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

341–350 of 378 posts

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

#341

Post by bmitc »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #285
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.

I hate to break it to you, but Earth before humans has largely been dead for hundreds or thousands of years, depending upon the exact region you're talking about.

I'm a bit confused on what you're getting at and your timelines. Earth was around for billions of years before humans and had life on it the entire time except possibly the first few hundred million years.

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

#342

Post by bmitc »

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 think your take is very interesting and I agree with the sentiment in general. But humans are different sociobiologically from other animals. As far as I know, we are the only ones that cook our food, which caused drastic changes in the guts of hominids, because the energy required to process food was farmed out to the cooking process and literally to the grass-eating animals we ate. Every since fire and further technological developments, humans have gone against nature and evolution.

I get what you're saying and agree in spirit, but I think it is zooming out a little too far to say that technological development is just another natural process. Yes, it is in a way, but things like computation are truly different beasts. No, humans are not special in terms of our importance, language, meaning, or even intelligence, but my thoughts are that technology is a separate process from natural processes. It is distinct from evolutionary processes.

If you have some interesting reading, I'd love to know it. I haven't necessarily considered the question of technological processes being an extension of natural processes.

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

#343

Post by bmitc »

Panzer04 wrote: post #337
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…

These suggestions sound like a classic "central planners know better" attitude. Would taxing/banning plastic actually reduce waste/pollution? or would the shift to more expensive replacements (paper/wood/etc) actually increase pollution and waste? Banning chemical fertilisers would almost immediately cause a massive famine, enormous drops in agricultural productivity, etc. People consuming "organic" foods that don't…

I should have clarified in my original comment, although I already mentioned this elsewhere prior to your comment. Chemical fertilizers, to my knowledge, serve no actual purpose other than vanity for residential applications. Thus, they should be banned for those purposes. For commercial agriculture, a more long-term approach is clearly needed, but an actual approach should be realized instead of doomsdaying.

Plastics are a nightmare and there is no going back from them. We have inundated ourselves and our environments with micro plastics, and they will not just go away. Paper and wood do not have this problem on the disposal side unless they've been treated with chemicals. I'm not sure where paper and wood come into a discussion with plastics and fertilizers, but I would also support using less wood.

Do you have any ideas?

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

#344

Post by jhbadger »

namaria wrote: post #330
raffraffraff wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sad thing is, we're probably gonna repeat our horrible colonial history, but with space ships.

No, because there is literally no where to go. Mars is 100X harder to live in than Antarctica, which we still can't live without constant resupplies from developed areas of Earth. If those are gone, we can't live on Antarctica, let alone Mars or whatever (perhaps mythical) exoplanets we could only reach after hundreds or thousands of years on generation ships (which we also don't have the technology to make anytime soon)

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

#345

Post by rhaway84773 »

fleddr wrote: post #311
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…

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…

The people who talk about expelling less CO2 also talks about those other things.

It’s kind of amazing that in the broad spectrum of groups you could talk about that are having a negative effect on biodiversity, etc. anyone would mention climate change activists and groups when not only is their fight broadly related, they’re almost completely in alignment with more biodiversity.

This dynamic where such comments attack people who support the commenter’s stance but support it maybe 80% are attacked by the commenter, but the people who do not support their stance, are actually in power, and are going out of their way to destroy what the commenter claims to care about are not even mentioned is fascinating.

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

#346

Post by bmitc »

chasil wrote: post #301
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…

Humans are not particularly destructive to the planet. Comparatively, "the great dying" was a much more profound event, and quite beyond our capability. Even pushing our planet out of the current icehouse will likely require much, much more co2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

> Humans are not particularly destructive to the planet.

That is blatantly false and stands in denial of mountains of evidence.

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

#347

Post by bmitc »

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…

That’s capitalism in a nutshell: if it doesn’t make money it’s not useful.

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

#348

Post by bmitc »

criddell wrote: post #132
Roark66 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing that gets one to zip up their motorcycle jacket quicker than getting hit with a large bug in the chest while doing 100kmh(60mph).

When I got my first motorcycle, the thing that surprised me the most was how much rain hurts on bare skin at 60 mph.

Not to be sarcastic, but is there much that doesn’t hurt at 60 mph? Haha.

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

#349

Post by chasil »

bmitc wrote: post #346
chasil wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are not particularly destructive to the planet. Comparatively, "the great dying" was a much more profound event, and quite beyond our capability. Even pushing our planet out of the current icehouse will likely require much, much more co2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

> Humans are not particularly destructive to the planet. That is blatantly false and stands in denial of mountains of evidence.

No, it does not.

I don't believe that we could end 81% of marine species, even with the worst that we could do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_ext...

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

#350

Post by a1445c8b »

stinos wrote: post #218
a1445c8b wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it “only one part” or more like a reliable indicator of the overall ecological health?

Both?

> Both?

I see. It just sounded like you were dismissive of that one metric based on this part of your original response:

> I also find it rather interesting to see talks about insect decline while it's only one part of the larger issue.

Which is why I asked.

Post reply on HN