The American Bumblebee Has Vanished from Eight States(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
The American Bumblebee Has Vanished from Eight States
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/american-bumblebee-has-vanished-from-eight-us-states-180978817/
189 comments
In The Netherlands there is an area that is a key part of the lifecycle of a specific bird called the "Grutto". It is not really endangered, but it is at risk, and if The Netherlands did nothing to protect it, then we would be the cause of its extinction.
The way we protect it is that all farmers can report a Grutto nest on their land. Then the government sends volunteers to find the nest. If the volunteer finds the nest, the farmer gets 1200 euro.
It's a simple scheme but I think it's very effective. It's a significant amount of money, the farmer will be looking out for the nests, and will make sure they don't get caught in their machinery.
I'm not entirely sure what the economics would be for bee hives. 1200 euro to put some stakes in the ground and make a small detour with your tractor, sacrificing maybe 10m2 of harvest makes sense. Not treating an entire field with insecticides might not.
The way we protect it is that all farmers can report a Grutto nest on their land. Then the government sends volunteers to find the nest. If the volunteer finds the nest, the farmer gets 1200 euro.
It's a simple scheme but I think it's very effective. It's a significant amount of money, the farmer will be looking out for the nests, and will make sure they don't get caught in their machinery.
I'm not entirely sure what the economics would be for bee hives. 1200 euro to put some stakes in the ground and make a small detour with your tractor, sacrificing maybe 10m2 of harvest makes sense. Not treating an entire field with insecticides might not.
We could also forbid the insecticides killing the bees, and let consumers pay the higher prices on agricultural products.
> We could also forbid the insecticides killing the bees
It's not so clear they actually are, France banned neonicotinoids in Sep of 2018, but as far as I can tell it has not changed anything in terms of bee deaths in France.
I feel like this natural experiment should be more studied so we can tell if neonicotinoids are the problem or not.
It's not so clear they actually are, France banned neonicotinoids in Sep of 2018, but as far as I can tell it has not changed anything in terms of bee deaths in France.
I feel like this natural experiment should be more studied so we can tell if neonicotinoids are the problem or not.
That is not the way things work in the US.
The mfrs will cry “job losses” due to discontinuing production. Farmers will cry poor. Nothing will happen.
The mfrs will cry “job losses” due to discontinuing production. Farmers will cry poor. Nothing will happen.
I'm aware of the power of corporations in the US and elsewhere, but didn't they manage to forbid a lot of things over the years anyways?
Lead paint, freon refrigerators etc.
Lead paint, freon refrigerators etc.
I’m talking about the USA of the last 20 years. Some things like an international ban on CFCs was, in retrospect the last gasp of the old order.
Isn’t it though? When was the last time you could go buy an AC unit with CFCs in it or leaded gasoline? Both of these products were banned for environmental reasons, both had huge industrial opposition to their ban, and we’ve managed to live just fine without them.
I was not around for the lead ban, but I remember the CFC ban and it was an utterly different era. An international plan, too. The SOx trading scheme comes from that era as well; today we have state laws against environmental plans.
The US at the time of those bans and the US now are practically different countries.
Or maybe buy land, plant some clovers and stick some bee hives on it.
The pervasive attitude of dealing with problems real or imagined with “who can the state punish?” rather than “what can I do to can I fix this?” is disturbing.
The pervasive attitude of dealing with problems real or imagined with “who can the state punish?” rather than “what can I do to can I fix this?” is disturbing.
The bees will still fly to the next field over, land on sprayed crops, and get poisoned.
Only about 16% of Maine has active agricultural operations. Or if you want to take out the guesswork, buy some downtown blight in some city, demolish it, vegetate the site and donate it to the municipal parks and recreation department.
I'm not saying we shouldn't set aside land in the way you're describing. But continuing to use the pesticides at the same time seems deeply counterproductive.
Just a note, most but not all bumblebees are eusocial or social, but a majority of bee species aren't. That makes finding nests way more difficult, for those species.
If the insecticides are what's killing with the bees though, staking out a 10 m2 section of your field will do nothing to preserve them.
Exactly, the incentive would have to be much larger to get farmers take the risk and save the bees.
The four most dangerous neonicotinoid pesticides have been banned in The Netherlands since February 2020.
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...
I don't understand why they're not fining the developers/manufacturers/sellers of products that harm the insects. Isn't it easiest to stop this at the source? How likely is it that individual farmers will make their own? I guess there's such thing as moonshine but I don't know how similar this case is...
Regardless, this seems like another instance of putting the responsibility on consumers/individuals, and not on companies that introduce these products with no regard to the potential downstream side effects. Guess it maybe ties into to "regulation" and "individual rights", like how instead of regulating fast food companies, it's been decided that it's the consumer's choice whether to eat fast food. I'm getting off on tangents that maybe aren't related, and I'd be interested to hear other perspectives.
Regardless, this seems like another instance of putting the responsibility on consumers/individuals, and not on companies that introduce these products with no regard to the potential downstream side effects. Guess it maybe ties into to "regulation" and "individual rights", like how instead of regulating fast food companies, it's been decided that it's the consumer's choice whether to eat fast food. I'm getting off on tangents that maybe aren't related, and I'd be interested to hear other perspectives.
I think that you'll find that in many cases the move to adopt those things like insecticides was incentivized by the government at many levels (ag grants, research grants, etc). So you now have conflicting messages by the government. "do this!" "don't do this!".
Also corruption. Insecticides are big business and there is already evidence of corruption within EPA to placate industry.
My observation is that issues requiring a true shake-up of those currently in power or strong financial holding (usually correlated) leads to actions being individualized. This includes:
climate - shake up of industrial winners if new policy is introduced so its on us to 'buy smart' rather than collectively 'produce smart'
schools and their performance - shake up of privilege funnels, tax bases, positions etc. if an equal division of funds is introduced so its on each family to find school and support rather than a system wide effort to make sure every kid has an educational experience that sets them up for success and participation in our democracy
immigration - shaking this up would have economic impacts we don't understand as the entire US economy is at least partially dependent on affordable/cheap labor or some form of second class worker to support supremely variable industries like farming. so its on you to immigrate correctly and complain about off-shored jobs instead of on the people who are offshoring them or hiring people without the 'correct' papers.
climate - shake up of industrial winners if new policy is introduced so its on us to 'buy smart' rather than collectively 'produce smart'
schools and their performance - shake up of privilege funnels, tax bases, positions etc. if an equal division of funds is introduced so its on each family to find school and support rather than a system wide effort to make sure every kid has an educational experience that sets them up for success and participation in our democracy
immigration - shaking this up would have economic impacts we don't understand as the entire US economy is at least partially dependent on affordable/cheap labor or some form of second class worker to support supremely variable industries like farming. so its on you to immigrate correctly and complain about off-shored jobs instead of on the people who are offshoring them or hiring people without the 'correct' papers.
The oldest ruse in capitalism is to individualize responsibilities for systemic issues. So, it is aways responsibility of the individual to avoid problems that were caused by capitalism as a system, for profit. It always tries to protect the environment that created the problem and criminalize the victims.
The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about.
The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative?
If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result?
Notice how big a factor polarization is in this. The more people who have chosen a team and won't be dissuaded from supporting their side no matter what, the less politicians have to care what people think because it won't change enough votes to affect the outcome. Which is why everything is currently a shambles.
People individually have to take responsibility for their part in a systemic problem. It's a serious cultural problem to tell everybody that they don't need to do this unless someone is holding a gun to their head. Because the same culture says that doing the selfish thing is reasonable and good, and if that's true, why should they vote to ban it?
Meanwhile if people individually accept that they have to make some personal sacrifices to avoid doing harm then you barely need legislation at all, and to the extent that you do it can be a minimal fine with minimal enforcement that only acts as an anchor point. Because a culture where individuals are trying not to do collective harm only needs some notice that a given thing does collective harm, not jackboots with billy clubs. The opposite culture is doomed either way.
The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative?
If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result?
Notice how big a factor polarization is in this. The more people who have chosen a team and won't be dissuaded from supporting their side no matter what, the less politicians have to care what people think because it won't change enough votes to affect the outcome. Which is why everything is currently a shambles.
People individually have to take responsibility for their part in a systemic problem. It's a serious cultural problem to tell everybody that they don't need to do this unless someone is holding a gun to their head. Because the same culture says that doing the selfish thing is reasonable and good, and if that's true, why should they vote to ban it?
Meanwhile if people individually accept that they have to make some personal sacrifices to avoid doing harm then you barely need legislation at all, and to the extent that you do it can be a minimal fine with minimal enforcement that only acts as an anchor point. Because a culture where individuals are trying not to do collective harm only needs some notice that a given thing does collective harm, not jackboots with billy clubs. The opposite culture is doomed either way.
> The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about.
While possibly valid, this seems unrelated to
> The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative?
>If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result?
The latter is an inevitable consequence of first past the post voting and plurality-majority representation, rather than proportional representation. Until the US moves past these systems, it will always be a game of voting for the lesser evil.
While possibly valid, this seems unrelated to
> The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative?
>If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result?
The latter is an inevitable consequence of first past the post voting and plurality-majority representation, rather than proportional representation. Until the US moves past these systems, it will always be a game of voting for the lesser evil.
> The latter is an inevitable consequence of first past the post voting and plurality-majority representation, rather than proportional representation. Until the US moves past these systems, it will always be a game of voting for the lesser evil.
PR has its own problems and the US would do better to adopt range voting to break the two party system, but any system where parties exist is still susceptible to the original problem.
If Party A does something bad in favor of a special interest, Party B might gain support. But they can estimate how much support they need to control the government. Now that they have more support, Party B can do some other bad thing in favor of some other special interest and still be competitive. If you add Party C to the mix, they still have the same incentive and opportunity to abuse their power.
You can have a party which always makes the decision that maximizes social utility, but you can have that in a two party system too. For that party to win votes, you need voters who are willing to elect that party instead of the one that promises you that you'll be the beneficiary of the kleptocracy.
But these are the same people who do the right thing even when no one is forcing them to. If you society is full of them then you don't need the use of force to make it happen. If it's not then an elected government will represent the majority of selfish jerks.
PR has its own problems and the US would do better to adopt range voting to break the two party system, but any system where parties exist is still susceptible to the original problem.
If Party A does something bad in favor of a special interest, Party B might gain support. But they can estimate how much support they need to control the government. Now that they have more support, Party B can do some other bad thing in favor of some other special interest and still be competitive. If you add Party C to the mix, they still have the same incentive and opportunity to abuse their power.
You can have a party which always makes the decision that maximizes social utility, but you can have that in a two party system too. For that party to win votes, you need voters who are willing to elect that party instead of the one that promises you that you'll be the beneficiary of the kleptocracy.
But these are the same people who do the right thing even when no one is forcing them to. If you society is full of them then you don't need the use of force to make it happen. If it's not then an elected government will represent the majority of selfish jerks.
> the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care
This is not an assumption, they'll have to do the right thing when society is properly setup. Can you chose not paying for your car registration? Can you drink on the streets freely (in USA)? It is just a mater of time before we agree that unlimited profit is bad for our future and outlaw it.
This is not an assumption, they'll have to do the right thing when society is properly setup. Can you chose not paying for your car registration? Can you drink on the streets freely (in USA)? It is just a mater of time before we agree that unlimited profit is bad for our future and outlaw it.
> This is not an assumption, they'll have to do the right thing when society is properly setup.
Who is doing the setting up? Some kind of Roman deity?
It's human individuals. If the individuals in a society are selfish then the ones in government will enact a kleptocracy. If they're not, you don't need to force them to do the right thing at gunpoint.
It's the culture that matters.
> It is just a mater of time before we agree that unlimited profit is bad for our future and outlaw it.
What is that even supposed to look like?
The closest realistic example would be stronger antitrust enforcement so that companies didn't get so big. But if the people in a society can't even manage to stop patronizing a company which is screwing them over then how can they be expected to organize enough to cause meaningful antitrust enforcement to happen?
Who is doing the setting up? Some kind of Roman deity?
It's human individuals. If the individuals in a society are selfish then the ones in government will enact a kleptocracy. If they're not, you don't need to force them to do the right thing at gunpoint.
It's the culture that matters.
> It is just a mater of time before we agree that unlimited profit is bad for our future and outlaw it.
What is that even supposed to look like?
The closest realistic example would be stronger antitrust enforcement so that companies didn't get so big. But if the people in a society can't even manage to stop patronizing a company which is screwing them over then how can they be expected to organize enough to cause meaningful antitrust enforcement to happen?
Fully agreed
I just hope we can find enough energy to overcome that inertia as we stare down unavoidable consequences.
I just hope we can find enough energy to overcome that inertia as we stare down unavoidable consequences.
[deleted]
Urbanites in their concrete jungles inflicting punishment on farmers for having destroyed bee habitat is so absurd on its face that it’s completely plausible.
> Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Oregon
Are the eight states from the title. Though it seems New York should be included since it says "The bumblebee species have declined by 99 percent in New York."
Also noteworthy
> In the Midwest and Southeast, population numbers have dropped by more than 50 percent.
To nobodies surprise, the culprit is pesticides. Interestingly the west's bumblee population isn't listed as being in trouble.
Are the eight states from the title. Though it seems New York should be included since it says "The bumblebee species have declined by 99 percent in New York."
Also noteworthy
> In the Midwest and Southeast, population numbers have dropped by more than 50 percent.
To nobodies surprise, the culprit is pesticides. Interestingly the west's bumblee population isn't listed as being in trouble.
> the west's bumblee population isn't listed as being in trouble
What do you call Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Oregon?
What do you call Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Oregon?
North Dakota is generally considered the mid-west, no? I suppose mid-west is a sort of west, but I tend to think "the west" starts when the Rocky Mountains start; about half-way through Montana.
So New Mexico is not part of the West?
There's a definition based on climate that's used widely https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/the-100th-merid...
There's a definition based on climate that's used widely https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/the-100th-merid...
> > North Dakota is generally considered the mid-west, no? […]
> So New Mexico is not part of the West?
Mid-west ≠ West:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_United_States
> So New Mexico is not part of the West?
Mid-west ≠ West:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_United_States
by this definition still 3 of the 4 states listed are in the West
One common definition is west of the 100th meridian, or about halfway through North Dakota. Montana is firmly in the west, as are the other 3 states mentioned, plus Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Washington.
Do you have a source pointing at that common definition? I lived a majority of my life in the West US (ID, MT, WA), and have never heard North Dakota referred to as the West.
Maybe it's a Canadian thing? -100W is the border of Manitoba and Alberta?
Maybe it's a Canadian thing? -100W is the border of Manitoba and Alberta?
I've heard it used for bird ecology for sure. The 100th meridian is the general cutoff between eastern bird species and western bird species. I think it holds true in other areas of biology.
I've driven back and forth across it a lot. Obviously it's a gradient and not some magic barrier the great-tailed grackles cannot cross. And we do get western kingbirds a couple hundred miles east as well as western meadowlarks. It's still a handy boundary so that you know more or less what to expect in a given area ecologically.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/the-100th-merid...
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-04-12-100t...
I've driven back and forth across it a lot. Obviously it's a gradient and not some magic barrier the great-tailed grackles cannot cross. And we do get western kingbirds a couple hundred miles east as well as western meadowlarks. It's still a handy boundary so that you know more or less what to expect in a given area ecologically.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/the-100th-merid...
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-04-12-100t...
North Dakotan, can confirm, never heard that.
Lifelong North Dakotan, never heard of or thought of ND being a western state.
Where in N. Dakota? I can see that being so for east of Missouri River to the border with Minnesota, but towards the border with Montana the state is decidedly Western in culture and climate.
“The West” means “California” to many.
Well, at one point, "West" meant Ohio.
Also Illinois. Why else would northwestern university be in Chicago and not Seattle?
Well, that's incorrect :).
i actually was just thinking of the west cost. i'm a los angeles native, guess that shows. sorry.
This is another example of "progress trap" that we didn't see coming until it's too late to act.
We've known what we're doing to all types of bees for a long time. Here's a paper from 01999 talking about pesticides and their toxicity to bees:
https://ucanr.edu/sites/uccemerced/files/40411.pdf
There are many articles that have found viral audiences throughout the 02000s about how other bee species are on extinction spirals because of the American agriculture industry's lack of regulation. This happening to the bumblebee is not a real surprise and we've definitely seen it coming within the window to act.
https://ucanr.edu/sites/uccemerced/files/40411.pdf
There are many articles that have found viral audiences throughout the 02000s about how other bee species are on extinction spirals because of the American agriculture industry's lack of regulation. This happening to the bumblebee is not a real surprise and we've definitely seen it coming within the window to act.
Very interested in your year notation. This is the first I’ve seen of it before. Is this to inspire readers to take a more long-term view?
An unintended consequence is that it confuses C programmers, who expect an octal literal to follow the leading 0.
Yes, The Long Now Foundation[0] uses the same notation. [0] https://longnow.org/
I will start the Long Long Now Foundation and support years with fifteen leading zeros. Much better.
That's already part of a proposed "standard" - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2550
The whole idea is bonkers and self-contradictory. If NLP hasn't advanced to understand the context of shorthand dates in old texts in 10,000 years time, I'd say thats a pretty pessimistic view on long term progress. Yet the idea is to add 0s because of a long term view on human progress? Doesn't make sense to me.
Regarding the RFC - check out the publication date.
From my impressions on the Long Now (and I found Deep Time a rather interesting read) the issue is not just sticking a zero on to say "think about the future" but rather that our current culture doesn't think about the future beyond the next news cycle, quarterly report, or election.
I'd contend that The Clock of the Long Now (and the intended level of technology to repair it) and the Rosetta Project are very pessimistic about the future of humanity. ( https://rosettaproject.org/about/ )
The recent HN post about the oak grove for repairing the USS Constitution reminds me of https://blog.longnow.org/02014/12/31/humans-and-trees-in-lon...
> Upon further inquiry it was discovered that when the College was founded, a grove of oaks had been planted to replace the beams in the dining hall when they became beetly, because oak beams always become beetly in the end. This plan had been passed down from one Forester to the next for over five hundred years saying “You don’t cut them oaks. Them’s for the College Hall.”
That a several hundred year old grove was planted because the builders, being familiar with wood construction, knew that in a few hundred years that it would need to be repaired and they'd need the materials to do the repair.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/oak-beams-new-college-ox...
> The answer to the question, have new oaks been planted, is probably. Somewhere on the land owned by the New College are oaks that are, or will one day, be worthy of use in the great hall, assuming that they are managed in the same way they were before. It is in this management by the Forester in which lies the point. Ultimately, while the story is perhaps apocryphal, the idea of replacing and managing resources for the future, and the lesson in long term thinking is not.
From my impressions on the Long Now (and I found Deep Time a rather interesting read) the issue is not just sticking a zero on to say "think about the future" but rather that our current culture doesn't think about the future beyond the next news cycle, quarterly report, or election.
I'd contend that The Clock of the Long Now (and the intended level of technology to repair it) and the Rosetta Project are very pessimistic about the future of humanity. ( https://rosettaproject.org/about/ )
The recent HN post about the oak grove for repairing the USS Constitution reminds me of https://blog.longnow.org/02014/12/31/humans-and-trees-in-lon...
> Upon further inquiry it was discovered that when the College was founded, a grove of oaks had been planted to replace the beams in the dining hall when they became beetly, because oak beams always become beetly in the end. This plan had been passed down from one Forester to the next for over five hundred years saying “You don’t cut them oaks. Them’s for the College Hall.”
That a several hundred year old grove was planted because the builders, being familiar with wood construction, knew that in a few hundred years that it would need to be repaired and they'd need the materials to do the repair.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/oak-beams-new-college-ox...
> The answer to the question, have new oaks been planted, is probably. Somewhere on the land owned by the New College are oaks that are, or will one day, be worthy of use in the great hall, assuming that they are managed in the same way they were before. It is in this management by the Forester in which lies the point. Ultimately, while the story is perhaps apocryphal, the idea of replacing and managing resources for the future, and the lesson in long term thinking is not.
It's a weird form of advertising/virtue signaling, really. "I use an extra zero on my dates to show I know and care about the future."
I had a professor who was very excited about their work. Coming from an environmental and ecological point of view with a decent amount of idealism, I thought the whole thing was a little pie-in-the-sky wackadoodle. I feel like they do have some projects that made some sense and had some promise, but I sure can't find them to cite now.
The idea of planning for further out is not a bad one. I'm not sure how a giant clock inside a mountain helps with that.
The idea of planning for further out is not a bad one. I'm not sure how a giant clock inside a mountain helps with that.
So here's a question to think about... how do you tell a culture 5000 years from now of an arbitrary technology that the nuclear waste dumps that we have are "bad"?
The Clock of the Long Now is an artifact from thinking about that and other questions.
I'll certainly grant that many times the art or artifact that comes from that idea may become more visible than the idea itself... but for people who are inspired by the artifact and go on to disover the idea behind it, it can be, well, inspirational - and a way of doing something today that will have repercussions centuries and millennia from now.
The Clock of the Long Now is an artifact from thinking about that and other questions.
I'll certainly grant that many times the art or artifact that comes from that idea may become more visible than the idea itself... but for people who are inspired by the artifact and go on to disover the idea behind it, it can be, well, inspirational - and a way of doing something today that will have repercussions centuries and millennia from now.
I've read an article about the project that's in the works to discourage future humans from digging up nuclear waste. It's a heck of a conundrum. Not that we shouldn't try, but I've got the feeling that no matter how we go about indicating that these sites are dangerous and that there is nothing to be gained by digging there, it's almost human nature to dig it back up. A primitive culture is probably the only kind that would heed the warnings laid down. Can you imagine modern humans stumbling upon something like the site that's being proposed? The only thing that might stop us before it's too late is if someone was smart enough to bring a Geiger counter.
It's obviously a place that the people who built it didn't want dug up. Just like all the ancient places that the people who built them didn't want dug up. Like the pyramids. We knew they were supposed to be dangerous and cursed and booby-trapped and whatnot. Didn't stop modern humans for a second.
I do really like the thought process, and again, I really want this to be a neat organization pushing people to think long-term. Unfortunately, when every project has the vast majority of people scratching their heads and trying to figure out what kind of drugs these folks are on, they're not really accomplishing much on that front.
It's obviously a place that the people who built it didn't want dug up. Just like all the ancient places that the people who built them didn't want dug up. Like the pyramids. We knew they were supposed to be dangerous and cursed and booby-trapped and whatnot. Didn't stop modern humans for a second.
I do really like the thought process, and again, I really want this to be a neat organization pushing people to think long-term. Unfortunately, when every project has the vast majority of people scratching their heads and trying to figure out what kind of drugs these folks are on, they're not really accomplishing much on that front.
It’s pretty obviously a Bezos pyramid
So long now uses strings instead of integers for year? That seems shortsighted.
I just saw an e-fluencer use it, so I decided I might as well also. No hidden agenda here.
But yes, that's the intention behind the action here: https://blog.longnow.org/02013/12/31/long-now-years-five-dig...
But yes, that's the intention behind the action here: https://blog.longnow.org/02013/12/31/long-now-years-five-dig...
So 10,000 years ago is approximately the start of the agricultural revolution. So the start of cities and I believe I can get away with saying the beginning of modern civilization. So 8000 years in the future is when they expect to encounter these issues with 4-digit dates. 8000 years in the past, no one had invented the alphabet. Someone double check me, but I believe that's before proto-Indo-European is believed to have developed. So the language that became the languages that became the languages that we speak today in Europe and various parts of the world isn't believed to have become distinct from its own progenitor yet.
It just seems kind of cocky to think that we can forsee what sorts of problems are going to need to be solved in the year 10k. At least as far as technology is concerned. I can see arguing for a long-term outlook on social issues. Of course we need to be looking well down the road on environmental issues. But technology? They really think that we're going to have a problem with the number of digits in the date in the year 10k? It wasn't even really a problem in 2000.
Thinking about the future is important. I have the feeling they're not literally worried about the number of digits in the date. I'm pretty sure it's just supposed to get you thinking. But nothing they're doing makes logical sense. Yes we should be thinking about the future, but trying to shoehorn it into our modern framework is misguided in my opinion. The idea itself isn't bad, but I'm not sure they actually understand how to use it constructively.
I haven't read much about this group in 10 years. If someone has more recent experience with the concepts, please let me know where I'm wrong here. I honestly want this to be a useful group, but nothing I've seen them do actually helps accomplish anything useful.
It just seems kind of cocky to think that we can forsee what sorts of problems are going to need to be solved in the year 10k. At least as far as technology is concerned. I can see arguing for a long-term outlook on social issues. Of course we need to be looking well down the road on environmental issues. But technology? They really think that we're going to have a problem with the number of digits in the date in the year 10k? It wasn't even really a problem in 2000.
Thinking about the future is important. I have the feeling they're not literally worried about the number of digits in the date. I'm pretty sure it's just supposed to get you thinking. But nothing they're doing makes logical sense. Yes we should be thinking about the future, but trying to shoehorn it into our modern framework is misguided in my opinion. The idea itself isn't bad, but I'm not sure they actually understand how to use it constructively.
I haven't read much about this group in 10 years. If someone has more recent experience with the concepts, please let me know where I'm wrong here. I honestly want this to be a useful group, but nothing I've seen them do actually helps accomplish anything useful.
I'm not the person you're asking, but FWIW I first heard of it in connection with the Long Now Foundation
> The Long Now Foundation uses five-digit dates, the extra zero is to solve the deca-millennium bug which will come into effect in about 8,000 years.
https://longnow.org/about/
> The Long Now Foundation uses five-digit dates, the extra zero is to solve the deca-millennium bug which will come into effect in about 8,000 years.
https://longnow.org/about/
An aside, but Y100K-limited fixed-length years are dumb. They don’t fix a Y10K problem, because untruncated variable-length years don’t have a Y10K problem. The Y2K problem was caused by truncated 2-digit years with an assumed two-digit prefix, and the problems when the assumed prefix became an incorrect assumption.
Its true that software that only reserves four digits for years becomes a problem in Y10K, but fixing that internal representation problem shouldn't have any effect on presentation, and if it does “5 digits fixed” presentation is a soft indication of the most short-sighted possible solution.
Its true that software that only reserves four digits for years becomes a problem in Y10K, but fixing that internal representation problem shouldn't have any effect on presentation, and if it does “5 digits fixed” presentation is a soft indication of the most short-sighted possible solution.
Why do you pad years with an added 0? Looks weird.
Y10K compliance, of course.
Why would HN comments need to be Y10K compliant? What about catering for people reading your comments in the year 199999?
I think that, given current estimates on lifespans and advances in nanotechnology, it's plausible that I'll be around when Y10K happens, and being able to search through my collected writings in a simple, uniform way will be nice. I'm lazy, and would be unlikely to write a script to convert the dates automatically.
I think it is significantly less likely that I'll be around when Y100K hits. I don't particularly care about anything that happens after my death. That's somebody else's problem.
I think it is significantly less likely that I'll be around when Y100K hits. I don't particularly care about anything that happens after my death. That's somebody else's problem.
You know how silly this all sounds right? The idea that you need to add 0s in front of comments that already have post dates for context, yet nanotech will make quantum leaps. Those two circles don't square. If the nanotech proposition comes to fruition, you won't need 0s in front of dates for old texts to be properly contextualized.. You'll have NLP tech so advanced that adding 0s will look like you were rubbing sticks together.
On the broader subject of the 0s, it's ironic that they are added for reasons of long-term optimism. Because if NLP hasn't advanced to understand the context of shorthand dates in old texts in 10,000 years time, I'd say thats a pretty pessimistic view on long term progress.
On the broader subject of the 0s, it's ironic that they are added for reasons of long-term optimism. Because if NLP hasn't advanced to understand the context of shorthand dates in old texts in 10,000 years time, I'd say thats a pretty pessimistic view on long term progress.
The computing device I use most right now is twenty years old, and powered off of two double-A batteries. It serves all of my non-entertainment needs, and I will never need anything more for essential use. It is fully-programmable, and works fine. If I go a thousand years in the future, I want my thrift-store Palm Pilot to continue working. Some people drive old cars, I like old PDAs.
Natural language processing is a joke of a field, and I don't see any future in which I will run a natural language processor that works on my old computers and takes all information and reformats it in a way that makes it most aesthetically pleasing to me. As a result, my only option is to write in a way that aesthetically pleases me and allows me to get away with the least amount of future effort. Rather than dedicate hours of my life to reformatting old text, I'll just write it correctly now.
Natural language processing is a joke of a field, and I don't see any future in which I will run a natural language processor that works on my old computers and takes all information and reformats it in a way that makes it most aesthetically pleasing to me. As a result, my only option is to write in a way that aesthetically pleases me and allows me to get away with the least amount of future effort. Rather than dedicate hours of my life to reformatting old text, I'll just write it correctly now.
Fair.
> "write it correctly now"
Though in my opinion, your version of correct is quite amiss and misses the forest for the trees.
> "write it correctly now"
Though in my opinion, your version of correct is quite amiss and misses the forest for the trees.
We don't need to put 0s in front of dates before 1000. Why do we need to do it for dates before 10000? Any date after that will have at least 5 digits, which distinguishes it from dates before then, which only have four digits.
Is this really how some people think? Eye opening
I've never been much for sentiment, but I am one for making my life easier. I assume it's how many people think.
Makes me want to party like it’s 9999.
[deleted]
Per Wikipedia, the American bumblebee doesn't live in the west. Such that the Midwest states listed are as far west as it goes.
Or am I reading the page wrong?
Or am I reading the page wrong?
There are other bumble bee species in “the west”. that seems likely to be true in other areas.
In the Seattle area there are: yellow bumble bee tricolored bumble bee yellow-faced bumble Western Bumble Bee Franklin's bumble bee Rusty patched bumble bee
I have seen reports that at least some of these species ranges are greatly reduced.
In the Seattle area there are: yellow bumble bee tricolored bumble bee yellow-faced bumble Western Bumble Bee Franklin's bumble bee Rusty patched bumble bee
I have seen reports that at least some of these species ranges are greatly reduced.
Right. I didn't mean to imply there are no bees here. My question/point was more on it most folks were getting distracted by other species.
I've also heard most bees are effectively invasive, at this point. And now they we have murder hornets... I really don't know what to think we far as actionable things.
Not that I'm arguing for giving up. Or rampant insecticide.
I've also heard most bees are effectively invasive, at this point. And now they we have murder hornets... I really don't know what to think we far as actionable things.
Not that I'm arguing for giving up. Or rampant insecticide.
I read somewhere that we used to use nicotine-based pesticides in the past and the bee issue happened when we switched away from that.
I guess China still uses nicotine-based pesticides?
I guess China still uses nicotine-based pesticides?
Neonicotinoids - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
> To nobodies surprise, the culprit is pesticides. Interestingly the west's bumblee population isn't listed as being in trouble.
To my surprise. There is very little farm land in New Hampshire. For the East Coast, it’s very wild.
To my surprise. There is very little farm land in New Hampshire. For the East Coast, it’s very wild.
Anecdotally I live in New York and have seen plenty of bumblebees this year.
There are a lot of species people call bumblebees. This one particular species, Bombus pensylvanicus, has disappeared from much of its range. You may be seeing insects that are called bumblebees, but not likely the species being talked about in the article. If you do have the knowledge and experience to be certain that you are seeing lots of Bombus pensylvanicus in particular, get in contact with your nearest Fish and Wildlife Service office. That's a big deal.
Quite. Also its way more complicated than that. I'm not an apiarist per se but I am interested in them - an interested amateur if you like.
To me there are roughly three classes of bee: There are honey bees, which are the ones that are farmed by humans ie domesticated. They live in colonies of around 50,000 in mostly man made hives. There are wild bees that naturally form colonies. Bumblebees for example, live in colonies of around 20 to 2000 individuals. Finally we have the solitary bees. These do not form colonies at all.
What is happening is that various species of really useful insects are being wiped out. This isn't just in the US but everywhere.
This is perhaps the situation in the UK: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0619/ feel free to grab the report and read it. It's not pretty reading.
To me there are roughly three classes of bee: There are honey bees, which are the ones that are farmed by humans ie domesticated. They live in colonies of around 50,000 in mostly man made hives. There are wild bees that naturally form colonies. Bumblebees for example, live in colonies of around 20 to 2000 individuals. Finally we have the solitary bees. These do not form colonies at all.
What is happening is that various species of really useful insects are being wiped out. This isn't just in the US but everywhere.
This is perhaps the situation in the UK: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0619/ feel free to grab the report and read it. It's not pretty reading.
Is this type of comment helpfully, generally? Ancedotes are typically ignores because they don't show the full picture. If we have verifiable evidence of a staggering decline in population of a given species, "yeah well I've seen plenty of 'em!" doesn't seem particularly useful - to the larger discussion, toward any sort of objective "truth," or really... anything.
Anecdotes can be useful in aggregate, where they can validate or give reason to question a claim. There is a lot of sloppy science and reporting on environmental subjects like these - look at the stuff about feral cats being a danger to songbirds estimating annual predation levels higher than the regional songbird population.
Can I get a link to the feral cat info you're talking about? My Google skills are weak.
As much for the full picture, i come to hn for the anecdotes.
So yes, 'useful', to me.
And, just to be super-clear, i come for the comments, and rarely the articles.
And, just to be super-clear, i come for the comments, and rarely the articles.
So even though you have no way of knowing if the species of bee this person is seeing is the same one in the article, you find the information valuable?
Probably Bombus impatiens. I see them all over my property in the Finger Lakes.
There are at least 17 species of bumblebees in New York.
Iowa, haven't seen one in years.
We think with our weak technologies and chemistries that we can play God.
However, it is so far from the truth - in an attempt to create more vegetation we have decreased a critical component needed to help said vegetation grow.
Technology should be used carefully when in the environment of the unknown. Trials and observations should be conducted in limited capacity with a long window of study. Only then can we know of the consequences for our actions of disrupting naturally evolved and perfected equilibriums - be it that of the Earth or man’s immune system.
However, it is so far from the truth - in an attempt to create more vegetation we have decreased a critical component needed to help said vegetation grow.
Technology should be used carefully when in the environment of the unknown. Trials and observations should be conducted in limited capacity with a long window of study. Only then can we know of the consequences for our actions of disrupting naturally evolved and perfected equilibriums - be it that of the Earth or man’s immune system.
Not even limited trials with a long window of study (how long?) will prevent this. Science itself is a non-holistic way of looking at the world, blind to what is not measured. Concerning this example, it seems like a predictable effect of pesticides and global trade -- not unexpected, though perhaps not hoped for. Instead, the principle of caution must be applied when using technology. Pesticides that increase yield or decrease risk by only 10% may not be necessary at all.
Any industrial action will disrupt Earth's equilibriums given the high level of consumption those in the developed world currently enjoy.
Any industrial action will disrupt Earth's equilibriums given the high level of consumption those in the developed world currently enjoy.
> Science itself is a non-holistic way of looking at the world, blind to what is not measured.
This is unfortunately a broad class of error; qualitative metrics which are difficult to measure and quantify get brushed aside by people who want to make rational data-driven decisions. Robert McNamara became infamous for this; the 'data driven' way he tried to manage the Vietnam War focused on hard quantitative metrics, like bodycounts, and de-emphasized or ignored qualitative metrics like popular opinion in Vietnam and America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
In the software industry, those that would rely on instrumentation and telemetry to guide product development often repeat the same mistakes. Many times I've seen user feedback ignored, derided, and demeaned. "Users are dumb, they don't know what they want. Ask users what they want and they'll ask for a faster horse." These ostensibly rational data-driven designers are ironically irrational because they ignore the well established limitations of their data-driven approach.
This is unfortunately a broad class of error; qualitative metrics which are difficult to measure and quantify get brushed aside by people who want to make rational data-driven decisions. Robert McNamara became infamous for this; the 'data driven' way he tried to manage the Vietnam War focused on hard quantitative metrics, like bodycounts, and de-emphasized or ignored qualitative metrics like popular opinion in Vietnam and America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
In the software industry, those that would rely on instrumentation and telemetry to guide product development often repeat the same mistakes. Many times I've seen user feedback ignored, derided, and demeaned. "Users are dumb, they don't know what they want. Ask users what they want and they'll ask for a faster horse." These ostensibly rational data-driven designers are ironically irrational because they ignore the well established limitations of their data-driven approach.
> Technology should be used carefully when in the environment of the unknown. Trials and observations should be conducted in limited capacity with a long window of study
A laudable goal.
And yet, without the agricultural revolution of the 1960s, we wouldn't have grocery stores today with well-stocked shelves.
Cautiousness has its own price.
A laudable goal.
And yet, without the agricultural revolution of the 1960s, we wouldn't have grocery stores today with well-stocked shelves.
Cautiousness has its own price.
> And yet, without the agricultural revolution of the 1960s, we wouldn't have grocery stores today with well-stocked shelves.
It's not that we wouldn't have well-stocked shelves: it's that we wouldn't be alive. We can feed as many people as we do because of the incredible advances we've made in agricultural sciences. Without those, there just wouldn't be enough calories to go around. Does the sum of all the joys of billions of people mean nothing to everyone who denounces modern agriculture? All this invective against technology is sophomoric, short-sighted, and fundamentally unserious, and if we followed the recommendations of people to whom science is a bad thing, just "playing god", then a huge number of us would simply cease to exist.
It's not that we wouldn't have well-stocked shelves: it's that we wouldn't be alive. We can feed as many people as we do because of the incredible advances we've made in agricultural sciences. Without those, there just wouldn't be enough calories to go around. Does the sum of all the joys of billions of people mean nothing to everyone who denounces modern agriculture? All this invective against technology is sophomoric, short-sighted, and fundamentally unserious, and if we followed the recommendations of people to whom science is a bad thing, just "playing god", then a huge number of us would simply cease to exist.
Ecology is a science.
> Does the sum of all the joys of billions of people mean nothing to everyone who denounces modern agriculture?
The thing about that is that the story isn't over yet. Yes, billions of people owe their lives to the Haber–Bosch process (et. al., I'm obviously simplifying here) but if billions of people die due to ecological and economic collapse, is it really all worth it?
As a concrete counter-example to modern mass agriculture there are ecological systems of food production that result in high yields while increasing fertility, biodiversity, and biomass (such as Permaculture, Syntropic and Regenerative agriculture, etc.) So we can have our both well-stocked grocery shelves and healthy ecosystems.
> Does the sum of all the joys of billions of people mean nothing to everyone who denounces modern agriculture?
The thing about that is that the story isn't over yet. Yes, billions of people owe their lives to the Haber–Bosch process (et. al., I'm obviously simplifying here) but if billions of people die due to ecological and economic collapse, is it really all worth it?
As a concrete counter-example to modern mass agriculture there are ecological systems of food production that result in high yields while increasing fertility, biodiversity, and biomass (such as Permaculture, Syntropic and Regenerative agriculture, etc.) So we can have our both well-stocked grocery shelves and healthy ecosystems.
Additionally, it seems the production of industrial ammonia is a major CO2 emitter.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-a...
https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-a...
Do you have any references for these statements? I have never even heard that things were apparently so dire in the 60s.
Does your sentiment that we apparently couldn’t feed ourselves take into account population growth? What if the population had simply not grown as it did?
My current understanding is that the U.S. overproduces what it needs, exports the excess at dirt cheap prices, killing off developing countries’ farmer livelihoods. So in the U.S., there’s multiple birds killed with one stone.
Does your sentiment that we apparently couldn’t feed ourselves take into account population growth? What if the population had simply not grown as it did?
My current understanding is that the U.S. overproduces what it needs, exports the excess at dirt cheap prices, killing off developing countries’ farmer livelihoods. So in the U.S., there’s multiple birds killed with one stone.
> Do you have any references for these statements?
https://gerrymarten.com/human-ecology/chapter03.html
The green revolution was a big increase in the carrying capacity of the Earth.
> Does your sentiment that we apparently couldn’t feed ourselves take into account population growth? What if the population had simply not grown as it did?
Of course it does. Listen to yourself here. You're saying that it'd have been better for billions of people to simply not have lived at all and for growth to be capped for all time. Would you go back in time, prevent the green revolution, and erase all those billions of people from history?
Christ, I think you would.
Limiting growth means billions, if not trillions, of people will simply never exist at all. All those moments of hope and joy and rest and relief: never existed, all on your say-so. We have a word for that: genocide.
We don't need to limit humanity's growth. We need to go to the stars.
https://gerrymarten.com/human-ecology/chapter03.html
The green revolution was a big increase in the carrying capacity of the Earth.
> Does your sentiment that we apparently couldn’t feed ourselves take into account population growth? What if the population had simply not grown as it did?
Of course it does. Listen to yourself here. You're saying that it'd have been better for billions of people to simply not have lived at all and for growth to be capped for all time. Would you go back in time, prevent the green revolution, and erase all those billions of people from history?
Christ, I think you would.
Limiting growth means billions, if not trillions, of people will simply never exist at all. All those moments of hope and joy and rest and relief: never existed, all on your say-so. We have a word for that: genocide.
We don't need to limit humanity's growth. We need to go to the stars.
During WWII, 40% of the US food supply came from private gardens.
Today, gardens amongst the general population basically don’t exist (are so few/small that they don’t represent a measurable fraction of food supply or available arable private land).
So, it’s difficult to know whether or not we would cease to exist.
I suspect not.
Today, gardens amongst the general population basically don’t exist (are so few/small that they don’t represent a measurable fraction of food supply or available arable private land).
So, it’s difficult to know whether or not we would cease to exist.
I suspect not.
[deleted]
A population at 60's level would be much easier on the planet, and the countless species we've since lost forever.
To me that easily outweighs the sum of all those joys; temporary and impermanent, unlike the extinctions of species and glories the planet will never see again. And, I'll remind you that we still have more than enough starvation, despite the ability to feed all.
Your reading of the arguments here as "against science" are a straw man.
To me that easily outweighs the sum of all those joys; temporary and impermanent, unlike the extinctions of species and glories the planet will never see again. And, I'll remind you that we still have more than enough starvation, despite the ability to feed all.
Your reading of the arguments here as "against science" are a straw man.
> Your reading of the arguments here as "against science" are a straw man.
You're right. The arguments I'm reading here are not "against science". That's too specific. The arguments I'm reading here are actually against humanity.
As I mentioned in another post, suggesting that it would have been a good thing that the population not have grown over the past century is the same as wishing to wipe billions of people, along with their minds, memories, and experiences, out of history.
And for what would you erase these billions of lives? So some fish? A few trees? A few rocks? A toad spotted in some special way? None of these things can sing, feel hope, dream, or even suffer. Humans can. The desire to limit human growth on ecological grounds is monstrous and anti-human and there's no word for it other than "evil".
You're right. The arguments I'm reading here are not "against science". That's too specific. The arguments I'm reading here are actually against humanity.
As I mentioned in another post, suggesting that it would have been a good thing that the population not have grown over the past century is the same as wishing to wipe billions of people, along with their minds, memories, and experiences, out of history.
And for what would you erase these billions of lives? So some fish? A few trees? A few rocks? A toad spotted in some special way? None of these things can sing, feel hope, dream, or even suffer. Humans can. The desire to limit human growth on ecological grounds is monstrous and anti-human and there's no word for it other than "evil".
The environment has a limited capacity to sustain human life.
Temporarily taking more from the environment than is sustainsble brings temporary human happiness, followed by great human suffering when the environment we rely on collapses.
Civilizations throughout history have collapsed for this reason. Our civilization is not so powerful as to be immune.
Temporarily taking more from the environment than is sustainsble brings temporary human happiness, followed by great human suffering when the environment we rely on collapses.
Civilizations throughout history have collapsed for this reason. Our civilization is not so powerful as to be immune.
We've been hearing about this inevitable collapse since Malthus, yet is never comes. And yet, like the brainwashed follows of a doomsday cult leader, anti-human environmentalist types keep up the faith even as the predictions keep failing. It's embarrassing.
There is no particular reason to believe that we've overshot the planet's carrying capacity, that our technological ability to deliver prosperity will break down, or that some kind of collapse is about to come.
This belief in imminent ecological collapse is just a rebranding of eschatology, the idea that the end of the world is coming and that when it does, the good and bad will be separated and judged. It's an aesthetic judgement --- you start with the premise that industrial civilization is bad, understand that bad things must be punished, and hope for Gaia to be the instrument of that punishment.
I don't subscribe to this kind of thinking. I don't see any limits to human ingenuity. There's no need to limit growth, and anyone attempting to do it is committing a crime against the future.
There is no particular reason to believe that we've overshot the planet's carrying capacity, that our technological ability to deliver prosperity will break down, or that some kind of collapse is about to come.
This belief in imminent ecological collapse is just a rebranding of eschatology, the idea that the end of the world is coming and that when it does, the good and bad will be separated and judged. It's an aesthetic judgement --- you start with the premise that industrial civilization is bad, understand that bad things must be punished, and hope for Gaia to be the instrument of that punishment.
I don't subscribe to this kind of thinking. I don't see any limits to human ingenuity. There's no need to limit growth, and anyone attempting to do it is committing a crime against the future.
Buddy the consequences of 7 billion people living beyond the planet's means aren't just visible. They're a fucking rocket flare in the darkness on a clear night. How are you not seeing this?
Our water sources are polluted. Our oceans are acidifying. We've strip mined our topsoil. Our rainforests are at a tipping point, on the verge of catastrophic loss. Did you see those fires in Australia last year? Disastrous weather events are up 83% in only twenty years. Top strategists and CEOs are preparing for water wars and refugee crises.
And you're here telling us there's no need to limit growth, that doing so is criminal, that the environmentalist cult predictions are failing? In the comments of an article about how there's no American Bumblebees in eight states, which was predicted 20 years ago? WTF Broseph.
Our water sources are polluted. Our oceans are acidifying. We've strip mined our topsoil. Our rainforests are at a tipping point, on the verge of catastrophic loss. Did you see those fires in Australia last year? Disastrous weather events are up 83% in only twenty years. Top strategists and CEOs are preparing for water wars and refugee crises.
And you're here telling us there's no need to limit growth, that doing so is criminal, that the environmentalist cult predictions are failing? In the comments of an article about how there's no American Bumblebees in eight states, which was predicted 20 years ago? WTF Broseph.
> Our water sources are polluted. Our oceans are acidifying. We've strip mined our topsoil. Our rainforests are at a tipping point, on the verge of catastrophic loss. Did you see those fires in Australia last year? Disastrous weather events are up 83% in only twenty years. Top strategists and CEOs are preparing for water wars and refugee crises
Every single generation points to things going wrong now and thinks the end of nigh. It's been that way since at least the invention of writing. All you've done is present a list of problems. You have done nothing to build an actual case that the engine of human innovation is breaking down. What makes you think we won't overcome the problems you mention just as we've overcome all our previous problems?
> And you're here telling us there's no need to limit growth, that doing so is criminal, that the environmentalist cult predictions are failing?
Yes, I am. Because those predictions are failing, and they are failing because they imagine that we exist in a bizarre alternative world where we don't invent technology to solve problems but instead just breed, like deer or something, until we collapse. Wrong model, thus wrong predictions.
Did you know forest cover has actually increased over the past 100 years? Under your theory, we should have chopped down the last tree ages ago.
Our rivers don't catch on fire anymore either. Under your theory, we should all be drinking turpentine by now.
Turns out we can live in a clean world without arbitrary and murderously limiting growth or capping the number of people who can exist.
> In the comments of an article about how there's no American Bumblebees in eight states, which was predicted 20 years ago?
Well, yeah. Doing something about the neoniconoid pesticides causing the bee problem is probably wise. That's not the object of my objection.
The object of my objection is this idea that bees are suffering because humanity arrogantly tries to "play god" with technology and that we should stop and go back to the trees or something. That's an absurd and destructive worldview, and one that's embarrassingly common among comfortable tech types.
Every single generation points to things going wrong now and thinks the end of nigh. It's been that way since at least the invention of writing. All you've done is present a list of problems. You have done nothing to build an actual case that the engine of human innovation is breaking down. What makes you think we won't overcome the problems you mention just as we've overcome all our previous problems?
> And you're here telling us there's no need to limit growth, that doing so is criminal, that the environmentalist cult predictions are failing?
Yes, I am. Because those predictions are failing, and they are failing because they imagine that we exist in a bizarre alternative world where we don't invent technology to solve problems but instead just breed, like deer or something, until we collapse. Wrong model, thus wrong predictions.
Did you know forest cover has actually increased over the past 100 years? Under your theory, we should have chopped down the last tree ages ago.
Our rivers don't catch on fire anymore either. Under your theory, we should all be drinking turpentine by now.
Turns out we can live in a clean world without arbitrary and murderously limiting growth or capping the number of people who can exist.
> In the comments of an article about how there's no American Bumblebees in eight states, which was predicted 20 years ago?
Well, yeah. Doing something about the neoniconoid pesticides causing the bee problem is probably wise. That's not the object of my objection.
The object of my objection is this idea that bees are suffering because humanity arrogantly tries to "play god" with technology and that we should stop and go back to the trees or something. That's an absurd and destructive worldview, and one that's embarrassingly common among comfortable tech types.
Your argument reduces to, well we haven't destroyed ourselves yet.
... It's not a strong argument.
... It's not a strong argument.
Sure, in the same way that your argument "reduces" to chicken little. Isn't this a fun game, creating ridiculous strawmen justifying it with this word "reduces"?
What you seem to not be getting is that the damage to the environment is HERE. Hundreds of thousands of all kinds of species are DEAD and NOT COMING BACK. Water sources are DEPLETED and TOXIC, NOW. Etc. Plastic is on Everest and the Mariana Trench.
That's not Chicken Little, that's the denouement of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Except in this case, the boy had decades of charts and photos and graphs showing that a whole pack of wolves were on their way.
That's not Chicken Little, that's the denouement of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Except in this case, the boy had decades of charts and photos and graphs showing that a whole pack of wolves were on their way.
Have you seen the grocery stores today? I mean really stopped and taken a good hard look at what's on them?
Mostly garbage. Garbage. And then you have this: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/q4aeuc/e...
Mostly garbage. Garbage. And then you have this: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/q4aeuc/e...
It’s totally true. I’ve always liked the advice that you should mostly walk around the perimeter of the store, and only go into the middle part (aisles) when you have some specific need (canned veggies, beans, pasta).
It obviously depends a bit on your store’s layout, but I’ve found the advice to be almost universal. The aisles contain all of the junk (an unbelievable amount of junk), and the good fresh ingredients — fruit, veggies, dairy, breads, meats — are around the outside.
It obviously depends a bit on your store’s layout, but I’ve found the advice to be almost universal. The aisles contain all of the junk (an unbelievable amount of junk), and the good fresh ingredients — fruit, veggies, dairy, breads, meats — are around the outside.
The Reddit link is irrelevant without knowing the size of the operation and the normal amounts of waste. If people think they can design systems that can predict demand perfectly and result in no errors, perhaps they should get a job at a grocery store or start their own.
The OP (who works at that shop and knows the demand and supply), explained in the post that they have a massive freezer that's mostly empty they could throw this stuff into for a day or so until it's picked up by soup kitchens.
The choice to discard perfectly good food is a diabolic one.
The choice to discard perfectly good food is a diabolic one.
It’s also discussed in the thread that other major retailer worldwide do the same thing.
You can choose to think that there are evil people intentionally choosing to throw the food away deriving happiness from others’ hunger. Or you can investigate the issue and determine that there is a good reason (aka probability and cost of liability is too high compared to throwing it away).
Retail businesses operate on razor thin margins where a few missteps would kill them, and it is pretty naive to think the professionals in that business do not know how to run their own business.
You can choose to think that there are evil people intentionally choosing to throw the food away deriving happiness from others’ hunger. Or you can investigate the issue and determine that there is a good reason (aka probability and cost of liability is too high compared to throwing it away).
Retail businesses operate on razor thin margins where a few missteps would kill them, and it is pretty naive to think the professionals in that business do not know how to run their own business.
> It’s also discussed in the thread that other major retailer worldwide do the same thing
There are other evil people out there so this is ok? Is that your argument?
> There are evil people intentionally choosing to throw the food away deriving happiness from others’ hunger
What are they, if not evil, because that's exactly what they're doing... throwing good food away while people in the neighbourhood go hungry.
> Or you can investigate the issue and determine that there is a good reason
But I have investigated the reason, and it isn't a good one. This food is thrown out BEFORE expiry date. This means that at the moment of destruction, it was completely legal to sell the food. If it was legal to sell, it was legal to give away. And I'm not saying that they should let dumpster divers just come and take what they want. I'm saying that there are organisations (soup kitchens, etc) that you can have legal agreements with that leave Amazon free of liability, just as if they'd be free of liability if they sold the food.
To not do this is evil.
> Retail businesses operate on razor thin margins where a few missteps would kill them
Selling food before it's best-before/expiry date is legal and is the core function of every retail business. They could sell this food for a $0.01 to a food kitchen and it would be no more a misstep or risk than if they sold it to any other customer.
> it is pretty naive to think the professionals in that business do not know how to run their own business
I said nothing of the sort. They know exactly how to run their own business. But they're evil people who are letting starving people suffer while they throw out perfectly good, FDA approved, non-expired, healthy food.
There are other evil people out there so this is ok? Is that your argument?
> There are evil people intentionally choosing to throw the food away deriving happiness from others’ hunger
What are they, if not evil, because that's exactly what they're doing... throwing good food away while people in the neighbourhood go hungry.
> Or you can investigate the issue and determine that there is a good reason
But I have investigated the reason, and it isn't a good one. This food is thrown out BEFORE expiry date. This means that at the moment of destruction, it was completely legal to sell the food. If it was legal to sell, it was legal to give away. And I'm not saying that they should let dumpster divers just come and take what they want. I'm saying that there are organisations (soup kitchens, etc) that you can have legal agreements with that leave Amazon free of liability, just as if they'd be free of liability if they sold the food.
To not do this is evil.
> Retail businesses operate on razor thin margins where a few missteps would kill them
Selling food before it's best-before/expiry date is legal and is the core function of every retail business. They could sell this food for a $0.01 to a food kitchen and it would be no more a misstep or risk than if they sold it to any other customer.
> it is pretty naive to think the professionals in that business do not know how to run their own business
I said nothing of the sort. They know exactly how to run their own business. But they're evil people who are letting starving people suffer while they throw out perfectly good, FDA approved, non-expired, healthy food.
And the complex supply chains to supply these cutting edge industries are so fragile, they would crumble easily when the climate turns chaotic.
Honestly, we are really pretty good at playing god. Killing off a species of bee is sad and may have some unintended consequences but it hasn't put a dent in our ability to engineer the earth to suit our needs. The problem is motives and objectives. We have created the incentives to extract resources and not to protect organisms. So that's what we do.
> but it hasn't put a dent in our ability to engineer the earth to suit our needs
We'll see about that when most soil is barren and most bees are gone. That is, very shortly.
We'll see about that when most soil is barren and most bees are gone. That is, very shortly.
> We think with our weak technologies and chemistries that we can play God.
We can play God, do play God, and will continue play God. People used to think of electricity as the rage of an angry God. Now you're raging against progress on a device that harnesses lightning at a quantum scale in ways unthinkable even 50 years ago. Do you have no appreciation whatsoever for how much good it does to expand humanity's capabilities? Can you see only the downsides? The people complaining about technology and progress should propose actual fixes for the problems that appear instead of braying from the sidelines about how nobody should ever do anything.
We can play God, do play God, and will continue play God. People used to think of electricity as the rage of an angry God. Now you're raging against progress on a device that harnesses lightning at a quantum scale in ways unthinkable even 50 years ago. Do you have no appreciation whatsoever for how much good it does to expand humanity's capabilities? Can you see only the downsides? The people complaining about technology and progress should propose actual fixes for the problems that appear instead of braying from the sidelines about how nobody should ever do anything.
We live in a truly remarkable universe and Science is our best method of repeatable, measurable progress. But Science is a method in service of our desires, and incentives drive our economic systems. Science has been put in service of extracting maximum profit and maximum growth. One small part of that is efficiency in production. That efficiency has given rise to the broad material wealth that we enjoy today.
But Science has not been put in service of understanding what is good for humans psychologically, spiritually, or even biologically. To the extent that it has, we are overwhelmed and outmatched by powerful economic forces in service of the profit motive. A profit motive that has locked us into dreams of perpetual exponential growth of a fundamental anti-biological system of roadways, electricity, and food production that has us first harvesting and then paving the biosphere for profit.
And then we get comments like yours, thankfully and rightly downvoted. Comments trying to stir up more shouting and polarization and finger pointing. In pursuit of that cathartic polarization, your comment is really just support of an absurd, extremist viewpoint that must have as a starting point a staggering ignorance about what humanity is currently smashing to pieces in its pursuit of material wealth, coupled with a willful ignorance to reflect on it. The cost we exact on our planet is enormous.
But Science has not been put in service of understanding what is good for humans psychologically, spiritually, or even biologically. To the extent that it has, we are overwhelmed and outmatched by powerful economic forces in service of the profit motive. A profit motive that has locked us into dreams of perpetual exponential growth of a fundamental anti-biological system of roadways, electricity, and food production that has us first harvesting and then paving the biosphere for profit.
And then we get comments like yours, thankfully and rightly downvoted. Comments trying to stir up more shouting and polarization and finger pointing. In pursuit of that cathartic polarization, your comment is really just support of an absurd, extremist viewpoint that must have as a starting point a staggering ignorance about what humanity is currently smashing to pieces in its pursuit of material wealth, coupled with a willful ignorance to reflect on it. The cost we exact on our planet is enormous.
> Science has been put in service of extracting maximum profit and maximum growth. One small part of that is efficiency in production. That efficiency has given rise to the broad material wealth that we enjoy today.
But Science has not been put in service of understanding what is good for humans psychologically, spiritually, or even biologically
What is profitable is what is good. That's the beautiful thing about markets and prices: they force people to be honest about their preferences. When someone pays money for something, that means that what he's getting in exchange is good for him. Who are you to argue otherwise? Why should your aesthetic ideals of humanity's future override the actual preferences of real people as expressed through their market behavior? This idea that we can distinguish what is right from what is profitable is moralistic arrogance.
> anti-biological system of roadways, electricity, and food production
When I say that a certain strain of environmentalist is anti-human, I'm talking about people who would write about roads and electricity as if they were grand mistakes and should be undone. That's absurd. People who think this way can never be allowed to have power. If they got it, they'd ruin billions of lives.
> And then we get comments like yours, thankfully and rightly downvoted.
If your ideas can be supported only by censoring those who disagree, your ideas are weak and deserve to fail.
> The cost we exact on our planet is enormous.
The planet is there for us. We have no obligation not to impose costs on "the planet" any more than we have an obligation not to inconvenience the air we breathe or the dirt we stand on. This idea that we need to trade off interests of "the planet" against those of people is absurd. Ecological preservation might be justified in some cases in the interest of people, but we are under no obligation whatsoever to negotiate with Gaia for human welfare.
What is profitable is what is good. That's the beautiful thing about markets and prices: they force people to be honest about their preferences. When someone pays money for something, that means that what he's getting in exchange is good for him. Who are you to argue otherwise? Why should your aesthetic ideals of humanity's future override the actual preferences of real people as expressed through their market behavior? This idea that we can distinguish what is right from what is profitable is moralistic arrogance.
> anti-biological system of roadways, electricity, and food production
When I say that a certain strain of environmentalist is anti-human, I'm talking about people who would write about roads and electricity as if they were grand mistakes and should be undone. That's absurd. People who think this way can never be allowed to have power. If they got it, they'd ruin billions of lives.
> And then we get comments like yours, thankfully and rightly downvoted.
If your ideas can be supported only by censoring those who disagree, your ideas are weak and deserve to fail.
> The cost we exact on our planet is enormous.
The planet is there for us. We have no obligation not to impose costs on "the planet" any more than we have an obligation not to inconvenience the air we breathe or the dirt we stand on. This idea that we need to trade off interests of "the planet" against those of people is absurd. Ecological preservation might be justified in some cases in the interest of people, but we are under no obligation whatsoever to negotiate with Gaia for human welfare.
I am sure many people are saying "great", one bug gone. But bumblebees are rather harmless. As a kid they were everywhere, and a few would land on me. I never got stung by them and I thought they were fun to watch them fly between flowers. Sadly I have not seen one in a very long time.
Just another notch on mankind's pole I guess.
Just another notch on mankind's pole I guess.
I can’t imagine any thoughtful people thinking this is great.
I’m amazed at the fact that nearly everyone around me really despises the Eurasian Magpie, the only bird so smart that it is able to recognise itself in the mirror. Yet the myth that they exclusively prey on young birds and rob their nests presses onwards and everyone dislikes them. If they’d dissappear from the land and you’d tell them, most people would be happy, of which quite some I consider thoughtful. Trying to say that even thoughtful people can be extremely shortsighted. Look around you, how many people still visit zoo’s with primates? Or marinas with cretaceans? All these extremely clever animals trapped in a desperately small enclosure yet so many still think it’s fine to visit them and enable this. All in all I think quite some people would, sadly, be happy with the news that a stinging bug is gone.
>the myth that they exclusively prey on young birds and rob their nests
Sparrows do this. They are an invasive species and overtake native songbird population. Never seen anyone hate sparrows.
Magpies, people do hate them, not sure why but they are a type of "trash bird" near population centers.
Sparrows do this. They are an invasive species and overtake native songbird population. Never seen anyone hate sparrows.
Magpies, people do hate them, not sure why but they are a type of "trash bird" near population centers.
> Never seen anyone hate sparrows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tso-hsin_Cheng
Also worth reading about the ornithologist who fought this
The animals you’ve devoted your life begin to be killed by the state, and your attempts to sway opinion cause you to instead be demoted to a janitor and deemed a revolutionary. Surreal.
Also worth reading about the ornithologist who fought this
The animals you’ve devoted your life begin to be killed by the state, and your attempts to sway opinion cause you to instead be demoted to a janitor and deemed a revolutionary. Surreal.
I do not like sparrows
Mice with wings
Mice with wings
How many people are thoughtful? Beyond themselves…
They are docile and fun to investigate. I'm not sure you should play with them, but they won't go out of their way to harm you.
With one of the other top comments being someone that cousins to see them all the time, but getting chided for likely seeing other instincts, it seems just as likely that you are thinking of other similar bugs, too.
I would not be happy for them to completely be gone. Have thought of putting up nesting boxes in the past. My understanding is that will largely be other bee species, though. Which is a long way to ask, how's many species of bee are there around? And anything in particular to help this specific one?
I would not be happy for them to completely be gone. Have thought of putting up nesting boxes in the past. My understanding is that will largely be other bee species, though. Which is a long way to ask, how's many species of bee are there around? And anything in particular to help this specific one?
I spent three months in the Deschutes National Forest this summer, drought conditions throughout. I watched everyday as honeybees and yellow jackets happily shared a pan of water I'd leave out for them. The third guest was an interloper assassin wasp called the bald-faced hornet (Dolichovespula maculata), and it loved drowning honeybees. If this hornet was around, I'd return to a pan full of dead honeybees.
At first I asked myself, "Can honeybees really be such poor swimmers?" Then I noticed the hornet essentially pushing them into the water (shocking them? zapping them, disabiling them?) and later eating them.
I don't know if this hornet is an invasive species or if the predator-prey relationship is already known, but a single hornet can wipe out tens of bees a day. A contributor to honeybee collapse? Maybe.
At first I asked myself, "Can honeybees really be such poor swimmers?" Then I noticed the hornet essentially pushing them into the water (shocking them? zapping them, disabiling them?) and later eating them.
I don't know if this hornet is an invasive species or if the predator-prey relationship is already known, but a single hornet can wipe out tens of bees a day. A contributor to honeybee collapse? Maybe.
The cited article is here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/29/2021-20...
When I was a kid in the 60's, every yard was full of white clover and bees. Now most everyone around me has beautiful, perfect grass with no weeds and no clover. And no bees.
In my experience, it really depends on the neighborhood. Those you grew up in, probably still has all that clover. My 1940s built neighborhood all did when I moved out a few years back.
But all these new developments and specifically HOAs of the last couple decades you'd probably be lucky to find a handfull.
But all these new developments and specifically HOAs of the last couple decades you'd probably be lucky to find a handfull.
Over time the clover was culled even in these neighborhoods. Seen as a weed. Sprayed over. Cut down whenever it bloomed otherwise. I grew up in a neighborhood that used to be dominated with these lawns when my parents grew up, and in my time ours was the last lot left with white clover, specifically because my father would cut the grass in patches to always keep some flowering clover available. No one else in the entire city was doing that. If they weren't spraying and something not green came up in the lawn, it was time to cut the grass for these other people.
I am in Vermont and see bumblebees everywhere... am I mixing up a common species with this one?
There are dozens of bumblebee species in Vermont, but Bombus impatiens is particularly common. That's much more likely than B. pensylvanicus mentioned in the article.
Very helpful. I looked up the 2 species and the American Bumblebee[2] is noted as having an increasingly southern habitat, with borders denoting their former range/habitat.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombus_impatiens
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombus_pensylvanicus
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombus_impatiens
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombus_pensylvanicus
Carpenter bees look very similar to bumblebees, but are actually larger, not as hairy, and don't form hives. They binary maters!
And, contrary to their name, are not good with wood. Plus they attract woodpeckers. Carpenter bees at least make attractive, perfectly round holes. The woodpeckers who follow are not quite as neat.
Here's a list of all the bumblebee species that are or have been present in Vermont: https://val.vtecostudies.org/projects/bumble-bee-atlas/speci...
you might be seeing feral bees or carpenter bees, those are the two I commonly hear misidentified as bumblebees
Hello, it appears all of your comments have been shadowbanned. I have vouched for this comment (and all others) so that it can be seen. I'm still somewhat new at the mechanics of HN's voting system, but more info can be seen here: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#shadow...
"The species has completely vanished from eight states, including Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Oregon, Ben Turner reports for Live Science."
How exactly is North Dakota the highest honey producing state in the Union?
Also, a bit of a dispute of this study https://www.beeculture.com/bumblebee-decline-claim-in-disput...
How exactly is North Dakota the highest honey producing state in the Union?
Also, a bit of a dispute of this study https://www.beeculture.com/bumblebee-decline-claim-in-disput...
bumble bees are not honey bees
Is it feasible for organic farming techniques to feed 8 billion people? In conversations about the environment like this one, pesticides and fertilizer (runoff particularly) get raked over the coals for causing huge environmental disasters. But in other conversations more focused on social issues, Malthusians get mocked for not anticipating those very same technological developments that have allowed us to feed billions of people.
Not sure whether organic farming techniques can feed everyone (may be possible), but there's a vast gulf between "completely organic" and "broadly toxic to the surrounding environment."
Australia, Spain, the Netherands, and (increasingly) China have had a lot of success using physical exclusion with nets, greenhouses, and high-tunnels. They have their own unique problems (plastic waste, rainwater runoff), but these systems get incredible crop yields without significant synthetic pesticide or herbicide use.
I really think highly automated, hydroponic, mostly non-vertical indoor farming is the future of vegetable agriculture, and represents huge potential added value (economic and otherwise) in the coming 100 years.
If you're interested in seeing some of these facilities, check out these videos:
1: Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fq6PQl7fr8
2: Netherlands https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Qz-fzJ6M
Australia, Spain, the Netherands, and (increasingly) China have had a lot of success using physical exclusion with nets, greenhouses, and high-tunnels. They have their own unique problems (plastic waste, rainwater runoff), but these systems get incredible crop yields without significant synthetic pesticide or herbicide use.
I really think highly automated, hydroponic, mostly non-vertical indoor farming is the future of vegetable agriculture, and represents huge potential added value (economic and otherwise) in the coming 100 years.
If you're interested in seeing some of these facilities, check out these videos:
1: Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fq6PQl7fr8
2: Netherlands https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Qz-fzJ6M
Short answer, yes. We can feed billions without destroying ecosystems.
From the POV of the science of ecology agriculture (from ancient to modern times) is about the dumbest way to interact with Nature. It turns out that, once we understood more about how living systems actually work, we can design ecosystems that improve soil fertility and increase biodiversity and biomass over time while providing dense harvests (comparable to or even greater than modern destructive farming.)
Look at Permaculture, "Food forests", Syntropic agriculture, regenerative farming...
A good start might be "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
From the POV of the science of ecology agriculture (from ancient to modern times) is about the dumbest way to interact with Nature. It turns out that, once we understood more about how living systems actually work, we can design ecosystems that improve soil fertility and increase biodiversity and biomass over time while providing dense harvests (comparable to or even greater than modern destructive farming.)
Look at Permaculture, "Food forests", Syntropic agriculture, regenerative farming...
A good start might be "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
None of the states listed in the article are major agricultural producers!
You’ll be glad to hear that some of what used to be “fringe” thinking is becoming mainstream.
Cover crops, for example. They have been proven to dramatically reduce pesticide and herbicide needs over time (which will help pollinators greatly). Illinois, Iowa and Indiana have been piloting programs that reduce crop insurance rates for farmers that use cover crops. Once the value was proven, farmer demand exceeded the acreage the pilot programs could offer. So now, for the very first time, the USDA is putting this in place for the entire country (this fall).
There is hope.
You’ll be glad to hear that some of what used to be “fringe” thinking is becoming mainstream.
Cover crops, for example. They have been proven to dramatically reduce pesticide and herbicide needs over time (which will help pollinators greatly). Illinois, Iowa and Indiana have been piloting programs that reduce crop insurance rates for farmers that use cover crops. Once the value was proven, farmer demand exceeded the acreage the pilot programs could offer. So now, for the very first time, the USDA is putting this in place for the entire country (this fall).
There is hope.
Not easily, because the nitrogen has to come from somewhere. Getting it from nitrogen fixing plants would cause a huge hit to productivity.
Unless there's a way to make a case for it to add shareholder value, I'd wager that the American Bumblebee is fucked.
How about a simple measure: make farmers (and therefore pesticide manufacturers) responsible for the survival of bees on their and nearby properties?
The bees would be a sentinel species, just like the coal mine canary, or like fish are used as an early warning system of problems in the water supply.
The bees would be a sentinel species, just like the coal mine canary, or like fish are used as an early warning system of problems in the water supply.
The article says one of the states the bumblebee has vanished from is Oregon, I'm not sure about that. I definitely saw something that looked very bumblebee like in downtown Portland multiple times this past summer. Bees in general are rare downtown, but if you're outside enough you'll see them in parks and along the Willamette river. A few miles out to the suburbs or undeveloped areas and bees (bumble and otherwise) appeared abundant in Oregon the last time I traveled that way (a few months ago).
In the Willamette valley where I live, we had plenty of bumblebees this year, along with the usual honeybees and some wasps. I don't know which particular species of bumblebees. What struck me as unusual this year was during the heat waves the bumblebees seemed to really struggle, with many of them found dead or dying on the ground. Maybe this is an annual occurrence that I've just never noticed before. We like having insects around so keep them provided with water and flowers, but it just seemed like the bumblebees were having a bad year. If anyone knows more about their life cycle I'd be interested to hear.
Interesting. It hasn't been that long since I've seen a bumblebee. Are there different kinds? I'm in Oregon.
Bombus p. is discussed in this article, which is confusingly called American bumblebee. There are plenty other bumble bees in the PNW and elsewhere. There’s a rock in my yard I can’t move because it has a bumble bee hive under it.
Ironically I was moving it to create bumblebee habitat. But it was so heavy I only managed to move it half an inch before the bumbles freaked out.
Ironically I was moving it to create bumblebee habitat. But it was so heavy I only managed to move it half an inch before the bumbles freaked out.
They also used to be a regular sight here in Ontario... I think I saw one last year.
Now the only bees we see around regularly are big ol' carpenter bees. Honey bees and bumble bees that used to be common are now rarely seen around my city.
Now the only bees we see around regularly are big ol' carpenter bees. Honey bees and bumble bees that used to be common are now rarely seen around my city.
General reminder for everyone that insect or bee hotels exist. Hang them in your garden, help insects. I have one on my balcony and roughly three dozen holes have been filled by a kind of wasp (not yellow jackets).
damnit -- humanity continues to depress me.
randomeat(1)
Glyphosat
It has been implied in the death of honey bees but it appears that the surfactants in common formulations are to be blamed and not the glyphosate itself.
https://www.beeculture.com/catch-the-buzz-its-not-the-glypho...
https://www.beeculture.com/catch-the-buzz-its-not-the-glypho...
That's an herbicide, best not to conflate, if only because people will use it as evidence of ignorance. The article mentions pesticides:
> States with the most significant dip in bee numbers have the largest increase in the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids, insecticides, and fungicides, per Live Science.
> States with the most significant dip in bee numbers have the largest increase in the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids, insecticides, and fungicides, per Live Science.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111...
There are several studies pointing to glyphosphat (this one just an example, use Google). Actually there are so many studies that Europe ends the use in December 2022.
There are several studies pointing to glyphosphat (this one just an example, use Google). Actually there are so many studies that Europe ends the use in December 2022.
[deleted]
neonicotinoids
Note that the article identifies systemic causes (use of neonicotinoids, habitat loss) as causes, and correlational evidence ("States with the most significant dip in bee numbers have the largest increase in the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids, insecticides, and fungicides"), but the enforcement mechanism they mention is centered around individual actors after specific killed insects where it's presumed that attribution is clear. Does this make any kind of sense?
1. Would we know when bees are killed? The evidence that we know how to gather, so far as I can tell, is mostly counting live bees, not finding dead ones. Are there examples of small, highly mobile insects with ESA protection where we're actively seeking out and finding dead individuals?
2. Is it typically possible to attribute bee deaths to single actors? If a bumblebee is found at location X, we might guess that it would have ranged over an area with radius r around that (but we're not sure what its actual territory would have been) which includes N properties, N_d of which have been developed and N_p of which use pesticides, who is responsible?
3. And if the best scientific understanding is about broad practices (habitat destruction, pesticide use, ...) am I correct in my belief that we don't have any real mechanism of holding a class of individuals (e.g. Maine farmers who used neonicotinoids during a given time period) responsible for an impact to a bee population (e.g. it's estimated by experts to decline 5% in a given year) in the absence of a specific pile of dead bees?
With this, as with a number of other large issues, I think we need new concepts around group responsibility. We have a concept of class action lawsuits, where a large group identified by a criteria (e.g. people whose data was exposed by Equifax) can be plaintiffs, because individuals meeting that criteria can elect (or not) to be represented in that group. We do _not_ have a concept of a large group of people identified by a criteria (farms using particular pesticides, developers of properties in the urban-wildland interface) being held responsible for harms that proceed from that criteria.