English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal • Hacker News Board

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#131

Post by forgotmypw » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 9:49 PM UTC

projectileboy wrote: post #106

jesperlang wrote: post #99

This reminds me of trophic cascades and e.g the unintuitive link that killing wolfs affects riverbeds: https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-wolve... It like we can't understand complex systems very well. Almost everything we do seem to have to have major unintended consequences. We see this over and over again, we have to abandon the "as cheap and fast as possible" thinking !

FWIW, this is why some people have fears around GMO foods. It's not that they can't appreciate the benefits, it's because they fear that we're testing systems in production that we don't fully understand.

GMO is just a red herring that distracts people from the fact that most GMO crops are all about pesticide resistance. GMOs are almost definitely sprayed with pesticides, and continue to carry trace amounts into our food supply and habitat. The sprays themselves are blends of many different synthetic chemicals, not just, e.g. glyphosate, alone.

The entire western food system resembles some kind of BNW-esque intelligence test, where you have to wade through this web of lies, and if you can't figure it out, you're basically eating small amounts of poison that dull your thinking, sap your energy, and shorten your lifespan.

Good luck figuring it out!

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#132

Post by scott_karana » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 1:42 AM UTC

tstactplsignore wrote: post #109

projectileboy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, this is why some people have fears around GMO foods. It's not that they can't appreciate the benefits, it's because they fear that we're testing systems in production that we don't fully understand.

You can say that about all agriculture ever even more than you can about GMOs. We understand exact, precise genetic changes that have a much higher standards of testing than all of the genetic changes we've made to food using traditional techniques (mutagenesis, cross-breeding, selection) which modify dozens or hundreds of genes in highly unpredictable ways. We should be careful about all agricultural changes in a wa…

If we're talking about Mendelevian use of alleles that exist in a species already, sure.

But have you seen those glow in the dark aquarium fish? Or the tomatoes that use flounder DNA to make them hardier in the freezer? How rigorously is it possible to test ramifications from those things?

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#133

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #89

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, not anti-environment just completely uncaring provided their supporters/patrons make more profits. Your argument is like saying if I sit and watch my friend beat you up, not intervening because he promised me a few quid, then I'm blameless and not "anti" you in any way. You're quibbling over semantics whilst we're trying to shine light on the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources, and pollution…

> You're quibbling over semantics I never understand what people mean by this criticism. I'm debating people based on the words they use and what they mean by using those words... and that's a bad thing? What else you would like me to debate them on instead? Their syntax and grammar? And my local Conservative councillors seems to Tweet mainly about school funding and how important is is to preserve the green belt for…

Complaining about "quibbling over semantics" is to say your arguing about how the issue is expressed rather than the substantive parts of the issue.

Many people, such as myself, want positive action to protect the environment from damage to essential ecosystems, want preservation of green spaces, protection of native species, and such like.

Saying "the videos aren't making policies to actively harm the environment and do they're not anti-environment"is to entirely miss the substance of the argument which is that they're not doing enough to protect it and are seemingly ignoring environmental issues when profits can be made.

One often finds councillors at odds with the party as they focus much more on local issues. Conservative councillors in rural areas will be inclined to protect green belt, counter village in-fill developments, oppose fracking, etc, despite these being things the Tories as a party support (because: profits).

Tories are strong on rhetoric wrt green belt, just weak on protection.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#134

Post by ptaipale » Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 3:27 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #101

ptaipale wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, the opposition to those humans who they perceive are using shoddy claims of being in favour of environmental protection when advocating for other reasons their policies which might in fact be harmful for environment. Typical examples of this culture war are nuclear power and GMO agriculture. The scientific consensus is settled: using GMOs in agriculture would be better for environment, but nevertheless it is the…

> The scientific consensus is settled Is it? I'm not aware of the GMO counterpart of the IPCC here and, unlike the question of global warming, there is a problem with Monsanto-funded studies muddying the waters.

There is a rather good summary of the settled science here:

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/17/report/