Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 454 posts

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#371

Post by anigbrowl »

giardini wrote: post #239

This study appears to be an alarmist rehash of what was previously discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14323533 Here's one of the original papers: https://www.farmlandbirds.net/sites/default/files/Orbrioch%2... The 75% decline number appears to be from two data points from a 220-acre plot. From that paper: "What follows is a description of measured Insect-Biomasses from samples collected in the Orbr…

I don't take this result at face value or consider it definitive, but it's one imperfect result among many other imperfect reports that all point in the same troubling direction.

Alarms have a very useful function: to alert you to impending danger. That's why it's useful to conduct fire drills and spend some time/money on tools and methods that you hope never to have to use, notwithstanding the cost of occasional false positives.

I've noticed that people who say 'oh you worry too much' are never around to help when things actually go wrong, so I pay increasingly little attention to drive-by naysayers.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#372

Post by anigbrowl »

Dove wrote: post #369
anigbrowl wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are the relevant people. And just like in business, while it's important to research and plan effectively, if you never take any risks you never get any rewards and the opportunity slips away. Getting involved and taking action isn't going to drown out the voices of research scientists, because while we operate serially as individuals we operate in parallel as a species. You're never going to persuade everyon…

Doing something is unproductive, and often counterproductive. It is the battle cry of doctors who prescribe unnecessary antibiotics because they cannot hurt and are what patients want, and wind up contributing to the development of antibiotic resistant microbes. It is the philosophy of politicians who make laws for show without solving problems (and often creating problems in the process). Do not do something . Do so…

All true, but the point I'm trying to make (poorly) is that there's more to life than truth-seeking. That's the function of science, but even if science hands you a definitive answer you still need to create the political will to implement it. And it's a fact that there are people who have economic interests in not fixing problems.

I don't care about insect biomass in particular. I care about it as a possibly-wrong indicator of general environmental degradation, of which we have numerous indicators. I also have a possibly-wrong model of the root causes of this and other problems.

You can't skip steps. It sucks that it takes time and effort, it sucks that you can't just solve everything overnight, but it is the only way to be an agent of effective positive change rather than an agent of chaos.

You can't solve everything overnight, but you can lose everything overnight while you're fretting over whether a problem exists or vacillating over its severity or dithering between a multiplicity of unpleasant solutions. An ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory, and my exhortations to act, which will sometimes lead to unproductive or ineffective results, are the product of decades of observation and thought.

I'm sorry that this doesn't lead to a neatly wrapped General Unified Theory of Sustainable Sociopolitical Development - because I too would love to have a verifiable roadmap to a brighter future - but chaos is preferable to predictably circling down into a drain. Overall, I have concluded that the world is getting shittier, that this trend is accelerating, and that the costs of your gradualist approach exceed the benefits.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#373

Post by andai »

sulam wrote: post #204
devmunchies wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

buy lots of land up there while its cheap. thats gonna be the only prime land in a few years.

A good chunk of it will be underwater. Make sure to buy something that is higher than 100m above sea level.

You might be on to something. Long-term thinking is the single greatest predictor of long-term success!

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#374

Post by dawnerd »

titzer wrote: post #285
deelowe wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so we're clear here, you're whole argument here is that people shouldn't mow the lawn b/c it causes stinging insects, but at the same time doesn't cause stinging insects? What is your point exactly?

> Just so we're clear here, you're whole argument here is that people shouldn't mow the lawn b/c it causes stinging insects, but at the same time doesn't cause stinging insects? What is your point exactly? Well if you read the link, I believe the point was that some plants attract stinging insects and others repel them. Also, stings. You'll live.

> Also, stings. You'll live.

As long as you're not allergic like I am. Sometimes nothing, other times... it no good.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#375

Post by kafkaesq »

smt88 wrote: post #85
kafkaesq wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically the planet is starting to treat us as a kind of a ... weed, in return.

The planet isn't conscious and can't "treat us" as anything. We are doing this to us. We are changing the environment to support short-term wants/needs at the expense of its human habitability in the future.

The planet isn't conscious and can't "treat us" as anything.

You may want to revisit that assumption.

Being as the science on this subject is changing very rapidly, as we speak.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#376

Post by elchief »

jopsen wrote: post #283
elchief wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I've done in the last two years: - Moved closer to work to minimize driving - Take the train downtown (on nights out) - Bike to work on occasion (it's a huge freaking hill) - Bought programmable thermostats, LED bulbs, vent louvres. Dropped electric use 20% - Eat organic (helps my IBS), cook at home, buy in bulk, freeze - Started composting and recycling more. My city has good programs for such - Ask for…

- Bring a backpack to the grocery store, Note, though this won't scale, you need to take political action to make a real change.

Ugh, I hate people that bring their backpack to the grocery. It slows down the packing process a lot. Paper bags are a-okay with me.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#377

Post by pvaldes »

r00fus wrote: post #60
dawnerd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m seeing a ton of wasps this year too. Also seems like there’s way more spiders in recent years.

Less butterflies and fish, more wasps and squids. Thanks climate change!

thanks overfishing...

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#378

Post by pvaldes »

dbcurtis wrote: post #213
sitkack wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let Them Eat Bugs!

People are actually seriously proposing that. Very high in protein, and very efficient at converting feed to protein. I'm not sure it will catch on fast.... More seriously, we need to be pursuing sustainable agricultural practices. I believe that means treating crop fields as the complex microbiomes that they should be, instead of highly-tilled, species-restricted biomes. Read up on how no-till and low-till farming p…

>Eat bugs

Now deliciously enriched with 35% more of weedkillers

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#379

Post by wlesieutre »

wlesieutre wrote: post #33
aklemm wrote: post #4

Presumably this is similar here in the U.S.? In the 80's and 90's the fronts of our cars would get so encrusted with mashed bugs that it would take real scrubbing to get them off. I haven't had to do that in many years.

Article on the same topic from April referred to this as the "windshield phenomenon," you're definitely not the only one noticing it. I wasn't driving in the 80's and 90's, but I remember having a lot more bugs on the windshield as a passenger on family roadtrips. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect... Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14323533

One wonders what percent of the "windshield effect" is a direct result of killing billions of bugs on the windshields of our cars, rather than a side effect of climate change or pesticides.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#380

Post by TheGrassyKnoll »

hycaria wrote: post #327
beambot wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to dedicate a slice of time to doing something to solve the problem Eat less meat (huge environmental impact!), bike more, don't consume as much non-local food, etc.

Why does everyone seem to forget the essential "have less kids" one ? This is what puts me into the defeatist group. As long as people won't even put their reproductive urges in question (and rather discuss how flying is bad), how are we even supposed to achieve anything ? This should be one of the first logical moves, yet it's so frowned upon it's never brought up. Depressing.

Totally agree. Condoms people ! USE EM !
Post reply on HN