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

Insect collapse

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 266 posts

Re: Insect collapse

#141

Post by throwaway5752 »

jellicle wrote: post #124
lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not equivalent since you're already alive. Not producing a child isn't the same as killing one's self in any way.

Of course it is. You can immediately and permanently eliminate all of your CO2 production going forward. That's a big help to the world, not very useful for yourself though. Obviously if we eliminate humanity we also eliminate humanity's impact on the world. You can also get rid of all bugs in your code by deleting the code. That is the exact definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater though. We're lookin…

I hate to do this, but apparently you didn't understand what was quoted:

"One fewer child"

So instead of 3, have 2. If you were so inclined to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation after a 3rd child, it would help the overall situation.

It's about lowering the growth rate in human population. Similarly, your analogy to code is incorrect. It's about eliminating new bugs but reducing the number of commits.

Re: Insect collapse

#142

Post by astazangasta »

skh wrote: post #126
astazangasta wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reasoning is spurious. The people who consume the most resources also have the lowest fertility rates. What we can do other than despair and contemplate genocide is transition to a carbon neutral economy. It really only requires political will.

It's not genocide to not have children. At an individual level the best thing we can do is to not have children if you are in a rich country. Those of us who live in rich countries massively over consume (including myself in this). Going to a carbon neutral economy is not helpful if it isn't done on a world wide scale. Right now rich countries have a nice system whereby they can realistically become carbon neutral in…

Not having children is also not helpful if not done on a worldwide scale, so I dont see how your strategy is better.

I am an American, and I remain optimistic that we can fix our politics. In fact I'd say that fixing our politics is exactly the same as manifesting political will. For a generation since the labor movement dwindled there have not been any significant vehicles of popular will at work in American politics. It's past time to change that. To suggest we can't is simply despair - it will be true as long as we believe it, and no further.

Re: Insect collapse

#143

Post by dgudkov »

fsloth wrote: post #11

It's funny we think we are an "advanced" civilization, yet we have no real time diagnostics of the status of our biosphere. It's really creepy how little basic research apparently is going on into "boring" ecological factors. This insect apocalypse is like you suddenly notice you are missing an arm and a leg and have no idea what happened to them. Any professionals in um... ecological metrics here? To an outsider it…

>we are an "advanced" civilization

I wouldn't call a civilization "advanced" if 3 generations ago it had a vague idea about electricity and flush toilets.

Re: Insect collapse

#144

Post by skh »

Zoh0eich wrote: post #139
skh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me the only thing we can really do is not have children. There are too many people on the planet.

There's more one can do than just that. I do not own or use cars. I try limit my meat consumption (not entirely successful on that front). I changed energy providers to buy from renewables sources. I do not travel by air. I don't have air conditioning. I also sit on a pile of money, not sure what to do with it. Index stocks contain fossil companies which I don't want to support. Maybe I'll throw some at those silicat…

What you write is true but I don't think will be duplicable on a large scale without regulations and pricing negative externalities into products. The free rider problem is a negative aspect of human psychology.

Re: Insect collapse

#145

Post by honkycat »

radiorental wrote: post #68
Regardsyjc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to feel this way and I found that it wasn't productive. What can you do? If you can do something, do it. If you think you can't change the future possible destruction of our ecosystem or millions of people, then you also need to make peace with it. I think you can either do or not do things without the negativity. I found that the negativity made me think emotionally and not rationally or productively, and als…

I view our success as a product of evolution. It is the driving factor that got us down out of the trees, cultivating our food and to where we are today. Would we be putting a little less pressure on the environment without people like Edward Bernays, possibly. However, I think our collective consciousness can put itself a little at ease. As we enter the 6 mass extinction event, it's a natural cycle and if it wasn't…

I think you vastly over-estimate our power.

If the oceans die through acidification and pollution, and all of the insects die we will die as well.

Re: Insect collapse

#146

Post by pohl »

peacetreefrog wrote: post #115

It's interesting to me how often this story shows up on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=insect&sort=byPopularity&prefi... Edit: a lot of down votes, I'm not saying it's bad that it's frequently posted or isn't a very serious or alarming problem, or that it's showing up here so often due to some conspiracy or something. It's just interesting, given the non-technical nature of the topic. I wonder if environmental Arm…

Non-technical? Do you think maybe the cause of insect collapse is related to something other than a tradeoff that came along with the use of pesticide technology? What's your hypothesis?

Re: Insect collapse

#147

Post by Zoh0eich »

skh wrote: post #126
astazangasta wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reasoning is spurious. The people who consume the most resources also have the lowest fertility rates. What we can do other than despair and contemplate genocide is transition to a carbon neutral economy. It really only requires political will.

It's not genocide to not have children. At an individual level the best thing we can do is to not have children if you are in a rich country. Those of us who live in rich countries massively over consume (including myself in this). Going to a carbon neutral economy is not helpful if it isn't done on a world wide scale. Right now rich countries have a nice system whereby they can realistically become carbon neutral in…

Political reality in america is that there were multiple changes of ruling party in the last decade and MPs being voted out on specific issues. Of course a representative multi-party system would be preferable, but it's not that it's impossible to achieve anything at all.

Re: Insect collapse

#148

Post by honkycat »

mrob wrote: post #39
EGreg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tigers are nearly extinct. People don’t care.

I wouldn't have any problem with tigers going extinct in the wild. From Wikipedia: "The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that at least 373,000 people died due to tiger attacks between 1800 and 2009, the majority of these attacks occurring in South and Southeast Asia.[1] Over the last five centuries, an estimated 1 million people have been eaten by tigers.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/…

Such a low, ignorant comment.

You are fine with tigers going extinct because 2,000 people a year, a MINUSCULE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, for the last 200 years die from tiger attacks?

I'm sorry to say you are probably going to get your wish, you dolt. Someday it will just be us and the shopping malls and you can continue to sit inside all day.

How many tigers are killed by humans so we can display their skin and eat their flesh for magical purposes?

Re: Insect collapse

#149

Post by magduf »

titzer wrote: post #14

This planet will not support 7 billion humans. Certainly not 7 billion stupid-ass humans who swing massive sledgehammers into the pillars of the biosphere that support them in their hedonistic blunder in search of more "wealth". When I hear the words "economic growth", and then weigh it against the destruction of this magnitude, I often want to vomit. And how do I square the fact that I work on flipping bits in compu…

While I mostly agree, I would like to make one little point about "economic growth" not necessarily being worse for the planet: digital goods. People making money selling digital goods (e.g., downloadable songs/videos, subscriptions to internet content, etc.) doesn't have nearly the effect on the planet that making and shipping physical goods (VHS tapes, DVDs, CDs, magazines, etc.) does, especially as computing devices become more energy-efficient. So I think it is possible for the economy to grow in some ways without a negative ecological impact.

But yeah, people buying bigger cars (SUVs) and houses generally isn't good for the planet at all.

Re: Insect collapse

#150

Post by standerman »

titzer wrote: post #14

This planet will not support 7 billion humans. Certainly not 7 billion stupid-ass humans who swing massive sledgehammers into the pillars of the biosphere that support them in their hedonistic blunder in search of more "wealth". When I hear the words "economic growth", and then weigh it against the destruction of this magnitude, I often want to vomit. And how do I square the fact that I work on flipping bits in compu…

It's dangerous to be so confident about something that hasn't happened yet. Something about counting chickens...
Post reply on HN