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

Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 165 posts

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#131

Post by msiyer »

chr1 wrote: post #72
sverige wrote: post #36

A great place to start would be to seriously limit or eliminate pesticides like Roundup. Don't believe the alarmists in Big Ag who will say the world will starve. We overproduce food now, and organic farming techniques, if widely adopted, wouldn't make it impossible to continue to produce enough. The loss of diversity in insects and "weeds" has had a huge impact up the chain.

Using gene drives to eliminate the few insect species that cause most of the harm to agriculture, will allow to drastically reduce the amount of pesticide we have to use now.

A myopic solution. We have no idea what role these problematic insects and weeds play in the grand scheme of things. Killing them is one thing. Elimination of species is a totally different game.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#133

Post by starfish99 »

I like to think each living organism as a gigantic living git repository of successful experiments by evolution. No wonder a huge number of human inventions come out of either isolating naturally occurring compounds or mimicking some natural occurring behavior of some organism: plant/animal.

Each time we lose an organism, we lose an entire repo of commits made over billions of years.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#134

Post by zeroname »

strainer wrote: post #123
zeroname wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the meaning is so "properly defined", then why do we have a self-described organic farmer in this thread , who says pesticides are off the table for him? Who decides which pesticides are okay, what is the criterion that everyone can agree on? Why are there differences across countries, if there is a proper definition of it? By the way, you can slap a "gluten free" label on table water and it'll be marketing BS, bu…

The organic farming regulations are professionally developed for decades, globally. US labeling options and regulations are officially defined [1,2] Very small scale producers like the farmer in this thread have some leeway - this is a feature of your national regulatory framework suiting small local markets, it is relevant to a tiny fraction of traded organic produce. > Who decides which pesticides are okay, what is…

> Because it is a developed practical system, its not defined by dictionary definition - it is very complicated.

It's a bunch of semi-religious practices that were made up on the spot with no scientific basis whatsoever. For you to put it next to Genetic Engineering or Renewables is quite misleading.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#135

Post by newnewpdro »

jogjayr wrote: post #132
newnewpdro wrote: post #111

Collapse != extinction

Given the sheer number of people who might die or have reduced lifespans due to a collapse, it's a meaningless distinction.

It's not a meaningless distinction at all.

The collapse is the imbalanced system naturally correcting itself, and the humans who survive will go on to create more and the cycle repeats.

Extinction means no more cycles for humans.

Your view strikes me as a very my-generation me-centric attitude, focused on the sheer numbers of people living now vs. future generations.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#136

Post by newnewpdro »

esarbe wrote: post #122
newnewpdro wrote: post #111

Collapse != extinction

It is, for humans. We've got a hard dependency on civilization because we've forgotten how to live without it and don't have any natural habitats we could live in (as hunter/gatherers) even if we remembered how.

B.S.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#137

Post by zeroname »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #85
zeroname wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We overproduce food now... The alternatives to Roundup tend to be worse than Roundup. That's why people use Roundup. That's not to say Roundup per se is absolutely necessary, but farming without pesticides doesn't work at the scale necessary to feed the human population. There's no choice between "overproduction" and "appropriate production" by getting rid of pesticides. Despite all the overproduction, we still hav…

That’s not true. Organic farming is different from organic certification. I am not certified but I use organic methods. Only those who trust me and know me and have seen my farm knows about my methods but I am a small farm and that works for me. Organic methods of farming : 1. no pesticide or weedicide 2. Crop rotation 3. Cover cropping 4. Hedgerows 5. Watershed management 6. Organic and generally non GMO seeds. Some…

> That’s not true.

Honestly, I think everything you said supports my point.

Now, maybe you don't tell anyone that you're more organic than the organic pope, but that makes you an extreme exception, not the rule.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#138

Post by strainer »

zeroname wrote: post #134
strainer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The organic farming regulations are professionally developed for decades, globally. US labeling options and regulations are officially defined [1,2] Very small scale producers like the farmer in this thread have some leeway - this is a feature of your national regulatory framework suiting small local markets, it is relevant to a tiny fraction of traded organic produce. > Who decides which pesticides are okay, what is…

> Because it is a developed practical system, its not defined by dictionary definition - it is very complicated. It's a bunch of semi-religious practices that were made up on the spot with no scientific basis whatsoever. For you to put it next to Genetic Engineering or Renewables is quite misleading.

How long did you take looking at the references I provided, to answer the questions you asked me ?

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#139

Post by toasterlovin »

strainer wrote: post #96
toasterlovin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s marketing BS in the sense that organic food still uses pesticides. I guarantee you that fact would be shocking to most consumers of organic foods.

That "in a sense" is just making light of what is literally a falsehood and which introduced a string of them in the source comment: "It doesn't have any properly defined meaning ...." Organics pesticide use is much more selective and heavily controlled than standard regulations[1]. Your notion that most consumers of organic food have unrealistic expectations ( with no survey to support that ) is really just a statem…

Look, have your opinions. But if you think organic is marketed solely as meaning that only non-synthetic pesticides are used, then you are wrong. The organic label means one thing. The marketing surrounding that label is another thing entirely. In the world of marketing, organic means healthier and pesticide free.

But, in addition to being neither of those things, it is an utter disaster for the environment.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#140

Post by jogjayr »

newnewpdro wrote: post #135
jogjayr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the sheer number of people who might die or have reduced lifespans due to a collapse, it's a meaningless distinction.

It's not a meaningless distinction at all. The collapse is the imbalanced system naturally correcting itself, and the humans who survive will go on to create more and the cycle repeats. Extinction means no more cycles for humans. Your view strikes me as a very my-generation me-centric attitude, focused on the sheer numbers of people living now vs. future generations.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. To me it sounds like you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) "Worrying about the massive human misery caused by ecosystem collapse is a selfish concern. Humans as a species will continue to exist." The second statement is technically true. But I don't understand how we can diminish the massive human misery caused to everyone you and I know.
Post reply on HN