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

221–230 of 378 posts

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

#221

Post by anon84873628 »

toss1 wrote: post #199
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 chem…

At one point during the development of California agriculture, there was an idea that farms should only be 160 acres in size, since that was what was manageable and profitable for a smallholder family. I wonder what the land would be like if we had managed to enforce that. There would probably be more crop diversity at least, and habitats in between the farms.

Kind of like anti-trust enforcement for the land itself

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

#222

Post by wazoox »

alexpotato wrote: post #204
wazoox wrote: post #183

This article is pretty characteristic of the chemical industry influence trying to muddle the waters. I've watched recently a conference[1] by several renowned scientists. They affirm that neonicotinoids / neonics are responsible of at least 80% of the decline. They also affirm that the "merchants of doubt" are working their best to muddle the evidence with things like "there are multiple factors", "it's complicated"…

> But just like the overwhelming majority of lung cancer comes from smoking This is true. It's also true that less than 30% (in Europe as low as 15%) of smokers get lung cancer. [0] I point this out b/c I always believed that "if you smoke, you will get lung cancer" whereas the data was "if you get lung cancer, odds are it's from smoking" I wish that more information was presented this way but I also get that if your…

Overall about an half of all smokers die of tobacco-related disease. It may be lung cancer, throat cancer, various digestive cancers, heart attack, aneurysm and all sort of painful diseases. Lung cancer is just the most obvious one.

My neighbour looked like just out of a zombie film complete with rotting, stinking lumps of flesh hanging from the side of his jaw and slime / pus dropping from his mouth for two frigging years (throat and jaw cancer, got fed by catheter for 18 months too). He had to get sure no child was around before getting out, because the view would have traumatized them.

My sister-in-law died three months after retiring of a blazing-fast brain cancer, just a couple of days before Christmas. First symptoms mid-November. At least it was somewhat fast.

Just don't smoke. Don't.

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

#223

Post by anon84873628 »

chickenimprint wrote: post #91
newsclues wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a push to move to smaller regenerative farms occurring?

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…

There is plenty of land under cultivation. We already produce enough calories to feed every person on earth, they just aren't distributed sufficiently.

Currently you have most of the California central valley planted in high margin crops like almonds and pistachios because they maximize farmer profits (despite their unsustainable demands on the water supply). If the goal was to maximize human nutrition the land use would look very different.

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

#224

Post by simplicio »

alexpotato wrote: post #204
wazoox wrote: post #183

This article is pretty characteristic of the chemical industry influence trying to muddle the waters. I've watched recently a conference[1] by several renowned scientists. They affirm that neonicotinoids / neonics are responsible of at least 80% of the decline. They also affirm that the "merchants of doubt" are working their best to muddle the evidence with things like "there are multiple factors", "it's complicated"…

> But just like the overwhelming majority of lung cancer comes from smoking This is true. It's also true that less than 30% (in Europe as low as 15%) of smokers get lung cancer. [0] I point this out b/c I always believed that "if you smoke, you will get lung cancer" whereas the data was "if you get lung cancer, odds are it's from smoking" I wish that more information was presented this way but I also get that if your…

30% seems like a lot!

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

#226

Post by PM_me_your_math »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #202

What are they talking about? Driving on highways around here is like being in a hailstorm or bugs

Author lives in DC and apparently hasn't been anywhere else. I have noticed more bees, wasps, hoverflies, mosquitos, katydids and a host of other insects, more so than ever.

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

#227

Post by [deleted] »

vlovich123 wrote: post #17

To everyone replying “aerodynamics”, I’ve had the same car for about 9 years now and the drive along the 5 from Bay Area to LA feels like there’s fewer bugs on my windshield (granted not recorded diligently for scientific purposes but whereas before I’d need to scrub the windshield at least once halfway these days I can drive all the way and still don’t need a wash at the end) Same goes for the argument that bugs hav…

[deleted]

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

#228

Post by indymike »

fleddr wrote: post #185
thereddaikon wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

insecticides kill insects? Big if true. Sounds like it working as designed.

The point of an insecticide is to kill the specific insect being a pest to the crop. Not to kill every single insect altogether. Maybe people like you should experience what a world without insects would look like. I can save you the time. There will be no world.

> The point of an insecticide is to kill the specific insect being a pest to the crop.

Even this can cause a collapse by removing a food source from other predators.

> I can save you the time. There will be no world.

This is true. Insects are food for a huge number of predators, and insect larvae are a really important component of having soil capable of growing plants.

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

#229

Post by entropicgravity »

iancmceachern wrote: post #36
boffinism wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about the rebuttal to this claim in the article? Particularly the decline in licence plate splats?

It seems like they debunked my theory in the article, apologies

Hey hypotheses are meant to be disapproved, it's an important part of the process.

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

#230

Post by galangalalgol »

noasaservice wrote: post #205
galangalalgol wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any guides on "deinvasiveizing"? It seems like a complicated topic. Some non native life is considered to be non invasive, having found a homeostasis its new nich (common carp as an example). And some native life is considered invasive by some because it is so well adapted it crowds out all other native life (some bindweeds) Given the dramatic impacts we have made on a global scale, is trying to preserve de…

We're looking at the super-low-bar of doing things like removing known invasive plants as published in the state's DNR. They maintain a yearly list of nasties to remove. We also don't use any chemicals to do the killing, as so many of those have terrible side effects. Killing larger invasives involves something as simple as "black contractor bag enveloping and tied at base". It captures all the seeds, kills the plant…

Thanks! One well intentioned mistake we made at a previous residence was to plant some flowers for pollinators that were not native. They weren't invasive, but they were prolific. The issue was that they bloomed late enough that the butterflies didn't move on and froze.
Post reply on HN