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

Study shows massive insect loss

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 213 posts

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#151

Post by randcraw »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #123
christophilus wrote: post #60

My wife and I leave large portions of our lawn untended. We seed ours with flowering native plants and herbs. We had fireflies and butterflies and bees galore this year— noticeably more than any of our neighbors. It’s not much, but it’s something.

This is what needs to happen a lot more - just let nature do its thing. I'm seeing too much cultivation on the one hand - maximize yield and convenience for farmers, and of course mass deforestation - but on the other, overcompensation or wild ideas to overcompensate - from planting forests (which is fine as long as they're left alone for the hundred years afterwards) to wild ideas of covering glaciers and the north…

Is there a price for ignoring change? Yes there is.

For example, when you lose honeybees, you lose everything they pollenate... apples, cranberries, melons, broccoli, blueberries, cherries, almonds, mangos, plums, peaches, strawberries, pears, onions, apricots, kidney beans, lemons, and much more.

https://honeylove.org/list-of-food/

It may seem natural to let nature take its course. But that didn't work too well for the dinosaurs. And since we seem to be the cause for this change, ignoring it is likely to just make it worse, not better.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#152

Post by linuxftw »

dTal wrote: post #64
kpil wrote: post #38

I'm pretty sure this is more related to a rather radical shift to a more industrialised agriculture the recent 40 years. Grazing land and more importantly meadows are simply gone. According to Wikipedia, England and Wales have lost about 97% of their hay meadows. Meadows are artificial, but they increase the biodiversity significantly. Neonicotinoids are probably also to blame. Climate change must be negligible in co…

The article specifically addresses and refutes this: >Huge numbers of bugs have been lost in a pristine national forest in Puerto Rico... [it] remains the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest system >Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico The article also provides several - reputable, scientific - references that demonstrate a predicted loss of in…

>>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico

The article does make this claim, but it doesn't appear to back it up in any way. Additionally, nothing is said about the type of pesticide. If I use a pesticide that is 10x stronger by weight than what was available in 1969 and possibly doesn't need to be applied as often, then we're not comparing apples to apples.

Additionally, it's not mentioned what is meant by 'pesticide' Is that just insecticide or herbicide? Perhaps the application of herbicide (roundup) has increased, killing off native food-stuffs and poisoning the insects that eat them.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#153

Post by AstralStorm »

kamaal wrote: post #144
randcraw wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I loved "Interstellar", but leaving Earth is a hopeless prospect. How do you move 8 billion people to another planet when it costs a $billion to send just 5 people into Earth orbit? Worse, there's nowhere enough sunlight and water anywhere in this solar system to sustain more than a handful of people. No, if mankind can't make it here, we can't make it anywhere.

The same way we explored the earth. Every one won't move at once. These are gradual things that unfold over decades to centuries.

See, exploring Earth takes almost no energy, mostly time and will and supplies. Ships at super efficient.

On the other hand, getting to 1st cosmic speed takes a lot of energy released in a relatively short burst or some kind of space elevator which we cannot build yet.

You cannot make this "gradual" really. You either get to orbit or don't. The "gradual" phase of getting into space is done. We got to orbit.

We need a major economy and scale breakthrough now or you cannot even try sending people off anywhere. So major that small improvements as done by SpaceX will not get there in centuries.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#154

Post by AstralStorm »

lolsal wrote: post #146
y0ghur7_xxx wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm already a vegan and don't drive much Since 71% of pollution is coming from 100 companies[1] I don't think that you can stop global warming by being vegan or driving less. Blaming us single individuals is easy, but we a are not directly responsible for this. The most we can do is stop buying stuff from these polluting companies. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

> Blaming us single individuals is easy, but we a are not directly responsible for this Companies are comprised of people. Governments are comprised of people. We absolutely are responsible and we have the power to do something about it. Stop being so passive and dismissive, if you care.

People with power have more, much more say than a typical person. Unfortunately, many of them are sociopaths or just do not care if there is no direct gain for them.

Are you advocating for general strikes here?

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#155

Post by AstralStorm »

goatlover wrote: post #135
anonytrary wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the environment could slowly transition its chemistry into a state which is not suitable for life is one of my biggest fears. It would be a silent killer.

The dinosaurs evolved in a climate with 6 times the CO2 we have, after long term volcanic activity. It will take a lot more than climate change to knock out all life. Maybe a gamma ray burster a few light years a way could do it, or a massive collision that melts the crust. Not much else, though. Life as a whole is extremely reilient.

Unfortunate fact is that humans are not as resilient. Even with all our technology we'd have problems.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#156

Post by lolsal »

AstralStorm wrote: post #154
lolsal wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blaming us single individuals is easy, but we a are not directly responsible for this Companies are comprised of people. Governments are comprised of people. We absolutely are responsible and we have the power to do something about it. Stop being so passive and dismissive, if you care.

People with power have more, much more say than a typical person. Unfortunately, many of them are sociopaths or just do not care if there is no direct gain for them. Are you advocating for general strikes here?

> Are you advocating for general strikes here?

I'm saying a passive approach may give you a moral high but it doesn't actually do anything. Saying "Only someone else can fix this problem." is part of the problem, not the solution.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#157

Post by lellotope »

arghwhat wrote: post #122
moosey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had two daughters before I came to the conclusion that this is the most likely path for humanity at this point. There is a possibility of a global awakening that might prevent this tragic loss of megafauna. But I'm already a vegan and don't drive much; can't think of more to do, and while I'm not too bad at dealing with this, it can be quite depressing.

That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic impo…

A note about diet:

There are some recent studies suggesting that globally, on average, the most environmentally friendly diets have some animal product component because of their ability to make use of landmass that we wouldn't be able to make use of directly. E.g., cattle can eat plants that grow in areas we can't grow human-friendly crops on.

I can't find citations to these studies offhand unfortunately. (this is an example but not what I had in mind: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/) But what I remember is that globally, the most environmentally friendly diets had some small animal product component.

This also probably varies a lot by location too, so it probably is the case that for some people, the best diet might be vegan; for others it might involve more animal product.

Just pointing this out, because there are nonpolitical-psychological-sociological reasons for a "soft" approach on plant-based-diets.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#158

Post by AstralStorm »

linuxftw wrote: post #152
dTal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article specifically addresses and refutes this: >Huge numbers of bugs have been lost in a pristine national forest in Puerto Rico... [it] remains the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest system >Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico The article also provides several - reputable, scientific - references that demonstrate a predicted loss of in…

>>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico The article does make this claim, but it doesn't appear to back it up in any way. Additionally, nothing is said about the type of pesticide. If I use a pesticide that is 10x stronger by weight than what was available in 1969 and possibly doesn't need to be applied as often, then we're not comparing apples to apples. Ad…

You should read the linked studies before posting, they answer all these questions.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#159

Post by AstralStorm »

adrianN wrote: post #105
zanny wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I a more generalist sense just things like using Electron vs native toolkits matter. The desktop Discord app is going to use substantially more power to run day to day than if it were a native code app that just used something like C++, and across millions of gamers for hours a night every night those resource requirements and power demands add up. It isn't always just "average hardware is faster so use more ineffici…

I wonder how many user-hours of Electron vs native replacing your development machine every five years instead of every two would buy.

Currently, single decimal place digit kWh/person. Now the improvement in power supply tech and using laptop components saves you about as much. (say 0.1 kWh/person to 0.04 kWh/person)

On personal level, using a vacuum flask to boil your coffee should save more.

Cars are much more expensive thanks to materials. There, longer cycle is a major saving.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#160

Post by AstralStorm »

tremon wrote: post #129
dTal wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA is about a roughly 80% drop in biomass in a pristine, protected tropical rainforest, in a country where pesticide use has dropped 80 percent.

How about delayed effects? I can't read the article, but does the article mention what the natural decay rate of these pesticides is?

Here is the linked study: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/10/09/1722477115
Post reply on HN