Start travelling from West Europe towards East Europe. Until you reach Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukraine, your car is clean. Over these borders, after 10km of night ( or even day) drive your car will be splatted with insects. No idea why, but the vegetation is incredibly varied/wild compared with West Europe.
How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Do we really need regulations? Why do these things happen? Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?
I'm never sure whether people making posts like this are: - really this naive - just bright high school kids - simply trolling - completely blinded by doctrine ("capitalism is the supreme good, so how is it possible that it is producing a bad outcome? Something must be wrong with the universe") - actually a google AI trying to learn about the world from first principles
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment Almost nobody in the world is 'anti-environment'. That's a ludicrous claim. Many people think other things matter more than the environment, or don't care about the environment at all, sure, but if you think any people, let alone major political parties, are working against the environment deliberately for its own sake I think you're barmy.
There are definitely people who are anti- environmentalist , for whatever reason - seeing the environmentalists as on the other side of the culture war. The environment itself is not at issue, just the opposition to those humans who are in favour of environmental protection. Resulting in stupid stunts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal which really is pollution for its own sake.
Typical examples of this culture war are nuclear power and GMO agriculture. The scientific consensus is settled: using GMOs in agriculture would be better for environment, but nevertheless it is the "environmentalists" who particularly oppose them.
https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-wolve...
It like we can't understand complex systems very well. Almost everything we do seem to have to have major unintended consequences. We see this over and over again, we have to abandon the "as cheap and fast as possible" thinking !
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment Almost nobody in the world is 'anti-environment'. That's a ludicrous claim. Many people think other things matter more than the environment, or don't care about the environment at all, sure, but if you think any people, let alone major political parties, are working against the environment deliberately for its own sake I think you're barmy.
It may be phrased infelicitously, but I think thinking more-or-less any other good is worth more counts as anti-environmental, given that politics is an endless series of tradeoffs. I mean, in the same sense that socialists are often seen as anti-business. It's not so much that they dislike businesses per se (most of us in the social democratic tradition see markets and those who operate in them as an important sourc…
Maybe if you ask them rationally what their opinion is, it will come out pretty balanced, but that standard glosses over a lot of deeply rooted bias.