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

291–300 of 342 posts

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

#291

Post by mekoka »

mindfulhack wrote: post #283
carapace wrote: post #229

Slightly tangential, but I want to point out that there's a way forward without pesticides and without economic disaster: We can switch to a "horticultural" mode of civilization. The idea is that we use applied ecology to create curated ecosystems that have a high proportion of plants that are agriculturally productive. (Not to be mysterious, I'm talking about Permaculture et. al. but that term seems to upset a few p…

I never thought I'd read a permaculture comment on HN. I love this community. I was in organic farming for a while, and I get that it's economically more expensive, but the fact that this is a problem is a cultural construct - it's only a 'problem' if people choose to pay more towards disposable electronics and movies at the cinema instead of good, quality, environmentally-friendly food. I think that big chemical agr…

> I never thought I'd read a permaculture comment on HN

This is the article that introduced me to permaculture almost 5 years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074473. There have been others popping in now and then.

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

#292

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bbddg wrote: post #228
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing absolute numbers to nothing isn't very meaningful. You compare your $340 billion to the almost a hundred trillion dollars in US total net worth and the amount that went somewhere else is above 99%. To get to the numbers like "1% of people own 40% of the wealth" you have to go the 1%, which is to say about three million people, and then you're including a bunch of doctors and software engineers who are clear…

The top 3 richest people (Gates, Buffet, Bezos) own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country.

That's because the bottom 50% of the country own almost nothing. They rent and have debts. The net worth of the entire bottom quintile is negative -- if you have a dollar in your pocket you don't owe to someone then you have more wealth than the bottom 20% of the country.

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

#293

Post by cardamomo »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #238
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.

This is exactly what your national and state parks systems do, along with all manner of other protected wilderness. The wonderful thing about the system that's already in place is that you can contribute to it without being wealthy, just by visiting any of them for a day and paying the entrance fee. As an additional perk, you get to visit all of that protected wilderness, while other people have maintained it for you…

+1 for parks and protected wilderness! If we want public lands to play a large part in turning around our worldwide ecological crisis, I think we need to devote more resources, money, and land to the issue. I am intrigued by endeavors, like the Half-Earth Project (https://www.half-earthproject.org/), that seek to restore ecologies on a very large scale.

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

#294

Post by AnthonyMouse »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #227
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The people with the most assets" in aggregate are the upper middle class, lawyers and nurses and chemical engineers, not Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.

But Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are part of the upper class. There's the whole "millionaires paid by billionares" type stuff.

What I'm saying is that the upper middle class (e.g. the top quartile excluding billionaires) has more money than the upper class (billionaires), because there are so many more people in it. Tens of millions rather than a couple thousand. But then they're regular people, doctors and engineers, one out of every four Americans.

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

#295

Post by ktaylora »

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…

I'm for anything that might eleviate this second silent spring we are seeing with pollinators/birds in the US. But how much time/money does it take to develop an RNAi-based pesticide? Also, it's specificity sounds like an intense selection pressure. How long would it take for pests to develop resistance that we see with other pesticides?

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

#296

Post by AnthonyMouse »

neom wrote: post #236
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're comparing the sum total of the wealth of many of the richest families to that of one individual person. The fact that rich people have a lot of money is not really a recent development. But it's the focus on the super rich which is missing the thread. If housing prices go up, people at the 25th percentile lose and people at the 75th percentile gain. We see the loss for the people at the 25th percentile an…

My point was that Sam Walton didn't seem to exactly price in carbon when he went to market with wal-mart in the 70s. Had he, maybe the price and selection would not have resulted in that degree of wealth extraction (generation), the same could be true for Ikea tables, Amazon Prime 1 day toothbrush, Sugar and chemicals for candy, Pesticides on crops, Opioids, red meat, etc. We got exactly what we wanted, loads of new…

> Had he, maybe the price and selection would not have resulted in that degree of wealth extraction (generation)

Not really. The profit on buying for $8 and selling for $11 is about the same as on buying for $9 and selling for $12. You make a little less, because there is lower demand and you have higher initial capital costs for inventory, but it's only a marginal difference.

The reason they don't do it regardless is that if Sam Walton tries selling only the carbon-priced thing for $12 when some competitor is selling the bad thing for $11, the customer chooses the lower price. There is still a Walmart-shaped thing in the economy whether or not it's called Walmart and founded by Sam Walton, because most customers choose that over the thing that costs more.

Because they have instant personal feedback into the price and the taste but not into the long-term health effects of sugar and red meat. But if you can solve that for voters then doesn't the same solution work for customers?

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

#297

Post by dang »

watertom wrote: post #262
carapace wrote: post #229

Slightly tangential, but I want to point out that there's a way forward without pesticides and without economic disaster: We can switch to a "horticultural" mode of civilization. The idea is that we use applied ecology to create curated ecosystems that have a high proportion of plants that are agriculturally productive. (Not to be mysterious, I'm talking about Permaculture et. al. but that term seems to upset a few p…

This would require people to think and be responsible, so it will never happen.

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

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

#298

Post by neom »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #296
neom wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that Sam Walton didn't seem to exactly price in carbon when he went to market with wal-mart in the 70s. Had he, maybe the price and selection would not have resulted in that degree of wealth extraction (generation), the same could be true for Ikea tables, Amazon Prime 1 day toothbrush, Sugar and chemicals for candy, Pesticides on crops, Opioids, red meat, etc. We got exactly what we wanted, loads of new…

> Had he, maybe the price and selection would not have resulted in that degree of wealth extraction (generation) Not really. The profit on buying for $8 and selling for $11 is about the same as on buying for $9 and selling for $12. You make a little less, because there is lower demand and you have higher initial capital costs for inventory, but it's only a marginal difference. The reason they don't do it regardless i…

I don't know how to respond to this. It makes no sense to me, so I'll agree to disagree.

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

#299

Post by AnthonyMouse »

neom wrote: post #298
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Had he, maybe the price and selection would not have resulted in that degree of wealth extraction (generation) Not really. The profit on buying for $8 and selling for $11 is about the same as on buying for $9 and selling for $12. You make a little less, because there is lower demand and you have higher initial capital costs for inventory, but it's only a marginal difference. The reason they don't do it regardless i…

I don't know how to respond to this. It makes no sense to me, so I'll agree to disagree.

What I'm saying is that you would have to convince people that red meat is bad for them before they'd be willing to pass a law against it. If they're not convinced of that then they'll just buy it from whoever sells it and it doesn't matter if one seller here or there carries it or not as long as somebody does, which somebody will as long as people want it. But if you successfully convince them that it's so bad for them that it should be illegal, wouldn't they just stop buying it at that point, even without a law or any action by retailers?

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

#300

Post by justinator »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #238
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.

This is exactly what your national and state parks systems do, along with all manner of other protected wilderness. The wonderful thing about the system that's already in place is that you can contribute to it without being wealthy, just by visiting any of them for a day and paying the entrance fee. As an additional perk, you get to visit all of that protected wilderness, while other people have maintained it for you…

Wish funds were distributed like that. I recall a certain 4th of July parade - with tanks, that was funded using visitation monies.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2399402/trump-fourth-of-july-p...

Post reply on HN