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

Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 378 posts

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#191

Post by TEP_Kim_Il_Sung »

jgraham wrote: post #92
fleddr wrote: post #74

Here in the ultra-dense Netherlands, threats to insects are magnified. As such, it's easier to point to specific causes. Butterflies: 50% reduction in 50 years. Beetles: 75% decline since 1985. Ladybugs: 50% reduction in 20 years. Across the border in Germany: a 75% decline in flying insects since 1989. It doesn't take much of a scientist to see the trend. I've been hiking the forests here multiple times per week for…

It's good to see a comment that recognises that this "bug splatter on the windshield" data is mostly just an easily observed hook to connect the measured declines to people's everyday life experiences. The topic seems to come up here ever few months, and there's always a significant percentage of the discussion devoted to aerodynamic effects, or changes in insect distribution specific to roadside habitats. Those conv…

You mean The Quiet Earth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdHoYtBzdX0

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#193

Post by [deleted] »

aredox wrote: post #93
another_story wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually find it rather interesting how many people here, in a forum I generally assume to be better informed than elsewhere, seem wholly unaware of the dramatic decrease in insects over the last few decades.

Strong "I am very smart" contrarian energy here. See also this tale: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376002/

[deleted]

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#195

Post by quantumfissure »

hiidrew wrote: post #173

This is terrible and makes me think of the unknown consequences that may occur from the death of an insect species, who knows. Side note: recently moved to the northeast and it has been fascinating seeing the city collectively come together to kill an invasive bug species. You will witness an adult randomly stomping on the corner of the street. I wish we had the same energy when it came to protecting existing bugs.

Let me guess, the Spotted Lanternfly? They are all over here (SE PA).

It was entertaining watching the old man (easily 85+) from my neighborhood walking around with a broom brushing them off trees and smashing them with his walker.

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#196

Post by naasking »

donkeyd wrote: post #142
fleddr wrote: post #74

Here in the ultra-dense Netherlands, threats to insects are magnified. As such, it's easier to point to specific causes. Butterflies: 50% reduction in 50 years. Beetles: 75% decline since 1985. Ladybugs: 50% reduction in 20 years. Across the border in Germany: a 75% decline in flying insects since 1989. It doesn't take much of a scientist to see the trend. I've been hiking the forests here multiple times per week for…

Wow, it's refreshing to see a Dutch person write down the impact of nitrogen as facts. Around me, its seems like slowly everyone is starting to doubt/deny the impact of nitrogen and whether it's something we need to care about. I'm starting to feel less at home in this country by the day because of it (and all the upside down flags consequently).

> Around me, its seems like slowly everyone is starting to doubt/deny the impact of nitrogen and whether it's something we need to care about.

I'm not sure why that's surprising. Our food supply depends on using nitrogen at the moment. You can't just ban it cold-turkey without transitioning to an alternative that doesn't threaten the food supply. Particularly with inflation issues, further destabilizing the food supply is insane at this time. The whole climate change agenda will be in jeopardy if this isn't handled well.

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#197

Post by snwt »

snwt wrote: post #176

Neonicotinoids (pesticide coated seeds) started becoming popular around the same time that bees started mass dying (early 2000s). AFAIK, the effect of these pesticides on humans is limited, but it's been absolutely devastating for insects. There is not much profit to be made on insects (aside from bees), so research and bills are getting lobbied into limbo by the big four neonicotinoid companies and agriculture organ…

Here's a documentary the subject: "Bayer and the Bees" https://youtu.be/UaNSByf4sLA

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#198

Post by naasking »

donkeyd wrote: post #165
ryan93 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean placing the blame for climate change on the backs of Dutch farmers was absurd. They should have started with severe controls on importing goods from countries with high levels of pollution

> placing the blame for climate change on the backs of Dutch farmers was absurd Nobody is doing that, this is blatant misinformation that is being spread by interest groups that profit off Dutch farmers. Most of the discussion around farmers over here has to do with nitrogen. As the OP mentioned, it is causing acidification of nature areas, which is negatively impacting all sorts of wildlife. It's a mostly local prob…

> Most of the discussion around farmers over here has to do with nitrogen.

Yes, and nitrogen fertilizer yields nitrous oxide which is a greenhouse gas implicated in climate change [1]. This is not just "misinformation", this is part of the reason behind the push to ban nitrogen fertilizer.

[1] https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/fertilizer-and-climate-ch...

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#199

Post by toss1 »

fleddr wrote: post #74

Here in the ultra-dense Netherlands, threats to insects are magnified. As such, it's easier to point to specific causes. Butterflies: 50% reduction in 50 years. Beetles: 75% decline since 1985. Ladybugs: 50% reduction in 20 years. Across the border in Germany: a 75% decline in flying insects since 1989. It doesn't take much of a scientist to see the trend. I've been hiking the forests here multiple times per week for…

Yup. Visited the US Midwest (Minnesota) recently and driving from the airport city to another smaller city, started going out into farmland.

At first, it seemed like a nice bucolic change. But soon, it took on a far darker aspect - this was a barren monoculture, as far as the eye could see, for dozens of miles. Where to the birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and insects live? The land is not only covered with chemicals to kill or repel any now-unwelcome residents, but there is simply no usable habitat (and a thin row of trees every mile or so doesn't count).

It was a truly dystopian experience, and more so by knowing that this goes on for thousands of square miles. This is not our grandparent's farmland anymore. This is not nature. This is one species becoming a literal plague on the planet. It is not sustainable.

Re: Why are there so few dead bugs on windshields these days?

#200

Post by rmah »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #136
chickenimprint wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work? We don't have enough land as it is. And we can't pay for the additional labor small farms need, or food inflation will explode. Making agriculture unproductive will just push the demand outwards like a beaker of toxic reactants boiling over. We can't impose more trade restrictions on foreign agricultural goods either, for fear of a trade war. This hopeless romanticism of small organic mom-and-pop…

>we don't have enough land as it is Small farms are more productive per acre [1] even before considering the increased fossil footprint of 'efficient' farms. >we can't pay for the additional labor small farms need, or food inflation will explode. Additional unskilled jobs might well be worth the tradeoff, particularly for the most vulnerable members of society. >This hopeless romanticism of small organic mom-and-pop…

The linked study uses data from peasant farms in developing economies (Madagascar, India, etc.) from half a century ago or earlier. From the point of view of the west, that it would be measuring the productivity of very very small farms vs very small farms where the vast majority of labor is done by hand. Skimming over the article it seems that it concludes that under pre-mechanized conditions, larger farms have less available labor per unit land area. And that labor per unit land area is an important factor in agricultural productivity. This is hardly a surprise.

This is very much not like how farming is done in developed nations or even most developing nations today. And unless you want to force people to live like dirt poor peasants of the past, hopefully won't ever be done again.

Post reply on HN