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

311–320 of 378 posts

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

#311

Post by fleddr »

bmitc wrote: post #244
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…

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…

I'm totally with you.

I'm annoyed by the climate change (CO2) narrative. It is far too narrow. Rather we should be talking about an umbrella of unsustainability that includes wildlife decimation, biodiversity collapsing, pollution, overfishing, deforestation, water and air quality.

We shouldn't just live in a way that expels less CO2, we should live in a way that doesn't annihilate the biosphere.

And yes, gardens are a great personal way to make a start. Mine too has native flowers which attract lots of insects, in turn attracting birds and bats. Plus some mini ponds. It's far less work compared to a sterile garden whilst much more fun.

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

#312

Post by fleddr »

indymike wrote: post #228
fleddr wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to mention their role in pollination. 80% of plants are pollinated by animals, mostly insects. This includes 35% of food plants.

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

#313

Post by fleddr »

kdbeall_ wrote: post #249
leokennis wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The farmers' protests are insane. They either flat out deny science, or frame biodiversity as some "left wing bleeding heart liberal" hobby. Despite that they get offered millions to stop their farming activities. Despite that they dump asbestos on highways and threaten politicians by visiting their homes. And despite that our politicians cheer them on. It really is the worst of times.

Oh, so the Dutch government should expropriate their land?

Yes, draconian as that seems, they should.

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

#314

Post by xeromal »

namaria wrote: post #270
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…

Look I get it, dismissing part of my comment on technicalities makes it seem less likely to play out. But the fact remains that we are clearly headed for disaster and rich people are clearly hoarding as much money as they can to prepare. To hyper focus on tearing apart just one outlandish way in which the elites might or might not seek safety is its on form of denial.

I wouldn't get so annoyed by it. Nerds will nerd and pick apart trivialities. I get your point that the rich are planning for this. Whether they do it by building underground bunkers, space stations, or communities are mars is moot. I'll add though that I don't think it's worth concerning ourselves what the super rich are up to.

The rich killed Rome too and they still ended up with no society.

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

#315

Post by fleddr »

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…

Yes, we call them billiard sheets. People for leisure cycle through these areas and thoroughly enjoy all this "greenery". A day spent in "nature".

You're looking at poison and death.

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

#316

Post by zikduruqe »

bmitc wrote: post #244
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…

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…

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-stupid-is-our-obsession...

This is a good read/listen.

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

#317

Post by inglor_cz »

bmitc wrote: post #255
Cryptonic wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a fantasy of the elites. There is no planet B. Not in the time frame we talk about. By far.

I agree that it's a fantasy. For one, I think Mars is just a power play by the likes of people like Musk and Bezos. It doesn't even make sense to view Mars as a backup for Earth because, at least currently, Earth is still alive and Mars is already completely dead. It's like saying "we're going to kill off the only planet that can sustain us to get to a planet that cannot sustain us". It's mind boggling that we can ge…

Bezos' space corporation, Blue Origin, hasn't yet reached the orbit - after 22 years of continuous work. So it seems safe to say that Bezos does not place much value on space colonization.

Musk, on the other hand, seems to be obsessed by the Mars project.

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

#318

Post by inglor_cz »

hedora wrote: post #261
bmitc wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's a fantasy. For one, I think Mars is just a power play by the likes of people like Musk and Bezos. It doesn't even make sense to view Mars as a backup for Earth because, at least currently, Earth is still alive and Mars is already completely dead. It's like saying "we're going to kill off the only planet that can sustain us to get to a planet that cannot sustain us". It's mind boggling that we can ge…

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…

"Given that we can't figure out how to build subterranean cities at scale on earth"

Can't we, or there just isn't any economic case for it?

Cold War militaries were certainly capable of building massive buried structures when needed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDeljava_Air_Base

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto_(Bunker)

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

#319

Post by inglor_cz »

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?

Because keeping the Earth sustainable means reaching consensus among 200 states and 8 billion people? That is a political/legal problem, and I am not sure why it should be "much, much easier" than first settlers terraforming an otherwise empty planet.

It seems wrong even to compare those two tasks. They are so different that they don't seem to have a common metric. An analogy: is is easier to stop two spouses from quarreling or to write a SHA-256 implementation from scratch? How would that even be measured?

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

#320

Post by raffraffraff »

namaria wrote: post #294
yamtaddle wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Humans will never make it off earth. Perhaps we'll make extremely brief flights, like the flying fish.
Post reply on HN