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

331–340 of 342 posts

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

#331

Post by coagmano »

papreclip wrote: post #330
mindfulhack wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I'm remembering correctly from my chemistry lectures, there's an upper limit on how much nitrogen can be fixed "organically", and it's nowhere near enough to support the current world population. It's not only a question of cost. That said, I think a lower global population is desirable for many reasons.

My understanding is that organic still uses some fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Just that they come from a shorter list of approved products EDIT: Okay, permaculture is stricter, so this doesn't apply

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

#333

Post by tim333 »

mkl wrote: post #319
ptah wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i saw a documentary about manuka honey recently. apparently it can be done in UK too?

Manuka is a tree native to New Zealand and Australia, so that seems unlikely. Do you mean similar beekeeping techniques with different flowering plants? I just did a search for [manuka honey uk], and found there's an awful lot of woo-woo around what to me in NZ is fairly ordinary honey!

It's a big business here selling for silly money eg https://www.hollandandbarrett.com/shop/product/pure-gold-pre...

Apparently it does have some antibiotic properties beyond normal honey due to containing methylglyoxal.

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

#334

Post by squish78 »

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'm thrilled to see this comment upvoted, and you've said some of my own thoughts much better than I could articulate. This mode of thinking helps me re-orient my life goals around 5-year or 10-year plans based on cultivating my land.

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

#335

Post by skosch »

gravelc wrote: post #102
mhkool wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the difference between herbicides and microRNA but you do not seem to see the assumptions that you make.

What is the difference?

The difference is: the dose makes the poison.

Organisms may be able to handle everyday quantities of dsRNA, but beyond a certain concentration, you may suddenly see unexpected problems, which then cause domino effects throughout the ecosystem. These kinds of relationships are unknown unknowns, and they rarely behave linearly.

I really like the RNA-based approach, don't get me wrong, but the other commenters here are right to point out that hubris is dangerous.

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

#336

Post by morequietly »

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #312
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.

The (startup) company I work for is planning to do this actually. We won't be able to rewild a huge swathe of land but it is a start.

Can you share any more info on your company? I've long been interested in companies that work in this area, but I have seen few startups in the space. If not, no problem. Thanks!

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

#337

Post by WaitWaitWha »

hisnameisjimmy wrote: post #280
WaitWaitWha wrote: post #279

Studies always tout honeybee population decline. First, honeybees (apis mellifera) are non-native to North America. As beekeeping history buff (my appeal to auth), the decline in my (unpopular) opinion is little to do with pesticides. It has to do with change on how bees are over-wintered and propagated, and with insufficient knowledge of beekeeping. Current practice is to "split" hives after last harvest, and then o…

The article points out that bees are only used as a proxy for all insects and that second-order effects like significant declines in insect-eating birds align with neonic usage. Your points about bees may be true, but I think they talk about bees specifically because popular culture cares about bees as pollinators and doesn't harbor much sympathy for other insects.

You might be right. Just sad all around. I have a soft, fuzzy spot for bumblebees, in general, for Corbiculate bees. There are just so many pleasant little buggers.

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

#338

Post by ribeyes »

novaRom wrote: post #243
scottlocklin wrote: post #204

Well, we're running a giant experiment on this: the EU recently banned them. In fact they've banned several of them and the worst uses of them since 2013. My bet: bees might do better, but the over all insectopocalypse is due to something else.

The biggest issue is that the ecological costs are not reflected in economic transactions in modern economy. We simply cannot estimate them properly, because ecological disaster is a long slowly moving process, not very visible at first, but very significant thereafter.

It's extremely difficult to tease out the ecological impact of the economy because the Earth itself has powerful climate dynamics we don't fully understand.

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

#339

Post by ourlordcaffeine »

morequietly wrote: post #336
ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (startup) company I work for is planning to do this actually. We won't be able to rewild a huge swathe of land but it is a start.

Can you share any more info on your company? I've long been interested in companies that work in this area, but I have seen few startups in the space. If not, no problem. Thanks!

We are rewilding not as the main operation, but are using some of our profits to rewild. We work in the energy sector. We began debating which good cause to give a portion of profits too, and ended up with the decision to purchase land and re-wild it. (Directly, not via an eco-charity)

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

#340

Post by std_throwaway »

threwawasy1228 wrote: post #251
std_throwaway wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I sell this land to someone else if I need money? Is the use of that land for the new owner restricted or can it be repurposed for agriculture or other uses?

As a serious answer for anyone reading this who might be curious, even though the the above comment is probably not asking seriously. Most of these situations the land is placed in a thing called a 'land trust', at least that is the structure I see most often. These are generally then set out with an elected governing board, and a set of bylaws and rules about the lands. Often these rules can require a voting majorit…

So, if I go bankrupt it's basically worth nothing to anybody else because nobody could sell it for money? Even if it gets taken away and somebody else owns my shares they couldn't do anything with it when the board disagrees? Even if the state takes those shares and tries to force a selloff?
Post reply on HN