Study shows massive insect loss • Hacker News Board

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#161

Post by randcraw » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:07 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #64

kpil wrote: post #38

I'm pretty sure this is more related to a rather radical shift to a more industrialised agriculture the recent 40 years. Grazing land and more importantly meadows are simply gone. According to Wikipedia, England and Wales have lost about 97% of their hay meadows. Meadows are artificial, but they increase the biodiversity significantly. Neonicotinoids are probably also to blame. Climate change must be negligible in co…

The article specifically addresses and refutes this: >Huge numbers of bugs have been lost in a pristine national forest in Puerto Rico... [it] remains the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest system >Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico The article also provides several - reputable, scientific - references that demonstrate a predicted loss of in…

And the insect and bird die off extends comparably to Europe and South America, which likely use a different mix of fertilizers and pesticides than in the US.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#162

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #93

tptacek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you be more inclined to blame neonicotinoid pesticides?

Not the poster, and I have no idea what was in their mind, but if you don't mind speculation, the timing is interesting. These particular pesticides arrived on the market in roughly the late 1980s / early 1990s according to Wikipedia, which according to my fuzzy recollection corresponds to when we started hearing reports of bee populations crashing.

Right, but the bee population thing turned out to have been widely misunderstood.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#163

Post by randcraw » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

travisoneill1 wrote: post #37

Is there a chance that there is an issue with the methodology and that numbers are wrong? I would have thought this type of loss would cause very obvious and catastrophic changes higher up the food chain.

I would think so too. But most species are capable of switching among multiple food sources, to compensate for lean times. I think this allows those critters that are already living to stay alive. But it probably limits their ability to reproduce, since their young are unlikely to be as flexible in finding food. I suspect the impact of a long-term change in foodstuffs will take a while to fully propagate.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#164

Post by CydeWeys » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:18 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #72

CydeWeys wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because changing temperatures would move insect habitation ranges around, meaning you'd see insect species outside of their previous range (and indeed we do see that). Industrial scale use of insecticides, on the other hand, is more consistent with large scale die-offs.

Industrial-scale use of insecticides isn't new. Why neonicotinoids?

I'm not the OP, but it seems like they're more effective and started being used at around the same timeframe that insect populations started collapsing. These are the insecticides implicated in colony collapse disorder, after all. Just this year Europe banned use entirely of the main neonicotinoid insecticides. It seems like they're more effective, spread farther, or last longer in the environment, or something. Wikipedia has more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid

Anyway, it definitely seems plausible that this is what's killing all the insects, given that the timelines match up.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#165

Post by LifeLiverTransp » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

y0ghur7_xxx wrote: post #133

moosey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had two daughters before I came to the conclusion that this is the most likely path for humanity at this point. There is a possibility of a global awakening that might prevent this tragic loss of megafauna. But I'm already a vegan and don't drive much; can't think of more to do, and while I'm not too bad at dealing with this, it can be quite depressing.

> I'm already a vegan and don't drive much Since 71% of pollution is coming from 100 companies[1] I don't think that you can stop global warming by being vegan or driving less. Blaming us single individuals is easy, but we a are not directly responsible for this. The most we can do is stop buying stuff from these polluting companies. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

The individual approach is part of the divide and conquer method used as a defensive of the capitalistic system.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#166

Post by LifeLiverTransp » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

roryisok wrote: post #131

moosey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had two daughters before I came to the conclusion that this is the most likely path for humanity at this point. There is a possibility of a global awakening that might prevent this tragic loss of megafauna. But I'm already a vegan and don't drive much; can't think of more to do, and while I'm not too bad at dealing with this, it can be quite depressing.

As someone who's been through several cycles of climate related depression this year, I just want to reach out to fellow HNers and say it's not the end of the world. Our society, and our civilisation is going to change, in massive ways in the coming century, one way or another. And all of us are going to live in less luxury than we do now - simply because such luxury is unsustainable. But it doesn't mean or children…

Somewhere between some layers of bedrock, is a old dinosaur and a young dinosaur:

"Dont you worry, young one, its not so bad. Look up there- a shooting star, now make a wish, while it lasts-"

"I want life to never change-"

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#167

Post by GlenTheMachine » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #116

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is the temperature keeps changing (upwards). If it was a step input, then you might see a sudden die-off and then a ramp back up. But the temperature change is, to first order, a ramp input.

Problem? Slow ramps are the ideal way to drive adaptation. That's why finishing a course of antibiotics is so important.

This isn't slow, by evolutionary standards. The bugs are trying to adapt to a changing, rapidly increasing temperature.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#168

Post by sosense » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #73

14 wrote: post #15

My dad claims that the bugs come and go in cycles and says he has seen so several times over his life. He believes that we are just in a period of low bug population and that at any time there could and will be a population explosion. Personally I am not so optimistic. My dad moved around multiple times over his life and I would suspect different areas would naturally have varying bug densities and that is why he fel…

I'm starting to feel like this is the common trend when you bring up arguments of potentially how disastrous our effects on the environment have been. Bugs? They come and go in cycles. Climate? Again, cycles. I suppose next we'll see claims that the rising ocean is just the cycle of the ocean and it'll fall back down any day now.

But the oceans have been rising for over 1000 years at the same rate, and things like insect population and climate are cyclical.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#169

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #144

randcraw wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I loved "Interstellar", but leaving Earth is a hopeless prospect. How do you move 8 billion people to another planet when it costs a $billion to send just 5 people into Earth orbit? Worse, there's nowhere enough sunlight and water anywhere in this solar system to sustain more than a handful of people. No, if mankind can't make it here, we can't make it anywhere.

The same way we explored the earth. Every one won't move at once. These are gradual things that unfold over decades to centuries.

We can definitely colonize space. And we can make space travel vastly cheaper.

But I'm extremely doubtful we would ever reach a point where moving everyone off of earth is easier than fixing whatever is broken with earth. Or that it would even get within a factor of 10.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#170

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #167

Dylan16807 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem? Slow ramps are the ideal way to drive adaptation. That's why finishing a course of antibiotics is so important.

This isn't slow, by evolutionary standards. The bugs are trying to adapt to a changing, rapidly increasing temperature.

I'm willing to bet that the necessary genes already exist in the population, since the bugs already handle daily temperature swings that are much larger than the increases from climate change.

Given that, a few dozen generations is plenty. And insect generations are for the most part quite short.