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

Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 184 posts

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#81

Post by synu »

JoBrad wrote: post #63
synu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t there still some wild dogs, cats, horses, sheep, goats, and everything else humans have domesticated? Or are you being very specific about what went extinct, or maybe predicting future extinctions (in which case I’m curious more about what you mean?) Edit: sorry if the question came off as rude and that’s why it was downvoted, I was sincerely curious what you meant.

I did some light searching, and it would seem that your examples don’t support your viewpoint. I didn’t look into all of them, but there is only 1 truly wild horse species, which was actually extinct in the wild at one point. The rest are feral horses. Canis familiaris is the descendent of an extinct species. Many (most?) wolves and other wild dog species that do not live well among humans are either currently or wer…

Thanks for the explanation, I was definitely including animals like bighorn sheep, bobcats, mountain goats, wolves, and so on which wouldn’t really qualify.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#82

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #28
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is notable in that it contained this sentence: > Recycling remained inefficient and of dubious benefit, and never really caught on. Which made me realise, the first time I read it, that he didn't know what he was talking about and was just repeating what he heard in his weird echo chamber with unwarranted confidence. If you're in that bubble that will apparently seem like a totally normal thing to say, i…

> Oh so recycling actually works, but we need fake jobs for people who don't care about economic efficiency? I'm glad we got some clear eyed realists in to explain this all to us. That's not what the op-ed is saying. The existence of benefits does not mean the benefits are bigger than the costs. In context, that sentence is part of an argument against the idea that landfills are filling up. So how big are the benefit…

So the quote:

> Recycling remained inefficient and of dubious benefit, and never really caught on.

Linking to an article that, in your words:

> cites some data to say that recycling paper and metal does a good job

and

> the social good would be optimized by subsidizing the recycling of some metals

But also says metal mining and logging communities are against it because they 'have accepted the environmental trade-offs'.

Again, from within a certain bubble that may not seem contradictory and illogical, but it is.

Nor is cheaper ways of reducing CO2 a sensible argument. Every method of reducing CO2, except for one, has cheaper options. We should do all the ones that are a net positive, and so save us money, not only the very best one.

The whole article is weak sophistry of this kind. As I said, it doesn't support the argument, just does its best to pretend it does.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#83

Post by riffraff »

oblak wrote: post #75
jamal-kumar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds really alarming to have to be around (no pun intended). What part of the world is this in, I was hearing something about the pacific northwest experiencing invasive Japanese giant 'killer' hornets at some point in the past couple of years, I thought the course of action in that case was calling the wildlife authorities to try and stem the spread?

Densely populated city in Bulgaria. I tried searching for the thing but aside from "$some_kind_of_asian_wasp taking over easter Europe", I've got nothing. I don't think it was the same species.

Not the Japanese one, but there is an invasive Asian hornet in Europe since 15 years ago or so

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_hornet

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#84

Post by anigbrowl »

42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 wrote: post #76
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Demonization This is a dramatic overstatement. You’re disagreeing about neonics , I’m sorry if that’s hard not to take personally but it seems like something than could be discussed without the vitriol.

I don't understand how you can parse my sentence and think that the object being demonized is either me or farmers. Yes, neonics are being demonized.

They don't think that. They're saying that your use of the term 'demonization' is over-dramatic and unhelpful.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#85

Post by systemvoltage »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #77
systemvoltage wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Succint and accurate. Massive rebound of the coral growth? No one wants to report that: https://twitter.com/alexepstein/status/1440696877079433220

Alex Epstein? The one that is a self-professed Fossil Fuels advocate and is starting a lobbying group with Thiel's backing? https://twitter.com/alexepstein/status/1516091577227255810 Anyway, I went to his source material he and it said "The last couple of years have revealed that recovery is underway across much of the GBR, a promising sign illustrating that the GBR still has the capacity and necessary ecological fun…

I read his book, Fossil Future, and found it quite convincing. Also agree with Peter Thiel’s political stance which is horribly smeared and mischaracterized by media as Fascist.

So if your rebuttal starts out with smearing of the character instead of refuting the points, it just further’s the credibility of Alex Epstein.

Climate alarmicism leaves no option to engage in criticism. There is no room left. It just shows how deranged it has gotten. There are a lot of lunatics that deny climate change, but Alex takes a data-based approach and advocates that we improve human flourishing, and solve the problem of CC.

Highly recommend his Google Talk to anyone that wants to see how sloppy some of the Climate alarmicism has gotten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#86

Post by multjoy »

BbzzbB wrote: post #40
jamal-kumar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the colloquial term for (edit; the most commonly well-known) many wild bees in English is "bumblebees". They're often burrowing species that don't have honey producing hives (They do stuff like make little caves in moss, dirt, and underbrush), and are often crucial pollinators of certain species of plants which are specifically attractive to certain wild bees (Orchids are a good example here) but which domest…

Bumblebees are a genus[1] (_Bombus_) of (wild) bees. There are many more genera of bees (taxonomic superfamily _Apoidea_) out there. They are, however, adorable chubby fluffs. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

I believe they prefer to be referred to as fluffy chönks.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#87

Post by tcmb »

Maursault wrote: post #80
User23 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aurochs[1] has sadly been hunted to extinction. The last one was killed in Poland during the 17th century. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

If there weren't hunters around to hunt them to extinction, they would have depleted natural resources and starved and been a lethal danger to people on future roads and highways. Hunters are entitled to our eternal gratitude for providing these services.

I don't know, maybe one day we will see that we are part of a balanced ecosystem, and that this balance is ultimately more important than having good roads.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#88

Post by throwaway5752 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #85
throwaway5752 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Epstein? The one that is a self-professed Fossil Fuels advocate and is starting a lobbying group with Thiel's backing? https://twitter.com/alexepstein/status/1516091577227255810 Anyway, I went to his source material he and it said "The last couple of years have revealed that recovery is underway across much of the GBR, a promising sign illustrating that the GBR still has the capacity and necessary ecological fun…

I read his book, Fossil Future, and found it quite convincing. Also agree with Peter Thiel’s political stance which is horribly smeared and mischaracterized by media as Fascist. So if your rebuttal starts out with smearing of the character instead of refuting the points, it just further’s the credibility of Alex Epstein. Climate alarmicism leaves no option to engage in criticism. There is no room left. It just shows…

No, I am contextualizing what Epstein is saying. It is from an industry advocate/lobbyist, not a scientist. Epstein has a bias, and is being up front about it, and I am repeating his own words. He may be right, and he may be wrong, but his goal is to persuade not to find the truth. I hope they overlap more often than not for all our sakes.

I note that you didn't address the scientific portion of my response - that while everyone is happy for the GBR recovery, that there was an element of luck in it vs they other years 2014-2020 and isn't a trend.

Look at your repeating the phrases "deranged", "lunatics". How can I be expected to have a good faith conversation with you when you are saying that I'm mentally ill and illogical. I didn't do the same to you, and I'm disappointed.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#89

Post by systemvoltage »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #88
systemvoltage wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read his book, Fossil Future, and found it quite convincing. Also agree with Peter Thiel’s political stance which is horribly smeared and mischaracterized by media as Fascist. So if your rebuttal starts out with smearing of the character instead of refuting the points, it just further’s the credibility of Alex Epstein. Climate alarmicism leaves no option to engage in criticism. There is no room left. It just shows…

No, I am contextualizing what Epstein is saying. It is from an industry advocate/lobbyist, not a scientist. Epstein has a bias, and is being up front about it, and I am repeating his own words. He may be right, and he may be wrong, but his goal is to persuade not to find the truth. I hope they overlap more often than not for all our sakes. I note that you didn't address the scientific portion of my response - that wh…

> his goal is to persuade not to find the truth.

I found it to be exactly the opposite. The current CC movement leaves no room for dissent. Just like the first year of COVID where we left no room to listen to credible scientists, CC movement is singularly focused often ignoring inconvenient truths.

> Look at your repeating the phrases "deranged", "lunatics"

I mean, I wasn't calling you mentally ill, but there are people that with close approximation resemble precisely someone that has no logical basis and has taken on a religious pro or anti CC agenda. Watch Fox news sometimes and you'll get what I mean. Alex is quite the opposite, but your first instinct was to smear his character by aligning it with Peter Thiel. Bad faith arguments start with ad-hominem attacks on the person's motives instead of the content of the argument. You kind of did the same thing with me by criticizing my language instead of engaging in arguments, just one step shy of a false moral superiority card (you're insulting mentally ill people).

Most NYT reporters that invest in propelling Climate catastrophe agenda are not scientists either.

Re: Whatever happened to the bee apocalypse?

#90

Post by hinkley »

jamal-kumar wrote: post #22
kibwen wrote: post #13

This article buries its lede, which is about how honey bees get all the attention but are at less risk than wild bees: > And that brings us to the actual problem. The honey bee (Apis mellifera) is only one of about 20 thousand different bee species. The non-honey bees are usually referred to as wild bees, and each location has its native species. According to an estimate from researchers at Cornell University in 2006…

I think the colloquial term for (edit; the most commonly well-known) many wild bees in English is "bumblebees". They're often burrowing species that don't have honey producing hives (They do stuff like make little caves in moss, dirt, and underbrush), and are often crucial pollinators of certain species of plants which are specifically attractive to certain wild bees (Orchids are a good example here) but which domest…

Other bees include mason bees, leafcutter bees, carpenter bees. Other pollinators include green flies, hoverflies, and some beetles and wasps.
Post reply on HN