Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 342 posts

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#151

Post by nobodyandproud »

lonelappde wrote: post #120
nobodyandproud wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay a premium for tasty, often seasonal fruit like strawberries and peaches because the difference in taste is night and day. One tastes better than candy. The other will teach kids not to eat fruit. A tip: Use your nose to sniff and distinguish between what’s ripe and tasty and what’s merely visually appealing.

Why don't we care that fruit that is "better than candy" was genetically engineered over centuries to be full of unhealthy amounts of sugar? Modern grocery fruits are not naturally healthy.

The fiber, the general high water content, pectin, and vitamins make ripe fruit a superior choice.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#152

Post by sixstringtheory »

std_throwaway wrote: post #143
korpiq wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are organisations varying from grassroots to global where you can participate in such purchases with nominal sums, and end up with small parts of land in your name, collectively owned with other participants, or probably something in between. Here is one (that I know about because my employer currently offers an option to use some of our open source contribution rewards for that): https://www.helsinkifoundation…

What happens if I need my money back?

What do you mean “my” money? When you spend it, it’s no longer yours. You have land now in this line of reasoning.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#153

Post by SubiculumCode »

blodovnik wrote: post #25

There’s no surprise here is there? We, as a society, poison pretty much everything as a standard part of the agricultural process. The outcome -the goal - of that is of course, death of vast numbers of insects. Mission accomplished. It’s a success story, strangely. The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs u…

Not juat agriculture, every lawn and apartment complex.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#154

Post by flatline »

colordrops wrote: post #139
obituary_latte wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right? I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of…

> I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects We are at the end of that era. The big corporations are slowly closing down that unintended loophole in which the internet was a tool for free movement of know…

People were fighting Monsanto back in the late 90s. If anything I think they have improved their public image, poor though it still is.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#155

Post by notacoward »

jlangenauer wrote: post #2

If I ever get rich enough to do so, I'm going to buy some land somewhere - perhaps old farming land that's no longer profitable, and just let it return to nature. Let the trees and bushes grow, let the insects, birds and whatever else breed there. I'm beginning to think that's one of the best things one could do for the planet right now.

You can't "let it return" any more. Land left alone will gravitate toward a state that's anything but natural, as the already-unnatural mix of species both within the land and in its surroundings assert themselves. Where I live, the most likely outcome is a patch of poison ivy. Other places, kudzu. Still others, a haven for invasive beetles or snakes or small carnivores. Returning land to a natural state takes work and know-how, not just passive ownership.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#156

Post by notacoward »

gravelc wrote: post #42
jlangenauer wrote: post #2

If I ever get rich enough to do so, I'm going to buy some land somewhere - perhaps old farming land that's no longer profitable, and just let it return to nature. Let the trees and bushes grow, let the insects, birds and whatever else breed there. I'm beginning to think that's one of the best things one could do for the planet right now.

I would disagree with passively 'letting land return to nature'. If you did this in Australia (where I'm from), and likely other places too, you'd end up with a haven for invasive species, which actively damage surrounding ecosystems. Land needs to be actively managed - if you want it in its natural state, it needs time, money, and effort. In my (biased) opinion, the best thing we can do for the planet is to spend mo…

Also, "natural" is kind of suspect. Nature evolves on its own, even without human involvement. Returning a piece of land to its state from a hundred years ago necessarily means not leaving it in the state it would have reached without us. Treating "natural" as a near-synonym for both "past" and "good" is almost Luddite in its implications.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#157

Post by bilbo0s »

neom wrote: post #132
bbddg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Customers in many cases don't have the information to know the potential long term damages of buying the $4.50/kg tomatoes. It's insane to put that burden on the end user as opposed to the tomato grower. How in the world is the customer supposed to know what pesticides are used and what the damages could be? Trying to flatten all these problems into the failings of individual customer decisions completely obfuscates…

What's extra weird is that everything got really cheap, yet most people don't have any money, and the environment is in disarray. I'd imagine history is not going to look kindly on the wealthy.

History won't be looking kindly on anyone in this era. Wealthy or not.

It's not like before, when no one knew how things worked and were subsequently duped into doing dumb things. In this era, historians will find the information was openly published on the internet, in music, in newscasts, in movies, etc for all to see, and we still did the dumb thing.

I suspect entire books on everything from history to psychology will be written in an attempt to dissect and figure out what was going on and how this could happen?

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#158

Post by AdrianB1 »

neom wrote: post #132
bbddg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Customers in many cases don't have the information to know the potential long term damages of buying the $4.50/kg tomatoes. It's insane to put that burden on the end user as opposed to the tomato grower. How in the world is the customer supposed to know what pesticides are used and what the damages could be? Trying to flatten all these problems into the failings of individual customer decisions completely obfuscates…

What's extra weird is that everything got really cheap, yet most people don't have any money, and the environment is in disarray. I'd imagine history is not going to look kindly on the wealthy.

$4.5/kg does not look cheap at all, I buy tomatoes for less than $1/kg directly from farmers 15 km outside the city or up to $1.5 from the Mega Image (Belgian chain) at the end of the street. The cheap ones have great taste, the supermarket ones are bad, I buy those only outside of the regular season when they are the only option.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#159

Post by selimthegrim »

radmarshallb wrote: post #148
corey_moncure wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The big issue for consumers (me inc) is shelflife. I want them to last more than 3 days in the fridge. Are you married and if so, do both of you work full time jobs? My hunch is that this is directly related to two-income households

Shelflife has always been a big hurdle to cooking for me, and I’m a bachelor.

In a similar boat, and I find that meat and veggies I buy from the CSA have longer fridge life because they were butchered/picked closer to selling time

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#160

Post by maxerickson »

colordrops wrote: post #139
obituary_latte wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right? I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of…

> I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects We are at the end of that era. The big corporations are slowly closing down that unintended loophole in which the internet was a tool for free movement of know…

"The FBI assesses anti-government, identity based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists, wholly or in part, to commit criminal and sometimes violent activity," the document said. "The FBI further assesses in some cases these conspiracy theories very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places, and organizations, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence against these targets."

Gee, what a bunch of authoritarian whack jobs.

Post reply on HN