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

141–150 of 165 posts

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

#141

Post by strainer »

toasterlovin wrote: post #139
strainer wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ive not been giving my opinions - criticisms or expectations of organic farming: the global mature, studied, developed, alternative agricultural system. This is not opinion, it exists. Its actual flaws - thats a different class of discussion. When you just feel like giving an opinion, at least don't attach plain falsehoods, defended later by "in a sense" etc.

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

#142

Post by zeroname »

strainer wrote: post #138
zeroname wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ?

I've looked at them, but my question weren't to be answered. I understand that there are interest groups that have fancy websites and lots of people are invested in it, looking all serious. Just like with Homeopathy and Chiropractic, they're not putting the woo-woo up front.

Organic farming has its origins in nonsense beliefs, the practices that exist today are still based on them, even if they're regulated now. Farmers practice organic farming for basically two reasons:

1) To make money by selling inefficiently produced food at inflated prices

2) Because they irrationally and dogmatically believe organic farming is "better", without any scientific basis

The people in group #1 don't actually believe in the principle, they just believe in the money they'll make.

https://southsaskfarmer.com/2015/01/11/why-im-not-an-organic...

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

#143

Post by DennisP »

jeremyjh wrote: post #51
ah765 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing 50% of species sounds bad, but much less bad than losing 50% of all mammal populations. Are we just talking about losing ten thousand obscure rodent species? I actually have no real idea what this value means, which makes me inclined to ignore it. A scientific source would be great, but the article doesn't provide any. If we're talking about "human extinction" level threats, it would probably be from massive f…

Most animal species are insects, so probably that is the majority of animal species that will die out. Insects and grubs, worms etc though can be very important to the local ecology. Loss of some could damage human food production that relies on them in sometimes very indirect ways.

There have been a several recent studies showing massive loss of insect populations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarm...

But insects are also a foundation of natural food webs; we can't lose lots of insects without losing lots of other animals too. And as a couple of us have posted already, a recent study showed that we've reduced the populations of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles by 60% since 1970: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity...

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

#144

Post by strainer »

zeroname wrote: post #142
strainer wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've looked at them, but my question weren't to be answered. I understand that there are interest groups that have fancy websites and lots of people are invested in it, looking all serious. Just like with Homeopathy and Chiropractic, they're not putting the woo-woo up front. Organic farming has its origins in nonsense beliefs, the practices that exist today are still based on them, even if they're regulated now. Farm…

> my question weren't to be answered

Please don't defend untrue claims in these discussions by asking questions "not to be answered"

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

#146

Post by esarbe »

newnewpdro wrote: post #136
esarbe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even tough you've very eloquently made you point, would you care to elaborate? What of my argument is -- to quote you -- 'B.S.'?

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

#147

Post by zeroname »

strainer wrote: post #144
zeroname wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've looked at them, but my question weren't to be answered. I understand that there are interest groups that have fancy websites and lots of people are invested in it, looking all serious. Just like with Homeopathy and Chiropractic, they're not putting the woo-woo up front. Organic farming has its origins in nonsense beliefs, the practices that exist today are still based on them, even if they're regulated now. Farm…

> my question weren't to be answered Please don't defend untrue claims in these discussions by asking questions "not to be answered"

It's called a "rethorical question". You gave the example of safety. It's as if I asked you "who decides what safety is?" and you post a link to some standards body. It's missing the point.

It's not untrue to say there is no clearly defined meaning of "safety", just like there is no clearly defined meaning of "organic farming". The fact that there are standards bodies or certifications doesn't change that.

The other claim is that organic farming is marketing BS. I don't even see you arguing that it isn't. Even many organic farmers agree!

So, what's the issue?

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

#148

Post by heurist »

candiodari wrote: post #117
xg15 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More people (and particularly more cattle) are fed per acre when you use pesticides. This feels like saying we absolutely need multiple GB of RAM to display a website because how else would Angular work otherwise? If the increased yield per acre is used primarily to support todays industrial-scale meat production, maybe we should address the latter first. The way meat production works today seems to have almost exc…

We only have a few percent more food production than humanity needs, if I remember correctly. Roundup and other pesticides combined with fertilizer increased yields ... it doubles and triples them, and it prevents famines resulting from sudden insect plagues, which were common (as in every 30 years on average) for most of human history. If these numbers are even close to accurate, eliminating roundup and modern farmi…

As i understand it, there are new intensive organic farming techniques that are practically unknown to big ag and which produce similar yields with higher quality (by not destroying soil and ecosystems every year). I'd counter that the final death toll of Roundup and similar chemicals could be much higher any potential famine caused by abrupt cessation of pesticide treatments. Destruction of ecosystems is an externality which has never been accounted for, and sooner or later someone will pay that bill.

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

#149

Post by esarbe »

jogjayr wrote: post #140
newnewpdro wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will they? Continue to exist? I'm not very certain about that. How would any human survive an ecosystem collapse? How would they sustain themselves? With technology that runs without any power, can be repaired without any specialized knowledge and operated without training? Because, you know, the ecosystem just collapsed and everybody not struggling for survival in a world unable to produce food is probably already dead.

I'm not so sure at all.

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

#150

Post by strainer »

zeroname wrote: post #147
strainer wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my question weren't to be answered Please don't defend untrue claims in these discussions by asking questions "not to be answered"

It's called a "rethorical question". You gave the example of safety. It's as if I asked you "who decides what safety is?" and you post a link to some standards body. It's missing the point. It's not untrue to say there is no clearly defined meaning of "safety", just like there is no clearly defined meaning of "organic farming". The fact that there are standards bodies or certifications doesn't change that. The other…

> It's called a "rethorical question".

No, rhetorical questions have expected answers. You simply rejected answers which you did not expect and then declared your own questions "not to be answered".

>It's not untrue ((its true)) to say there is no clearly defined meaning of "safety"

Agreed (see - rhetorical). There is not one clear definition of safety, there are many for different contexts and in different jurisdictions.

Your idea that organic farming should be atomically definable, doesn't make nonsense bullshit out of organic agriculture and labeling - it has made nonsense of your understanding of organic agriculture.

Im not continuing this with you, but may link to it in the next discussion featuring insubstantial and false claims about organic farming. Organic agriculture deserves fair assessment and criticism for these times, not so much name calling. Have a good weekend.

Post reply on HN