18 ms·

Neonicotinoids are new since 1994, so they get pointed to as the cause of Honeybee collapse, because what else could it be? Well, a lot of things can cause a d

Neonicotinoids are new since 1994, so they get pointed to as the cause of Honeybee collapse, because what else could it be? Well, a lot of things can cause a decline in insect populations, including non-human mediated things like new diseases, new parasites, or new competitors. And there are some good reasons to think that neonicotinoids are unlikely to be a serious cause after all. https://i.imgur.com/HaWyRr7.png https://i.imgur.com/HaWyRr7.png What's the cost of getting this wrong? You make farming more expensive overall, which means more CO2 emissions to grow the same amount of food, if you go in for that sort of thing.

vkou 7y ago
> Well, a lot of things can cause a decline in insect populations, including non-human mediated things like new diseases, new parasites, or new competitors. Which may affect a few species. But not insects all across the board. > What's the cost of getting this wrong? You make farming more expensive overall... 1. Farming relies on pollinating insects. Insect die-off is a great way to make it more expensive. 2. What is the cost of dumping poison into our biosphere, without having any idea of what the short and long-term consequences are?
- sixstringtheory 7y ago
  I’m flabbergasted as to why this comment is downvoted. They’ve simply provided some counterpoints and asked a question. That’s how discussion and debate work. Maybe they’re wrong and there are good counter-counterpoints, but if so you should provide them instead of downvoting. I have to say I agree with their points and reiterate their question, so I’d like to see some actual responses if any can even be made. Furthermore, positioning increased insecticide use as ameliorating climate change is just madness.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Surely the cost of not using neonicotinoids for a few years, long enough to rule out it having a detrimental effect, is pretty small compared to that of destroying all the pollinating insects that we rely on for food production?

vkou 7y ago

> Well, a lot of things can cause a decline in insect populations, including non-human mediated things like new diseases, new parasites, or new competitors. Which may affect a few species. But not insects all across the board. > What's the cost of getting this wrong? You make farming more expensive overall... 1. Farming relies on pollinating insects. Insect die-off is a great way to make it more expensive. 2. What is the cost of dumping poison into our biosphere, without having any idea of what the short and long-term consequences are?

sixstringtheory 7y ago
I’m flabbergasted as to why this comment is downvoted. They’ve simply provided some counterpoints and asked a question. That’s how discussion and debate work. Maybe they’re wrong and there are good counter-counterpoints, but if so you should provide them instead of downvoting. I have to say I agree with their points and reiterate their question, so I’d like to see some actual responses if any can even be made. Furthermore, positioning increased insecticide use as ameliorating climate change is just madness.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Surely the cost of not using neonicotinoids for a few years, long enough to rule out it having a detrimental effect, is pretty small compared to that of destroying all the pollinating insects that we rely on for food production?