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

The crash of the global flower trade

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 137 posts

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#51

Post by grey-area »

evandijk70 wrote: post #45
grey-area wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dutch government should take back the part where they accuse entire nations of profligacy and indolence. This happened during the Greek crisis also and it is a tragedy which punishes the poor and the weak. Without mutual support there is no EU. Compassion for others is in your own self interest long term, but I fear this is easily forgotten in a crisis.

'The Dutch' didn't say that. Some Dutch people did.

Sure, that should really say the Dutch government - edited to say so, but the point stands - you should not generalise about entire nations being profligate, and you should not scapegoat certain groups of people as deserving of suffering.

The EU should be about solidarity, which includes economic solidarity. At its best it has pulled nations like Spain and Portugal from the brink of financial ruin after war/dictatorship to thriving democracies. At its worst it has consigned entire nations to collective punishment (Greece) just to play to domestic audiences in certain countries.

It's usually wrong to stigmatise groups as deserving of suffering and it is not in anybody's interest to do so.

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#52

Post by Scapeghost »

bostik wrote: post #7
Mengkudulangsat wrote: post #3

Cut flower export sounds like climate travesty; they are not essential, they are fragile (requiring energy-intensive cold chain logistics and air-freight) and after all that effort... they have a shelf-life of a week. If there is an industry that should be strictly localized, it's this one.

I don't even understand the whole cut flower thing. It's morbid. You cultivate something that is living and beautiful. Then you kill it, and bring the corpse inside, to essentially observe the once-living thing's decay. (And don't get me started on giving cut flowers as gifts. If your host is an animal lover, you don't pick up roadkill on your way over, either.)

> If your host is an animal lover, you don't pick up roadkill on your way over, either.

It all comes down to the "plants don't have feelings/aren't really alive" bias we have.

Some people will go to great contorted lengths to justify the destruction of something, using words like tradition, aesthetics or honor and justice (like for war) or just "the way it has always been", and if you try to call them out on it, they'll get angry at you for trying to stop them from destroying something (as seen in the other comments here) :)

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#53

Post by easytiger »

Scapeghost wrote: post #50
easytiger wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are not essential Welcome to civilisation. We do things than aren't survival focused.

It would be nice if you remembered civility before making all your passive-aggressive jabs in the comments here, like calling someone "incel" for, what, saying that destroying flowers might be wrong? ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22943627 ) What makes you so angry about arguing against destruction and waste?

Are you quite serious?

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#54

Post by bostik »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #11
bostik wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even understand the whole cut flower thing. It's morbid. You cultivate something that is living and beautiful. Then you kill it, and bring the corpse inside, to essentially observe the once-living thing's decay. (And don't get me started on giving cut flowers as gifts. If your host is an animal lover, you don't pick up roadkill on your way over, either.)

Merely using words with shock value isn't going to help your case. Yes when you sneeze often in spring it's because of plant bukkake in your nose and when you eat saffron you are munching on plant dicks. What's your point?

I have learned that vivid imagery, when used sparingly, helps to drive the point through.

For the record: I have never liked cut flowers as a concept, and even find flower vase the second most useless household item that one can own. But as to your snark, I actually DO refer to the high-pollen times as plant-orgy season. Not all the time, but often enough.

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#57

Post by gherkinnn »

lm28469 wrote: post #44
op03 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree about not essential. If we go there, sooner or later, someone will show up and say Music is not essential, and why can't everyone dress like Zuck etc. But I do agree about local. I mean who doesn't want to walk by something like this everyday - https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t50.2886-16/93565...

> someone will show up and say Music is not essential Depends on your definition of essential, I'd argue 100% of the world population would survive just fine without music or flowers. Food is essential, water is essential, medicine is essential, shelter is essential. Some tulips imported for 2000km away aren't. I mean, do we really have to debate this ? If we go there, sooner or later, someone will show up and say Ke…

If you’re only concerned about the lowest layer of Maslov’s pyramid, then you might be right.

Few things are “essential”. But that’s hardly the point.

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#58

Post by elwell »

lm28469 wrote: post #44
op03 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree about not essential. If we go there, sooner or later, someone will show up and say Music is not essential, and why can't everyone dress like Zuck etc. But I do agree about local. I mean who doesn't want to walk by something like this everyday - https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t50.2886-16/93565...

> someone will show up and say Music is not essential Depends on your definition of essential, I'd argue 100% of the world population would survive just fine without music or flowers. Food is essential, water is essential, medicine is essential, shelter is essential. Some tulips imported for 2000km away aren't. I mean, do we really have to debate this ? If we go there, sooner or later, someone will show up and say Ke…

The word "essential" by itself is ambiguous. GP didn't posit "Music is essential to survive."

Anyways, is love essential?

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#59

Post by Balero »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #29
Razengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiding the facts of something with sugar-coated words isn’t going to help your case. Yes most bizarre and grotesque customs continue as long as agree upon them without questioning their value. It was also perfectly fine to own people as property and throw virgins into volcanoes, once. What’s your point?

When has it ever been fine to throw virgins into volcanoes? And slavery has always been opposed by huge numbers of people, theses things have never been considered "fine" or comparable to having flowers in a vase.

Whilst I agree with your general point, some of what you said isn't quite right.

Human sacrifice has a long history. Though it was, as far as I'm aware, a rare and drastic thing to do. For example there were a few instances in classical Roman history when human slaves were sacrificed. This was done in very dire situations, think pandemic or important battle, and often in earlier Roman periods. It was also actually quite common in Aztec and Mayan, though in differing degrees. They didn't however use volcanoes

Also in these classical times human slavery was much more wide spread and accepted. It was a very different situation to modern and colonial slavery. Some examples of it being wide spread being helots in ancient Greece, and the slave economy of Rome. The influx of slaves in the gallic wars lead to the political upheaval that let Cesar come to power, with "cheap" labor taking work from Roman citizens.

To summarize, having flowers in a vase is completely normal, and likening it to slavery or human sacrifice is dumb. Also history is interesting!

Re: The crash of the global flower trade

#60

Post by elwell »

furyg3 wrote: post #5
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument I regularly hear is that there would be more energy spent heating local greenhouses than flying the flowers.

It’s possible to run a greenhouse with green energy. It’s not possible to do that with jet airplanes.

> not possible to do that with jet airplanes

How's about a jet airplane that runs on cut flower waste? taps head

Post reply on HN