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

21–30 of 342 posts

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

#21

Post by abgfm »

korpiq wrote: post #16
atoav wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planting trees on it would even help more (if it is a climate zone where that is realistic). I heard an Interview with the founder of the ecosia search machine yesterday, and they are looking for tree planting initiatives constantly..

For that, I'd be interested in Paulownia trees for their fast growing speed, and thus (I assume) faster CO2 reduction rate. 1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_tomentosa is also rapid to spread, which may turn out too rad for local flora or neighborhood politics thereof, while 2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_elongata seems not to spread on its own and thus may need active help for that. You'll e…

The most appropriate trees for an area are the local ones and with a view to Climate Change, the local species with good adaptability to climate change characteristics (need less water, can rezist temperatures variations, etc.). Pawlonia is being pushed/marketed heavily on the internet due to some superficial/mercantile characteristics (fast growth, big foliage), but besides that, in the agroforestry/agroecology academia, Paulonia is known to be just a marketing buzz, and a relatively dangerous one.

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

#22

Post by gravelc »

I'm part of a group developing RNAi-based pesticides which are topically applied (so non-GM). They are extremely species specific; when designed properly they can avoid even close relatives of the target insect, and the by-product of the active ingredient is degraded RNA, which is harmless. The OECD had a meeting on it recently to help develop a regulatory framework - link here if interested (https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/conf...).

In my opinion, if these kinds of products are successful, they'll massively reduce a major adverse environmental impact of farming. They also offer a non-GM approach to combating viruses, and are far safer than broad-spectrum insecticides, synthetic and organic alike.

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

#23

Post by leg100 »

atoav wrote: post #3
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.

Planting trees on it would even help more (if it is a climate zone where that is realistic). I heard an Interview with the founder of the ecosia search machine yesterday, and they are looking for tree planting initiatives constantly..

No, it would not; the parent comment is correct. Leave nature to determine what will grow best on the land, including the types of trees that take root. Only then will you end up with the optimal biodiversity and ecosystem.

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

#24

Post by vosper »

gravelc wrote: post #22

I'm part of a group developing RNAi-based pesticides which are topically applied (so non-GM). They are extremely species specific; when designed properly they can avoid even close relatives of the target insect, and the by-product of the active ingredient is degraded RNA, which is harmless. The OECD had a meeting on it recently to help develop a regulatory framework - link here if interested ( https://www.oecd.org/ch…

What potential risks can you think of for this approach?

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

#25

Post by blodovnik »

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 up. That’s really weird.

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

#26

Post by gravelc »

vosper wrote: post #24
gravelc wrote: post #22

I'm part of a group developing RNAi-based pesticides which are topically applied (so non-GM). They are extremely species specific; when designed properly they can avoid even close relatives of the target insect, and the by-product of the active ingredient is degraded RNA, which is harmless. The OECD had a meeting on it recently to help develop a regulatory framework - link here if interested ( https://www.oecd.org/ch…

What potential risks can you think of for this approach?

The active ingredient is double-stranded RNA, which we all consume every day (from viruses in fruit and veges), so no issues for human health via ingestion pathway.

A poorly designed dsRNA that has too much homology to a gene of a related beneficial species could impact it if it took up the dsRNA. dsRNA doesn't hang around in the environment, so the beneficial organism would have to be there at the time of spraying. For these reason, frameworks are being put in place to ensure due diligence is done in the design phase.

Like any pesticide, what the active ingredient is applied with may not be terribly nice (surfactants and the like). That's a case-by-case thing, which is hard to generalize.

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

#27

Post by atoav »

leg100 wrote: post #23
atoav wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planting trees on it would even help more (if it is a climate zone where that is realistic). I heard an Interview with the founder of the ecosia search machine yesterday, and they are looking for tree planting initiatives constantly..

No, it would not; the parent comment is correct. Leave nature to determine what will grow best on the land, including the types of trees that take root. Only then will you end up with the optimal biodiversity and ecosystem.

If he wants to do it for nature’s sake I bravely assumed he wouldn’t plant a monoculture of unfitting trees but something that is common for the climate and the area.

Trees are good for the soil (help against erosion), the microclimate (shadow, humidity, temperature) and help in times of climate change. I assume a mixture of trees and not too narrow planting (as is sadly common in many parts of the world).

Many farm lands had trees in them before these lands were cultivated

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

#28

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#29

Post by patientplatypus »

I'm straight up convinced at this point that in the next few years we're going to have a complete collapse of the food web. Just one day, no food will grow.

For example, swine flu (from factory farm conditions) and a huge reduction in apples (from climate change) is causing price spikes in China -

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/13/chinese-consumers-buy-fewer-...

And that's just one I've heard today.

We're in so, so much trouble.

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

#30

Post by fleetingmoments »

leg100 wrote: post #23
atoav wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planting trees on it would even help more (if it is a climate zone where that is realistic). I heard an Interview with the founder of the ecosia search machine yesterday, and they are looking for tree planting initiatives constantly..

No, it would not; the parent comment is correct. Leave nature to determine what will grow best on the land, including the types of trees that take root. Only then will you end up with the optimal biodiversity and ecosystem.

Not if there are invasive species in the mix. It can be extremely labour intensive to prevent aliens from destroying all biodiversity in an area.
Post reply on HN