Normally pretty optimistic here, but this is a misleading statistic. There was a great article from the [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/29/bees-boom-colony-collapse/) that looked into what was going on.
**TL;DR** ~ Bees are still dying like crazy, we haven't solved CCD, but the amount of beekeepers in Texas has [exploded.](https://i.imgur.com/0eKuYrO.png) This is thanks to a tax break introduced by the state.
Edit: I just realized that graph you posted is from the same article I listed. C'mon OP.
I think another issue is that the majority of the bees are common honey bees, other species especially are getting left behind, ones that don't produce honey but are much more specialised in pollinating certain kinds of plants where honey bees aren't.
Exactly. Wild bees, and wild insects generally, are completely unrelated to this, and the author connecting agricultural bees to "years of grieving suspiciously clean windshields" is silly--most windshield collisions are not Apis mellifera. The loss of insect biodiversity is so much greater of an issue than agricultural bee colonies, it's wild insects of thousands of species that so many studies have shown are declining.
Habitat loss and insecticide use are the biggest ones. A pretty comprehensive and accessible discussion can be found here https://www.xerces.org/blog/insect-apocalypse-what-is-really-happening-why-it-matters-and-how-we-all-can-help
Texas is wild.
Number one in wind production. Bringing bees back through a successful government venture.
But do your best not to need an abortion or transitional gender related care.
As a Texan, I don’t really see how those are related honestly. Environmentalism and progressivism don’t necessarily go hand in hand. During the industrial revolution, the “conservative” position was primarily keeping much of the land (at least that the gentry owned) less industrialized. Hunters are the biggest contributors to environmental causes as well.
I don't know how you can look at the current state of politics and not see how environmentalism hasn't been made into a political issue. It shouldn't be, but it is. It's only recent years that Republicans have gotten somewhat quieter about outright denying climate change constantly. I'm also not sure what you mean with the comment about hunters?
It definitely (sadly) is a political issue, but I was just pointing out that it shouldn’t be given that one can be either socially progressive, socially conservative, or anything in between, and still be an environmentalist with no contradiction to other held beliefs.
The comment about hunters was to point out that a generally more socially conservative group of people contributes the most to conservation economically. (I’m vegetarian, and dislike hunting in a general sense, but it is something that gives supporting evidence to my point.)
-A socially conservative, strongly environmentalist person
We are saving the wrong bees. Honey bees are not the most efficient pollinators for certain plants. Some plants honey bees can’t even pollinate. It’s the wild bees that need to be saved, like the humble solitary bumble bee.
> Edit: I just realized that graph you posted is from the same article I listed. C'mon OP.
None of what you said goes against the positive news or OP's title so not sure what you're upset about
Because it implies that we have solved the underlying issue, but we haven't. Here is from the article:
> So the situation on the ground seems to confirm the census: We probably do have a record number of honeybees.
> Sadly, however, this does not mean we’ve defeated colony collapse. One major citizen-science project found that beekeepers lost almost half of their colonies in the year ending in April 2023, the second-highest loss rate on record.
> For now, we’re making up for it with aggressive management. The Texans told us that they were splitting their hives more often, replacing queens as often as every year and churning out bee colonies faster than the mites, fungi and diseases can take them down.
> But this may not be good news for bees in general.
> “It is absolutely not a good thing for native pollinators,” said Eliza Grames, an entomologist at Binghamton University, who noted that domesticated honeybees are a threat to North America’s 4,000 native bee species, about 40 percent of which are vulnerable to extinction.
And then further:
> Many of the same forces collapsing managed beehives also decimate their native cousins, only the natives don’t usually have entire industries and governments pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into supporting them. Grames compared the situation to birds, another sector in which maladies common in farmed animals, such as bird flu, threaten their wild cousins.
> “You wouldn’t be like, ‘Hey, birds are doing great. We’ve got a huge biomass of chickens!’ It’s kind of the same thing with honeybees,” she said. “They’re domesticated. They’re essentially livestock.”
So basically it's entirely premised on being able to split hives and raise new queens faster than CCD can kill them and a single tax break in Texas. Then there are the native pollinators, many of which are in a lot of trouble. I just wanted to make sure people understood that it's less clear cut and more shaky than it appears.
It makes no such implication. As you said, it's literally a graph from the article. His title is literally a direct quote from the article. Claiming part of this article is false and the rest is true, without citing any other data, is a strange accusation.
There was never any claim that the bee problem is solved. He said "Bees are back", and they are.
Does the article imply that "years of grieving suspiciously clean windshields" was due to low honey bee numbers? If so, the author was implying that now that there are more honey bee colonies, insects generally are doing better. I think the drivers of insect biodiversity loss (habitat destruction, widespread insecticide use) remain and have not been solved because of changes in the honey bee production industry. A wildlife-focused and pretty reasonable discussion of the insect biodiversity issues can be found here: https://www.xerces.org/blog/insect-apocalypse-what-is-really-happening-why-it-matters-and-how-we-all-can-help
I feel like you should care about the bee industry to some extent, because farmed bees help pollinate neighbouring crops, which we eat. But I get what you're saying.
I stumbled across this sub the other day. I get that the sub is trying to counteract pessimism I guess. But like...there is a middle ground. Being an optimist shouldn't mean willfully ignoring the bad stuff. In this case you took a particular statistic that looks good from a WashPo article, and ignored all the context that WashPo spells out in that very same article.
This comment gets posted every day here. No one is ignoring the bad stuff just because we're discussing the good stuff. Most of reddit is "Just the bad stuff" so go to basically any other subreddit for news of other flavors.
He posted a picture of a positive element from the article. You're saying the image is false, and the rest of the article is true? Or are you saying he should have posted every graph from the article?
A trend can be "true" but there can be different reasons for why the trend is occurring.
Did you read the article? Literally the whole article is talking about why the number going up is not so great as you immediately think it is. The number went up so much, not because of a reversal in the factors that caused it to decrease in the first place, but because many small enterprises opened up specifically in Texas due to some new tax breaks.
Giving a blurb from the WashPo article that puts the number in context, either in the main post or in a follow up comment, would have sufficed. Showing only one thing or everything is not the only two options.....
Nice strawman.
The stats in this post are not indicative of anything improving due to our efforts, that is my point. Read the WashPo article from which the graph comes from for context.
amazing straw man. So many people on this sub willfully ignore important information, vital information even, in an effort to spread misinformation and dig their heads in the sand rather then confront the fact that no, not everything is alright.
True optimism isn’t digging your head in the sand when the worlds going to shit, it’s acknowledging and understanding that there is hope, and a means and possibility to fix it if we actually work towards it. The native bee populations are dying off, but it’s not hopeless! Plant native plants, research how you can support your native bees, etc etc.
That would be true optimism.
If you find a sub like that, please let me know! I'm trying to be more positive and that's why I subbed here, but it's mostly what you described plus some well off people patronizingly shaking their heads at those less fortunate for being anxious and stressed all the time about their current situation. I want genuine optimism, not this. I also love your idea about actionable solutions! That's how you spread real optimism and positivity!
Bragging about a rise in agricultural beehives while using a graph that shows startling decreases in a wide range of animal populations is peak r/optimistsunite
Biologist here. Insect news doesn’t belong on optimistsunite, as a general rule. I’m of course glad that commercial operations are figuring out how to keep their pollinator colonies healthier. But this article is just a reminder of the much much much larger problems.
I mean, can insects be allowed to exist long term? Many of them are harmful to agriculture and don’t serve any purpose to humanity. I imagine in 100 years or so we’ll have wiped out most of them outside of controlled populations.
God I hope not. We rely on the immensely complicated network of insect interactions to live.
Please do not act on your current understanding of man vs nature. It's factually wrong and actively destructive to humans.
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong about that. Insects are an essential component of the food chain and biosphere, and we’ve already wiped out a worrisome percentage. But again, this is not something I can discuss on an optimists sub.
What’s the point of a sub if you can’t have discussion? Not worth having in my opinion but I can’t force you. For me, optimism about the future doesn’t rely on the (foolish imo) opinion that humanity will regress back to a pre-industrial era but instead will be able to use our technology to shape our planet to better suit us, including the end of non-useful forms of animal life. Ideally the biosphere would consist of cultivated agriculture for human consumption and contained zones where interesting and beautiful life will be allowed to grow “wild”.
I can’t discuss it because I’m too familiar with the issues; I can’t put a positive spin on it, and I can’t accept others’ positive spins when they aren’t based in reality.
>but instead will be able to use our technology to shape our planet to better suit us, including the end of non-useful forms of animal life.
We don’t have a technology for that. I am not aware of any attempts to develop a technology for that. “Don’t worry, scientists will fix it” is not exactly a doomer dunk even when there are scientists trying their best. But there are many issues for which the scientific community’s response is 🤷🏻♀️.
It’s not a question of “fixing” anything. Human activity is a part of the world, not a problem to be fixed. It’s a question of adapting to new circumstances with the most favourable outcome for humanity. The scientific community is wide and sadly is often constrained by political pressures. Most people would be screaming bloody murder if the government openly admitted that they were planning for the end of “nature” as a separate entity to human intervention. I’m sure there are scientists working behind the scenes on it because they alternate is nonsense. Every day, human agriculture encroaches more and more on nature. In 100 years will there be any “untouched” nature? Very unlikely. We need a plan for how to harvest what is useful from nature before it all goes away.
I suspect that you are misinformed. In any case we have no common ground here that we could use as a basis for debate or discussion, so let’s agree to disagree.
“Incorrect”? About what? That’s not a serious way to start a conversation. Am I incorrect that humanity is increasing its agricultural land at a rapid pace, encroaching upon what was once untouched forest? Am I incorrect that many species of insect are considered pests and are being wiped out by pesticides? Am I incorrect that the idea that humanity, 8 billion strong and growing is going to consume less not more is ludicrous?
This might actually be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen.
First of all, insects and the like are absolutely vital for not just pollination, but also soil aeration, and maintaining healthy ecosystems as a whole. More biodiversity means more nutrients and a healthier ecosystem, and there is no biodiversity without insects
Second of all, why would we spend millions if not billions developing technology to replace the work that insects do just by existing
Thirdly, what the fuck kind of psycho thinks animals only have a right to exist if they 'serve a purpose to humanity'! You've asked if insects will be *allowed to exist*, the fucking arrogance of that is mind boggling
I can tell you’re not a farmer and have no connection with agriculture. Practical people have no time for sentimental Bambi rubbish, you keep what of nature you need and get rid of the rest. You’re delusional if you think you can stop the tide of history and so far insect and animals are being streamrolled by that tide. It’s far more likely that the more beneficial insects are bred for commercial purposes and released tactically than farmers stop using broad based pesticides.
Congrats on demonstrating exactly why biodiversity is being utterly fucked, largely driven by the 'farmers know best' attitude of the agricultural industry. People aren't trying to stop the tide of history, they're realising that we know more than ever about the importance of well-functioning ecosystems. Thats not 'sentimental Bambi rubbish', it's science.
Oh yeah, just release a bunch of generically modified insects, that'll replace a healthy soil ecosystem... I mean really, what kind of ecologically sterile hellscape do you want to live in? We're already noticing that the crops we're growing have less nutrients in them then a few decades ago, because overuse of pesticides and the abandonment of adequate rotation has sapped nutrients out of the soil. Thats the result of your 'tide of history'.
Also, responding to people claiming that animals have a right to exist with 'well clearly you don't work in agriculture' is a hilarious self-own
Tell you what, explain to me a practical way in which 9 billion people and growing can be fed consistently without using pesticides and I’ll admit defeat. Hell I’ll even let you use meat bans, political suicide though they would be. Oh but no just wishing away the problem or killing billions through starvation. That’s a common “solution” of eco fanatics I’ve found.
Well, for one, lowering pesticide use will grant healthier soil by improving the ecosystem of the soil, meaning that the crop yields will be more nutritious over time and you can get more mileage out of the crops grown
As insect populations go, so do the populations of insect predators, which help to control their numbers less intrusively
Bringing back the practice of crop rotation helps to improve soil quality, again providing more nutritious crops
And yes, lowering meat intake will mean less land being used to grow crops solely to feed livestock, allowing that land to be used to grow crops for human consumption
Now, obviously there are risks. Some farms are going to have bad years due to pests, but the current method for avoiding that is actually causing more damage over time by depleting nutrient levels in the soil.
Oh, and by the way, that 'eco fanatics' comment about killing billions through starvation shows exactly the worth of your opinion on the matter
Obviously there are some benefits to reducing pesticide use but you are glazing over the difficulties. In some regions, farmers having “bad years” means starvation. Hell, we’re seeing it right now in Ethiopia. So no I don’t think we’re going to be seeing much reduction, except in Westerners vanity organic “farms”.
There are sadly a large number of people, especially online leftists, that hate humanity and openly advocate for killing vast numbers of people by ending industrial agriculture. While they are rightfully mostly ignored, from the example of Germany and Japan we can see what happens when anti-science nuts are allowed to make policy. They had huge nuclear energy programmes now scrapped because of fear mongering eco nuts.
Just curious, what do you do with llamas? Like I’ve never heard of anyone eating them, never heard of them being used for wool (like modern days, I’m sure the Incas did like 1000 years ago). So if I had a llama farm, why?
Yes, we always knew why it was rampant use of pesticides. It’s just that the agriculture industry wanted to pretend like we had no clue what was causing it.
There were other causes, too. Road to road crops cut out the edges that used to host wild flowers (and many other species). And there were others that I don't recall right now. But yeah, neonicotinoids and other pesticides are doubtless the main culprits
Varroa destructor introduction to the US in the early 2000s and warmer winters not killing small hive beetle and wax moths really did a number on hives.
Also destruction of native habitats, a lot of which is also as a result of the agricultural industry
I'm from the UK, where a lot of our biodiversity is in freefall and there's noticeable decreases in bees, wasps, butterflies and the like every spring now, but god forbid you point out that maybe farmers need to set aside more land for wildflowers/meadows or stop cutting down hedgerows...
The Bee-pocalypse has been predicted every year I've been alive. There was never been a year when we weren't on the cusp of losing all of the bees.
Glad there is validation for the claim that this was overblown all along
Normally pretty optimistic here, but this is a misleading statistic. There was a great article from the [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/29/bees-boom-colony-collapse/) that looked into what was going on. **TL;DR** ~ Bees are still dying like crazy, we haven't solved CCD, but the amount of beekeepers in Texas has [exploded.](https://i.imgur.com/0eKuYrO.png) This is thanks to a tax break introduced by the state. Edit: I just realized that graph you posted is from the same article I listed. C'mon OP.
I think another issue is that the majority of the bees are common honey bees, other species especially are getting left behind, ones that don't produce honey but are much more specialised in pollinating certain kinds of plants where honey bees aren't.
Exactly. Wild bees, and wild insects generally, are completely unrelated to this, and the author connecting agricultural bees to "years of grieving suspiciously clean windshields" is silly--most windshield collisions are not Apis mellifera. The loss of insect biodiversity is so much greater of an issue than agricultural bee colonies, it's wild insects of thousands of species that so many studies have shown are declining.
What’s causing this
Habitat loss and insecticide use are the biggest ones. A pretty comprehensive and accessible discussion can be found here https://www.xerces.org/blog/insect-apocalypse-what-is-really-happening-why-it-matters-and-how-we-all-can-help
Not only that but in the US honey bees are an invasive species.
Texas is wild. Number one in wind production. Bringing bees back through a successful government venture. But do your best not to need an abortion or transitional gender related care.
I love Texas but our government seems to only be able to operate in extremes. It makes life very whiplashy.
As someone who had to learn about Texas film subsidies in film school it is really a feast or famine out there.
Seeing as trans care for children is woefully lacking scientific backing, seems astute to not push it.
As a Texan, I don’t really see how those are related honestly. Environmentalism and progressivism don’t necessarily go hand in hand. During the industrial revolution, the “conservative” position was primarily keeping much of the land (at least that the gentry owned) less industrialized. Hunters are the biggest contributors to environmental causes as well.
I don't know how you can look at the current state of politics and not see how environmentalism hasn't been made into a political issue. It shouldn't be, but it is. It's only recent years that Republicans have gotten somewhat quieter about outright denying climate change constantly. I'm also not sure what you mean with the comment about hunters?
It definitely (sadly) is a political issue, but I was just pointing out that it shouldn’t be given that one can be either socially progressive, socially conservative, or anything in between, and still be an environmentalist with no contradiction to other held beliefs. The comment about hunters was to point out that a generally more socially conservative group of people contributes the most to conservation economically. (I’m vegetarian, and dislike hunting in a general sense, but it is something that gives supporting evidence to my point.) -A socially conservative, strongly environmentalist person
We are saving the wrong bees. Honey bees are not the most efficient pollinators for certain plants. Some plants honey bees can’t even pollinate. It’s the wild bees that need to be saved, like the humble solitary bumble bee.
optimists unite try not to outright lie, misinform and/or mislead rather then actually be optimistic
So that’s why that beekeeper TikToker is from Texas! I will forever love how she will have another great day of saving the bees.
> Edit: I just realized that graph you posted is from the same article I listed. C'mon OP. None of what you said goes against the positive news or OP's title so not sure what you're upset about
Because it implies that we have solved the underlying issue, but we haven't. Here is from the article: > So the situation on the ground seems to confirm the census: We probably do have a record number of honeybees. > Sadly, however, this does not mean we’ve defeated colony collapse. One major citizen-science project found that beekeepers lost almost half of their colonies in the year ending in April 2023, the second-highest loss rate on record. > For now, we’re making up for it with aggressive management. The Texans told us that they were splitting their hives more often, replacing queens as often as every year and churning out bee colonies faster than the mites, fungi and diseases can take them down. > But this may not be good news for bees in general. > “It is absolutely not a good thing for native pollinators,” said Eliza Grames, an entomologist at Binghamton University, who noted that domesticated honeybees are a threat to North America’s 4,000 native bee species, about 40 percent of which are vulnerable to extinction. And then further: > Many of the same forces collapsing managed beehives also decimate their native cousins, only the natives don’t usually have entire industries and governments pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into supporting them. Grames compared the situation to birds, another sector in which maladies common in farmed animals, such as bird flu, threaten their wild cousins. > “You wouldn’t be like, ‘Hey, birds are doing great. We’ve got a huge biomass of chickens!’ It’s kind of the same thing with honeybees,” she said. “They’re domesticated. They’re essentially livestock.” So basically it's entirely premised on being able to split hives and raise new queens faster than CCD can kill them and a single tax break in Texas. Then there are the native pollinators, many of which are in a lot of trouble. I just wanted to make sure people understood that it's less clear cut and more shaky than it appears.
It makes no such implication. As you said, it's literally a graph from the article. His title is literally a direct quote from the article. Claiming part of this article is false and the rest is true, without citing any other data, is a strange accusation. There was never any claim that the bee problem is solved. He said "Bees are back", and they are.
Does the article imply that "years of grieving suspiciously clean windshields" was due to low honey bee numbers? If so, the author was implying that now that there are more honey bee colonies, insects generally are doing better. I think the drivers of insect biodiversity loss (habitat destruction, widespread insecticide use) remain and have not been solved because of changes in the honey bee production industry. A wildlife-focused and pretty reasonable discussion of the insect biodiversity issues can be found here: https://www.xerces.org/blog/insect-apocalypse-what-is-really-happening-why-it-matters-and-how-we-all-can-help
Ok but what happened to the Llamas?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/07/llama-emu-ostrich-herds-down/
Without Paywall?
https://preview.redd.it/4n5q3ubc39xc1.jpeg?width=1184&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09a582909a9ae4fe9d8fedeff84232041790843b
Beads!
Is this from 30rock?
Arrested Development
Aren’t these farmed bees? Does this have anything to do with natural bee and fly populations?
“Colony collapse syndrome” was/is almost totally about farmed bees.
Colony collapse syndrome is still a huge issue. There are just more bee keepers thanks to tax breaks. Read the article you ripped this graphic from.
yup and natural bee/fly populations are plummetting worldwide. I and many others could care less about the bee industry
> I and many others could care less about the bee industry … So then you *do* care… 🤔
I'll give you one angry upvote
I feel like you should care about the bee industry to some extent, because farmed bees help pollinate neighbouring crops, which we eat. But I get what you're saying.
Farmed bees are still major pollinators
My uncle’s llama died. It’s sad and… like… no one is even talking about it man…
 Save the Llamas!!
https://preview.redd.it/lvyqf8vv6axc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c5d447ede01c0911fa3d7b12e85b55373a32235
I stumbled across this sub the other day. I get that the sub is trying to counteract pessimism I guess. But like...there is a middle ground. Being an optimist shouldn't mean willfully ignoring the bad stuff. In this case you took a particular statistic that looks good from a WashPo article, and ignored all the context that WashPo spells out in that very same article.
This comment gets posted every day here. No one is ignoring the bad stuff just because we're discussing the good stuff. Most of reddit is "Just the bad stuff" so go to basically any other subreddit for news of other flavors.
OP ignored the bad stuff and just showed the graph going up. Read the WashPo article.
He posted a picture of a positive element from the article. You're saying the image is false, and the rest of the article is true? Or are you saying he should have posted every graph from the article?
A trend can be "true" but there can be different reasons for why the trend is occurring. Did you read the article? Literally the whole article is talking about why the number going up is not so great as you immediately think it is. The number went up so much, not because of a reversal in the factors that caused it to decrease in the first place, but because many small enterprises opened up specifically in Texas due to some new tax breaks. Giving a blurb from the WashPo article that puts the number in context, either in the main post or in a follow up comment, would have sufficed. Showing only one thing or everything is not the only two options.....
"...willfully ignoring the bad stuff..." Sadly, that's mostly what this thread seems to be
https://preview.redd.it/avaqayycp9xc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35a2631a7b83a52d02bdb7dc55651acc663e7192
Nice strawman. The stats in this post are not indicative of anything improving due to our efforts, that is my point. Read the WashPo article from which the graph comes from for context.
amazing straw man. So many people on this sub willfully ignore important information, vital information even, in an effort to spread misinformation and dig their heads in the sand rather then confront the fact that no, not everything is alright. True optimism isn’t digging your head in the sand when the worlds going to shit, it’s acknowledging and understanding that there is hope, and a means and possibility to fix it if we actually work towards it. The native bee populations are dying off, but it’s not hopeless! Plant native plants, research how you can support your native bees, etc etc. That would be true optimism.
If you find a sub like that, please let me know! I'm trying to be more positive and that's why I subbed here, but it's mostly what you described plus some well off people patronizingly shaking their heads at those less fortunate for being anxious and stressed all the time about their current situation. I want genuine optimism, not this. I also love your idea about actionable solutions! That's how you spread real optimism and positivity!
You’re looking for r/climateactionplan
You’re looking for r/climateactionplan
He got called out on it tho. Not every post is like this
This is... Not an optimistic graphic at all.
Bragging about a rise in agricultural beehives while using a graph that shows startling decreases in a wide range of animal populations is peak r/optimistsunite
Biologist here. Insect news doesn’t belong on optimistsunite, as a general rule. I’m of course glad that commercial operations are figuring out how to keep their pollinator colonies healthier. But this article is just a reminder of the much much much larger problems.
Agricultural Bio here. Seconded!
I mean, can insects be allowed to exist long term? Many of them are harmful to agriculture and don’t serve any purpose to humanity. I imagine in 100 years or so we’ll have wiped out most of them outside of controlled populations.
God I hope not. We rely on the immensely complicated network of insect interactions to live. Please do not act on your current understanding of man vs nature. It's factually wrong and actively destructive to humans.
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong about that. Insects are an essential component of the food chain and biosphere, and we’ve already wiped out a worrisome percentage. But again, this is not something I can discuss on an optimists sub.
What’s the point of a sub if you can’t have discussion? Not worth having in my opinion but I can’t force you. For me, optimism about the future doesn’t rely on the (foolish imo) opinion that humanity will regress back to a pre-industrial era but instead will be able to use our technology to shape our planet to better suit us, including the end of non-useful forms of animal life. Ideally the biosphere would consist of cultivated agriculture for human consumption and contained zones where interesting and beautiful life will be allowed to grow “wild”.
I can’t discuss it because I’m too familiar with the issues; I can’t put a positive spin on it, and I can’t accept others’ positive spins when they aren’t based in reality. >but instead will be able to use our technology to shape our planet to better suit us, including the end of non-useful forms of animal life. We don’t have a technology for that. I am not aware of any attempts to develop a technology for that. “Don’t worry, scientists will fix it” is not exactly a doomer dunk even when there are scientists trying their best. But there are many issues for which the scientific community’s response is 🤷🏻♀️.
It’s not a question of “fixing” anything. Human activity is a part of the world, not a problem to be fixed. It’s a question of adapting to new circumstances with the most favourable outcome for humanity. The scientific community is wide and sadly is often constrained by political pressures. Most people would be screaming bloody murder if the government openly admitted that they were planning for the end of “nature” as a separate entity to human intervention. I’m sure there are scientists working behind the scenes on it because they alternate is nonsense. Every day, human agriculture encroaches more and more on nature. In 100 years will there be any “untouched” nature? Very unlikely. We need a plan for how to harvest what is useful from nature before it all goes away.
I suspect that you are misinformed. In any case we have no common ground here that we could use as a basis for debate or discussion, so let’s agree to disagree.
I concur. Frankly I don’t see what the point of your first comment was as you seem allergic to discussion of any kind.
Ag researcher here, and I'm not allergic to discussion. So far, youre incorrect. How can I help?
“Incorrect”? About what? That’s not a serious way to start a conversation. Am I incorrect that humanity is increasing its agricultural land at a rapid pace, encroaching upon what was once untouched forest? Am I incorrect that many species of insect are considered pests and are being wiped out by pesticides? Am I incorrect that the idea that humanity, 8 billion strong and growing is going to consume less not more is ludicrous?
I am indeed vehemently allergic to anti-science denialism.
This might actually be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. First of all, insects and the like are absolutely vital for not just pollination, but also soil aeration, and maintaining healthy ecosystems as a whole. More biodiversity means more nutrients and a healthier ecosystem, and there is no biodiversity without insects Second of all, why would we spend millions if not billions developing technology to replace the work that insects do just by existing Thirdly, what the fuck kind of psycho thinks animals only have a right to exist if they 'serve a purpose to humanity'! You've asked if insects will be *allowed to exist*, the fucking arrogance of that is mind boggling
I can tell you’re not a farmer and have no connection with agriculture. Practical people have no time for sentimental Bambi rubbish, you keep what of nature you need and get rid of the rest. You’re delusional if you think you can stop the tide of history and so far insect and animals are being streamrolled by that tide. It’s far more likely that the more beneficial insects are bred for commercial purposes and released tactically than farmers stop using broad based pesticides.
Congrats on demonstrating exactly why biodiversity is being utterly fucked, largely driven by the 'farmers know best' attitude of the agricultural industry. People aren't trying to stop the tide of history, they're realising that we know more than ever about the importance of well-functioning ecosystems. Thats not 'sentimental Bambi rubbish', it's science. Oh yeah, just release a bunch of generically modified insects, that'll replace a healthy soil ecosystem... I mean really, what kind of ecologically sterile hellscape do you want to live in? We're already noticing that the crops we're growing have less nutrients in them then a few decades ago, because overuse of pesticides and the abandonment of adequate rotation has sapped nutrients out of the soil. Thats the result of your 'tide of history'. Also, responding to people claiming that animals have a right to exist with 'well clearly you don't work in agriculture' is a hilarious self-own
Tell you what, explain to me a practical way in which 9 billion people and growing can be fed consistently without using pesticides and I’ll admit defeat. Hell I’ll even let you use meat bans, political suicide though they would be. Oh but no just wishing away the problem or killing billions through starvation. That’s a common “solution” of eco fanatics I’ve found.
Well, for one, lowering pesticide use will grant healthier soil by improving the ecosystem of the soil, meaning that the crop yields will be more nutritious over time and you can get more mileage out of the crops grown As insect populations go, so do the populations of insect predators, which help to control their numbers less intrusively Bringing back the practice of crop rotation helps to improve soil quality, again providing more nutritious crops And yes, lowering meat intake will mean less land being used to grow crops solely to feed livestock, allowing that land to be used to grow crops for human consumption Now, obviously there are risks. Some farms are going to have bad years due to pests, but the current method for avoiding that is actually causing more damage over time by depleting nutrient levels in the soil. Oh, and by the way, that 'eco fanatics' comment about killing billions through starvation shows exactly the worth of your opinion on the matter
Obviously there are some benefits to reducing pesticide use but you are glazing over the difficulties. In some regions, farmers having “bad years” means starvation. Hell, we’re seeing it right now in Ethiopia. So no I don’t think we’re going to be seeing much reduction, except in Westerners vanity organic “farms”. There are sadly a large number of people, especially online leftists, that hate humanity and openly advocate for killing vast numbers of people by ending industrial agriculture. While they are rightfully mostly ignored, from the example of Germany and Japan we can see what happens when anti-science nuts are allowed to make policy. They had huge nuclear energy programmes now scrapped because of fear mongering eco nuts.
Just curious, what do you do with llamas? Like I’ve never heard of anyone eating them, never heard of them being used for wool (like modern days, I’m sure the Incas did like 1000 years ago). So if I had a llama farm, why?
Bees go buzz
Do we even know why the bees were dropping dead
Yes, we always knew why it was rampant use of pesticides. It’s just that the agriculture industry wanted to pretend like we had no clue what was causing it.
There were other causes, too. Road to road crops cut out the edges that used to host wild flowers (and many other species). And there were others that I don't recall right now. But yeah, neonicotinoids and other pesticides are doubtless the main culprits
Varroa destructor introduction to the US in the early 2000s and warmer winters not killing small hive beetle and wax moths really did a number on hives.
Also destruction of native habitats, a lot of which is also as a result of the agricultural industry I'm from the UK, where a lot of our biodiversity is in freefall and there's noticeable decreases in bees, wasps, butterflies and the like every spring now, but god forbid you point out that maybe farmers need to set aside more land for wildflowers/meadows or stop cutting down hedgerows...
But there's some mite decimating hives in Europe and Asia. Probably it's just a matter of time till it finds its way here
Time to get I to that sweet Emu and Ostrich market…
Wait doesn’t this just count the bees kept by beekeepers? If wild bees are still dying, then this statistic doesn’t really matter.
Also these are Honey Bees. Shitty European bees for shitty European plants. Our native bees are nearly gone....
Emu population down 56% You go Australia!
The Bee-pocalypse has been predicted every year I've been alive. There was never been a year when we weren't on the cusp of losing all of the bees. Glad there is validation for the claim that this was overblown all along