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

41–50 of 342 posts

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

#41

Post by rollthehard6 »

obituary_latte wrote: post #36
blodovnik wrote: post #25

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 u…

Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right? I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of…

Reminds of all those times we are told that 'customers demanded X', as if we all stood outside supermarkets with placards saying, "We demand huge strawberries that don't taste of anything". The market does what helps the market, it often isn't good for people or the planet they inhabit - that's the story of our current era and customers need to demand change on that basis.

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

#42

Post by gravelc »

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.

I would disagree with passively 'letting land return to nature'. If you did this in Australia (where I'm from), and likely other places too, you'd end up with a haven for invasive species, which actively damage surrounding ecosystems.

Land needs to be actively managed - if you want it in its natural state, it needs time, money, and effort.

In my (biased) opinion, the best thing we can do for the planet is to spend more on research, so we can understand and counter problems. Spending on agricultural science is falling world-wide, just when it's needed the most. That isn't good.

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

#43

Post by gravelc »

superpermutat0r wrote: post #35
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…

These products can only be successful if tested for several generations. Pesticides also had a similar narrative and ended up being used in large quantities. Their effects on environment and human health are only discovered today and were unimaginable before. It was insanely unscientific to allow massive pesticide use and it would be insanely unscientific to allow RNAi-based pesticides without testing them for decade…

As dsRNA is ubiquitous in nature, I would disagree. There is no equivalence with synthetic pesticides when it comes to the active ingredient. There's no new molecular structure, no genetic modification, no new protein produced. It's chemically identical to what you consume every day. It doesn't hang around in the environment.

The status quo is we keep doing what we are currently doing for decades. The risks of doing that are far greater in my opinion.

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

#46

Post by tim333 »

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.

In the UK you can get a grant for doing that in certain ways. Not big money but it all helps I guess. My dad was doing this one until he had health problems https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/organic-la...

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

#47

Post by blodovnik »

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…

No.

Not better, more targeted poisons. Just stop poisoning and killing.

Why is it the words of the poisoners are always so positive and optimistic, telling a beneficial tale of forward looking improvement.

The words have been the same since the poisoning started in the 20th century through generation after generation of new better less dangerous poisons.

Your message is this “oh no we’re no working on bad poisons, we’re fixing it, we’re making the good new poisons, the ones that will fix things!”. It’s so easy to see through.

I see through it... it’s just making new poisons to kill things. And the sales and justifications go on and on.

Stop it. Stop selling stories of why your poison is a good poison.

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

#48

Post by ausbah »

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.

Lobbying to protect national parks might be a better roi.

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

#49

Post by marmaduke »

obituary_latte wrote: post #36
blodovnik wrote: post #25

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 u…

Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right? I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of…

> We are becoming better informed

'Distracted' is probable a more accurate median adjective for this phrase.

With Google you don't have confirmation bias, just confirmation.

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

#50

Post by jimhi »

rollthehard6 wrote: post #41
obituary_latte wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right? I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of…

Reminds of all those times we are told that 'customers demanded X', as if we all stood outside supermarkets with placards saying, "We demand huge strawberries that don't taste of anything". The market does what helps the market, it often isn't good for people or the planet they inhabit - that's the story of our current era and customers need to demand change on that basis.

We did demand X though. The supermarkets had both tasteless strawberries and organic ones and we made our choice. Many supermarkets still have organic ones and we still pick the cheaper, larger, less tasty one.
Post reply on HN