Study shows massive insect loss • Hacker News Board

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#201

Post by Arnt » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 6:01 AM UTC

chewz wrote: post #200

Arnt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I went back to the original PDF, https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1... , to look at the list. I see lots of companies that sell oil there. Or coal. Or things. But none that really emit pollution as a side effect. Someone like 3M could pollute less by changing the way it produces each packet of yellow stickers. The pollution is a side effect, it's something the company can change by intern…

> The act of polluting is identical with the act of selling. The act of polluting is identical with the act of consuming.

For the final customer, yes.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#202

Post by arghwhat » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:17 AM UTC

moosey wrote: post #193

arghwhat wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption: > Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market…

1. You mean "going vegetarian". Going vegan is something entirely different, and entirely unnecessary in this context.

2. Food is being massively overproduced, so a few thousand people boycutting meat is unlikely to even remotely affect the production amount, thus having no difference at all. A much bigger difference would be made by trying to fight food waste. Fight profit-optimization by over-production, go for local sellers rather than supermarkets with absurd over-stocking, etc.

3. You don't need to boycut meat to solve that problem. Just reduce it. From what I've read, the US consumes absurd amounts of meat, which fuels a giant meat production industry. If you cut the average meat consumption in half in the US, the meat industry would no longer be the primary consumer.

Meat itself is not to blame for the absurd over-production and over-consumption we see today. It is instead a result of the usual corporate greed, profit optimization, and our total ignorance for the side-effects of our convenience. Vegetarianism is entirely symptomatic treatment, rather than dealing with the root-cause.

(For the record, I respect the choice to not eat meat for other reasons, but I am only considering the environmental impact here.)

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#203

Post by arghwhat » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:23 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #174

arghwhat wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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) Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. For example, you can bring your own cup to get filled…

> Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns.

In that case, I do apologize. I have never in my life gone to a Starbucks, but my point was avoiding one-time use devices of any kind, regardless of what convenience it may bring, with the exception of when it is truly necessary (such as medical packaging).

However, do note that this also includes whatever one-time devices the company themselves use to run their service.

It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#204

Post by arghwhat » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:29 AM UTC

lellotope wrote: post #157

arghwhat wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I think a key component here is just minimizing the meat-component of the diet.

Meat would not at all be a problem if produced in smaller amounts. The current level is just absurd waste (I would guess mostly to support fast-food production?), and we absolutely do not need this amount of meat in our diet.

It is, however, extremely nutritious, so a small meat consumption would both be sufficient and much more sustainable. Even just 1/10th of the current scale would likely reduce any problems to be insignificant.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#205

Post by moosey » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

arghwhat wrote: post #202

moosey wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption: > Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market…

1. You mean "going vegetarian". Going vegan is something entirely different, and entirely unnecessary in this context. 2. Food is being massively overproduced, so a few thousand people boycutting meat is unlikely to even remotely affect the production amount, thus having no difference at all. A much bigger difference would be made by trying to fight food waste. Fight profit-optimization by over-production, go for loc…

`. I don't mean "going vegetarian". I mean "going vegan". Milk, eggs, and fish have some of the same problems environmentally and ethically. When I say ethically, I don't just mean our responsibility not to bring harm to other species on the planet, although I feel that is important, but also our responsibility to future generations.

2. Yes, food is overproduced. Yes, too much food gets thrown away. However, this is massively dwarfed by the wasted food that we feed in animal lots, by a huge degree. Yes, me and my family going vegan doesn't have a huge impact, but it certainly massively reduces our carbon output, at a time when it just seems to be going up on a person to person basis. Last I checked, the amount that I was personally outputting was around 50% the US average. The only major difference was that I was vegan.

3. To maintain 7B people, most people will have to not eat meat, or eat it so sparingly as to be effectively vegan/vegetarian.

Let's present evidence:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...

> A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.

> It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.

I don't care if you eat meat, but do it with honest realizations as to the cost. In a couple generations the costs will be clear, and our actions today regarding animal food production will be viewed for the atrocity that it is.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#206

Post by smolder » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #148

roryisok wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who's been through several cycles of climate related depression this year, I just want to reach out to fellow HNers and say it's not the end of the world. Our society, and our civilisation is going to change, in massive ways in the coming century, one way or another. And all of us are going to live in less luxury than we do now - simply because such luxury is unsustainable. But it doesn't mean or children…

How do you know at least some of our children are not going to starve, or worse, be forced into warfare over crucial resources? I'd like that crystal ball you have. Blind optimism is still blind. Facts are not on our side. 50s optimism and status quo dropped us into most of the current problems. (combined with population boom which has now ended) The trends as they are now are not reassuring and there seems to be no…

Don't be optimistic that we'll overcome resource depletion without suffering, be optimistic that our efforts can reduce that suffering. There isn't time to dodge the blow, but we can lessen the severity, and everyone who is capable and willing to support that goal is needed. Seek solutions, teach, enable others to do the same.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#207

Post by GlenTheMachine » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 3:54 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #197

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why are the insects all dying? If this is true, the populations should be rebounding. They aren't.

Because it's still a bad effect that takes time to adjust to. And there might be other factors.

It has, apparently, been going on for a couple of decades now. As you correctly point out, this constitutes many insect generations. If this were simple case of letting pre-existing genetic variations that are robust to temperature get selected for, we would be seeing populations rebound.

And it seems most of the other factors, besides climate, have been accounted for. The losses here are in large nature preserves, where insecticides and herbicides are not used. And in the case of Puerto Rico, at least, pesticide use island-wide has dropped dramatically since the 1960s. So one would not expect the results of pesticide use on insect populations to only be manifesting themselves now. Other than climate, most other factors seem to have changed in the insects' favor. Yes, neonicotinoids are an issue, but a relatively local one. One would not expect them to be an issue deep inside a Puerto Rican rainforest nature preserve.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#208

Post by kbenson » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 6:51 PM UTC

arghwhat wrote: post #203

kbenson wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. For example, you can bring your own cup to get filled…

> Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. In that case, I do apologize. I have never in my life gone to a Starbucks, but my point was avoiding one-time use devices of any kind, regardless of what convenience it may bring, with the exception of when it is truly necessary…

> It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company.

Sure, but it's good to start somewhere. If we get companies competing on a level of environmental friendliness, then it quickly goes beyond being superficial, as those gains are quickly achieved and further ones are sought.

To some degree I think that's part of what's going on with Starbucks. They've positioned themselves as an environmentally aware company, and one that cares about world issues (carrying specific types of beans, etc). Part of this is obviously playing to their audience (and part is it starting in a locale and with a CEO that cater to these attitudes), but that's about all we can expect from most companies. Thankfully, it's something that can be worked with. If consumers express interest, companies will respond.

There's no reason for you to apologize, I just wanted to point out that we should be careful to not draw that line at those companies who are "good" or "great". We're at the level were we should be very welcoming of those that are only acceptable in their behavior with regard to this, but that's still worlds ahead of most, and that's how we move the average.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#209

Post by smolder » Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #141

kankroc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presenting "not using Electron" as a significant way to reduce our impact on the environment has to be the most HN thing I ever read.

Javascript is ruining the environment. Everyone should switch to Rust, and compile all apps to web assembly. Also, blockchain.

No, blockchains are bad for the environment.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#210

Post by erikpukinskis » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:21 AM UTC

undersuit wrote: post #179

CptFribble wrote: post #98

At what point does the cost of continuing the status quo outweigh changing it? How do you even measure something like that, when the people in charge of making changes won't live to see them? I think a major problem humanity has, among many others, is the way we assign leadership roles. Leadership of major institutions should be balanced not just among gender, but also among age. Every government should include decis…

I don't see how making us have more diverse set of leaders will make things better. There are plenty of people under 40 I don't want making decisions and there are plenty of people over 40 I do want making decisions. Diversity isn't going to make good leaders, it's going to give us diverse leaders.

In general if you are suppressing a class of people’s participation, the top people in that class will be more apt than your average participant. So including them will increase the average aptitude.

The only time that isn’t true is when you are suppressing a class of people who are fundamentally shittier than the dominant class.

The affirmative action debate comes down to whether you think skewed performance numbers are evidence that a) some of the classes are superior to the others or b) the numbers don’t accurately measure performance.

There’s nothing inherent in the data to point one way or the other. It’s just a litmus test on whether you’re a supremacist.