Live data from Hacker News

Study shows massive insect loss

washingtonpost.com

191–200 of 213 posts

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80 percent in Puerto Rico The article does make this claim, but it doesn't appear to back it up in any way. Additionally, nothing is said about the type of pesticide. If I use a pesticide that is 10x stronger by weight than what was available in 1969 and possibly doesn't need to be applied as often, then we're not comparing apples to apples. Ad…

You should read the linked studies before posting, they answer all these questions.

You should read it. They don't actually answer any of the questions I raised.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#192
post #129
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA is about a roughly 80% drop in biomass in a pristine, protected tropical rainforest, in a country where pesticide use has dropped 80 percent.

How about delayed effects? I can't read the article, but does the article mention what the natural decay rate of these pesticides is?

It doesn't make note of any specific pesticides or actual amounts of pesticides applied, source material only references 'hectacres subject to pesticide application' with no direct reference to the data source (only a link to a USGOV site where the data allegedly was derived).

The report also makes the claim: "Most pesticides have half-lives measured in days, not decades (60)"

Reference 60 links to [1].

Nowhere on that page does it make any claims about 'most' pesticides, nor does the study attempt to link any type of pesticide to that the ones reported there.

Clearly, the impact of pesticides was dismissed without any real effort to verify the impact of pesticides.

[1]: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/half-life.html

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#193
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.

That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic impo…

Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption:

> Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop. In 2013, soybean exports reached record highs, exporting 43 million metric tons to overseas markets. China remains the largest export market for U.S. soybeans.

https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...

You'll find this same thing over and over again when discussing clearing land for crop growth. The vast majority of it is to support meat production. Going vegan is probably the number one thing you can do to fight climate change and pollution in general, as an individual. Especially since switching would eliminate vast amounts of farming, and the associated chemicals and water loss. edit: and deforestation.

It is not a small thing, not at all, and to diminish it is to deny the massive sea of change that is required to actually fight climate change with 7B people on the planet.

Sure, there is a lot of cultural blowback against veganism, but I think it is manufactured via marketing, just like the anemic belief in climate change in the United States.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic impo…

A note about diet: There are some recent studies suggesting that globally, on average, the most environmentally friendly diets have some animal product component because of their ability to make use of landmass that we wouldn't be able to make use of directly. E.g., cattle can eat plants that grow in areas we can't grow human-friendly crops on. I can't find citations to these studies offhand unfortunately. (this is a…

This is true, but from what I've read it is only true for places that are small scale and local. Anything large scale, like feeding a city, would benefit greatly from a reduction, or elimination, of animal products.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#195
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Moving everyone off-planet, no. Getting a presence up there, and creating off-planet production sites on the other hand, would be quite handy on the other hand. That way we could reduce the impact industrial production has on the planet.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course burning my front lawn would never be allowed and I understand the reasons for that but ever since humans arrived (15,000 years or so ago) California grasslands would burn quite often. The "native" ecosystem was adapted to it and I think it would be fun to see what a few years of buring would do to the biological diversity of my little bit of grassland.

California has been burning for far longer than people have been here. Human presence did, of course, alter things, but natural ignitions due to lightning strikes shaped the ecology for millennia before we showed up. https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...

This looks like an interesting paper. I'll read in over in detail, but from the abstract this paper is discussing the suppression of fire after Euro-American settlement in the 1800's. Fires caused by Native Americans is discussed as the cause, along with lightning, and I don't think lightning is a big factor in (Northern) California wildfires. While lighting is a major cause of fire throughout the Rocky Mountains, they are less of a factor in California, especially along the coast and central valley. I have lived in Oakland for over two decades and the number of thunderstorms I've seen/heard here is less than a half-dozen.

We don't get the same kind of bad lightning storms that occur in the Rockies where the monsoons bring up thunderstorms from the south during otherwise dry summers. Maybe in the San Bernardino mountains near LA get a few of these summer lightening storms.

It would be interesting to read about pre-human fire occurrence rates in the grasslands of California but, as this study states, preserved evidence of grass fires more than 15,000 years ago are rare.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then why are the insects all dying? If this is true, the populations should be rebounding. They aren't.

Because it's still a bad effect that takes time to adjust to. And there might be other factors.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#198
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's barely the tip of the iceberg of what to do. Public transportation or bicycling, avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary), recycling, rallying against use of polluting materials (less polypropylene and soft plastic packaging in super-markets, for example), less materialistic impo…

Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption: > Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market…

It's unfortunate that more people don't internalize this fact. One of the first things you learn in middle/high school ecology is that 90% of available energy is lost between each step in the food chain. Producers can only convert about 10% of the sun's energy to useful electrons in photosynthesis, herbivores only get 10% of the energy it takes to grow their food, and carnivores only get 10% of the energy herbivores take in. Some factors like the decreased non-predatory death improve those numbers for industrial agriculture but not by much.

In US agriculture, we have some estimates for the ratio of output calories to the input calories [1] that are astounding. For every 100 kcal of feed stock, we get ~19 kcal back from chicken, ~7 kcal from beef, and a whopping 1 kcal from shrimp.

Essentially, every 1000 kcal of beef takes 14,000 kcal of corn/soy/alfa-alfa and 1000 kcal of shrimp takes 100,000 kcal of whatever it is shrimp eat.

[1] From the book Diet, Energy, and Global Warming by Eshel and Martin

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dinosaurs evolved in a climate with 6 times the CO2 we have, after long term volcanic activity. It will take a lot more than climate change to knock out all life. Maybe a gamma ray burster a few light years a way could do it, or a massive collision that melts the crust. Not much else, though. Life as a whole is extremely reilient.

Unfortunate fact is that humans are not as resilient. Even with all our technology we'd have problems.

Not sure why that would be. Our ancestors survived an ice age while outcompeting Neanderthals with primitive stone aged technology, and spread from Africa all the way to Easter Island, the depths of the Amazon and Tasmania.

Re: Study shows massive insect loss

#200
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

So I went back to the original PDF, https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1... , to look at the list. I see lots of companies that sell oil there. Or coal. Or things. But none that really emit pollution as a side effect. Someone like 3M could pollute less by changing the way it produces each packet of yellow stickers. The pollution is a side effect, it's something the company can change by intern…

> The act of polluting is identical with the act of selling.

The act of polluting is identical with the act of consuming.

Post reply on HN