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

291–300 of 378 posts

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

#291

Post by yamtaddle »

namaria wrote: post #250
bmitc wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what's crazy is that everyone thinks it's going to be electric cars that somehow saves us. When the fact of the matter is there is a ton of stuff we can start doing today that would positively impact the environment. It's pretty easy: * Restore lawn areas to native plants: small (wildflowers), medium (bushes), big (trees) * For areas that are kept as lawn, simply mow less. Allow plants to flower. Don't treat clov…

There is no salvation. Whatever was Earth before human civilization is in a death spiral. What comes next is anyone's guess. Elites are massing wealth to get off planet, and when the mass migrations really start and mid income countries start becoming failed states on their path, I hope you are in a place that can hold you safe for the remainder of your time here.

> Elites are massing wealth to get off planet

Well... no. They're prepping to move to compounds in New Zealand. Even a global warming (and nuclear war, let's throw that on the pile!) ravaged Earth is vastly easier to live on than, say, Mars. Trying to escape that way would be a frying-pan-into-the-fire plan.

> and when the mass migrations really start and mid income countries start becoming failed states on their path, I hope you are in a place that can hold you safe for the remainder of your time here.

But yeah, that's basically the reason why, I reckon. Somewhere sufficiently stable and liberal that's also really, really hard to reach without a ship or airplane. Avoiding the various climate refugee crises and wars we're likely to see in the coming decades probably is their motivation. New Zealand's a clear front-runner in that race.

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

#292

Post by namaria »

javajosh wrote: post #283
namaria wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever we call technology is as natural a process as everything else systems in our Universe cobble together. I see no difference between termite mounds and the Internet. All is bound by the laws of physics. The same processes created complex monkey brains create datacenters. Physics is very clear: only things that are thermodinamically downhill can happen. Human civilization is just a natural, 4D phenomenon we get…

That's just because humans have not yet acted coherently yet as a species. There are all kinds of scenarios likely and unlikely that can unfold and none of us know what they are. Nature may be indifferent but she does seem to give us every chance. By the way, I think you're in a tiny minority if you believe there is no distinction between things that evolve and things that are designed.

I wouldn't me making this argument if I thought everyone thought like me. We have a great capacity for understanding and changing nature, yes. And also the need to believe we are apart and special. But we're not. High rise buildings and fiber optic cables are as natural as anything else that grows on the planet. Drawing a line and calling "artificial" or "designed" on this side is completely arbitrary.

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

#293

Post by fireflash38 »

another_story wrote: post #85
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…

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.

I mean, hop into any threat remotely related to COVID and you'll see people come out in swarms of common science denial.

Just because people might be knowledgeable about certain technologies doesn't make them knowledgeable about anything else. In fact I'd argue that it heavily biases them to making more mistakes in other fields, especially considering that many tech problems are 'solved' by going to a search engine -- that's not a good way to do science.

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

#294

Post by namaria »

yamtaddle wrote: post #291
namaria wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no salvation. Whatever was Earth before human civilization is in a death spiral. What comes next is anyone's guess. Elites are massing wealth to get off planet, and when the mass migrations really start and mid income countries start becoming failed states on their path, I hope you are in a place that can hold you safe for the remainder of your time here.

> Elites are massing wealth to get off planet Well... no. They're prepping to move to compounds in New Zealand. Even a global warming (and nuclear war, let's throw that on the pile!) ravaged Earth is vastly easier to live on than, say, Mars. Trying to escape that way would be a frying-pan-into-the-fire plan. > and when the mass migrations really start and mid income countries start becoming failed states on their pat…

The compounds in NZ, mountaintops, deserts, islands, they are the now. There is clearly a drive to get off planet. It will most likely fail but it's happening.

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

#295

Post by [deleted] »

zeruch wrote: post #282
nathan_compton wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If elites think they can move off planet and somehow survive a total collapse of earth's ecosystems, they are in for a rude awakening. An independent colony able to maintain its inhabitants in any kind of comfort will be dependent on the earth for the foreseeable future. Its actually difficult for me to believe that any elite would be stupid enough to think they could survive an earth environmental catastrophe in spa…

"Its actually difficult for me to believe that any elite would be stupid enough to think they could survive an earth environmental catastrophe in space." You underestimate the raw power of untethered hubris, fueled by venality.

[deleted]

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

#296

Post by nawgz »

fullstop wrote: post #276
nawgz wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some articles showing that the more boxy and angular windows of older vehicles were less likely to have bugs smashed on them Do you mean "more likely"? > This is why these studies often use license plate splatters to get a better count -- that really hasn't changed Do you claim the amount of license plate splatters remains consistent today as, say, 30 years ago, or some other time frame? I think this claim really n…

No, I absolutely meant "less likely". The bugs don't hit as often against the old vehicles. The older boxy vehicles were more likely to push the insect away, while the modern aerodynamic vehicles allowed the bug to hit the windshield more frequently. I'll see if I can find the study, I don't have it handy at the moment. As for the license plates, they are no more aerodynamic than they were 30 years ago, which makes t…

> As for the license plates, they are no more aerodynamic than they were 30 years ago, which makes them a better source for insect measurement.

I agree with this, but not the claim that there are studies showing this number is consistent with the past. The linked discussion also seems to imply that sampling rate corresponds with the decline in insect populations, unless I missed something.

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

#297

Post by fullstop »

nawgz wrote: post #296
fullstop wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I absolutely meant "less likely". The bugs don't hit as often against the old vehicles. The older boxy vehicles were more likely to push the insect away, while the modern aerodynamic vehicles allowed the bug to hit the windshield more frequently. I'll see if I can find the study, I don't have it handy at the moment. As for the license plates, they are no more aerodynamic than they were 30 years ago, which makes t…

> As for the license plates, they are no more aerodynamic than they were 30 years ago, which makes them a better source for insect measurement. I agree with this, but not the claim that there are studies showing this number is consistent with the past. The linked discussion also seems to imply that sampling rate corresponds with the decline in insect populations, unless I missed something.

I've not said that they (bug splatters) are consistent with the past. Perhaps my wording wasn't the best, but I was trying to say that the aerodynamic properties of a license plate have not changed.

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

#298

Post by [deleted] »

bmitc wrote: post #269
hedora wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, humans can't survive for extended periods of time in gravity as low as it is on Mars. There's also the problem of surface radiation. Given that we can't figure out how to build subterranean cities at scale on earth, I'm not sure what the plan is for dealing with that. Honestly, a self sustaining space station seems easier to achieve than a self sustaining Mars base: You can spin the space statio…

My general sentiment is that it seems much, much easier to just keep Earth sustainable rather than trying to make an unsustainable planet sustainable. It's sort of a paradox. If we can't keep a sustainable planet sustainable, how can we possibly make an unsustainable planet sustainable and keep it that way?

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by javajosh »

namaria wrote: post #292
javajosh wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just because humans have not yet acted coherently yet as a species. There are all kinds of scenarios likely and unlikely that can unfold and none of us know what they are. Nature may be indifferent but she does seem to give us every chance. By the way, I think you're in a tiny minority if you believe there is no distinction between things that evolve and things that are designed.

I wouldn't me making this argument if I thought everyone thought like me. We have a great capacity for understanding and changing nature, yes. And also the need to believe we are apart and special. But we're not. High rise buildings and fiber optic cables are as natural as anything else that grows on the planet. Drawing a line and calling "artificial" or "designed" on this side is completely arbitrary.

I get what you're saying, and I actually like it. I myself have called Life a singular phenomena that describes a (very) complex 4D shape of which we humans are all just a part (and as a group are currently only about as impactful as a large asteroid!). But if you follow this to far you get some nasty results, mostly around a feeling of inevitability and hopelessness, which I honestly don't think has a rational basis. The world is strange and even one good idea, one chance, could turn things around for Life in general, and humans in particular. It certainly needs to be a big change, something like a "phase shift" in human affairs. We certainly cannot bring our traditional values into the future, which were predicated on living in a world that would push back against our ambitions. Nowadays, the ONLY thing restraining humans is humans, and yet self-restraint has never been so out-of-fashion.

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

#300

Post by ls15 »

saxonww wrote: post #273
bmitc wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that if we acted today, that there could be salvation. Institute massive taxes against plastic use. Ban it for take-out food and other single-use instances. Start heavily taxing other wasteful areas. Heavily encourage if not enforce composting and recycling. Immediately start restoring mowed lawns with native plants. Ban the use of chemical fertilizers. It could be done, but we won't. Salvation is at our fi…

If we ban chemical fertilizers (what does this include, btw?), will we be able to grow enough food to feed everyone? What else would have to change to make that possible?

Permaculture is soil- and insect-friendly and can be productive and resilient, but it requires more manual labor and setting up a permaculture system takes a lot of knowledge and I think it takes years before it is producing competitively, depending on the soil conditions.

If we ban synthetic fertilizers (and more importantly herbicides/pesticides) abruptly before having established organic methods at scale, that will most likely cause food insecurity like it did in Sri Lanka.

Slowly phasing them out to a level that is not killing us in the long run seems more sensible to me.

Post reply on HN