Why are there no more bug splatters on car's windshields?

[Anonymous No.15590456]

Is the 6th Great Extinction actually really happening or can something else explain where all the bugs have gone? Growing up in the 80s bug splatters on the car / truck windshields were everywhere, today they're non-existent for the most part. Also see far fewer bugs, birds, and other critters when hiking in the forests these days.

[Anonymous No.15590468]

God I fucking wish.

[Anonymous No.15590475]

basically technology hasn't advanced since 1990 because cars are no different

[Anonymous No.15590484]

>>15590456
I've noticed that there are far fewer winged insects around these days. Could be pesticides or Roundup. Way fewer butterflies of all kinds. Way fewer dragonflies. About the same number of moths. Probably way more mosquitos and flies though.

[Anonymous No.15590489]

>>15590456
Insects dying, cars becoming more aerodynamic and so the bow wave doesn't hit them straight into the windshield, speeds increasing and you probably driving in more urban environments even if you yourself haven't moved.

[Anonymous No.15590490]

>>15590456
You just don't leave your room anon. The outside is filled to the brim with bugs. Some years it's worse than others. But they're still there. Either that or you moved to a place with lesser bugs.
Very schizophrenic thread btw, please don't post here if your IQ is /pol/ tier.

[Anonymous No.15590521]

I've always wondered if there's a correlation with insect decline and rise in C02 levels.
Insects have no lungs. They get oxygen through pours in their exoskeleton. We've done experiments where in high 02 environments insects tend to grow really big. But what about high C02 environments? Logical, no?

[Anonymous No.15590534]

>>15590456
They've had 30 years to evolve, that's a lot of generations for a bug.

[Anonymous No.15590563]

>>15590456
They all got vaxxed

[Anonymous No.15590579]

So you guys don't think it's the increasing microwave pollution?

[Anonymous No.15590582]

>>15590456
They removed it from the simulation in the last patch.

[Anonymous No.15590618]

>>15590456
>An annual decline of 5.2% in flying insect biomass found in nature reserves in Germany – about 75% loss in 26 years.

[Anonymous No.15590630]

>>15590456
Back in the 80s you would just need to open a window over night and leave the radiator warm. Next day you could consistently collect ladybugs, like 5 of them at once, from the window sill. Today it’s once a year you see and of those.

[Anonymous No.15590654]

>>15590521
correlation doesn't = causation or whatever, but sounds as plausible connection as any.

[Anonymous No.15590657]

>>15590579
haven't heard this one yet. Please expand.

[Anonymous No.15590659]

>>15590582
if true, why did the architect(s) decide our sim should have fewer bugs and other critters in general?

[Anonymous No.15590664]

>>15590618
there's the graph that shows it in no uncertain terms. 75% is huge.

[Anonymous No.15590697]

>>15590456
A few weeks ago I drove from Alabama to Wisconsin. The front of my truck was coated with bugs. Also back in Alabama I noticed there were a lot fewer lightning bugs than in previous decades. While packing up my house, I took down all the solar patio lights from the backyard. Guess what happened? An explosion of lightning bugs! Even those weak ass solar lights were enough to either drown out or drive off lightning bugs. Once the lights were gone, the bugs quickly returned.

[Anonymous No.15590706]

>>15590618
What happened in the area around the "nature reserves" over the past 26 years?

[Anonymous No.15590720]

>>15590706
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

[Anonymous No.15590729]

>>15590456
Thats too bad, I guess we'd better keep in eating cows instead of switching to eating endangered bugs

[Anonymous No.15590754]

>>15590659
Improve performance.

[Barkun No.15590757]

>>15590754
>>15590745
Hijack - look at the word. It seems possible

Look what's possible to hijack

Dimension laws, etc.

[Anonymous No.15590768]

>>15590720
>Most locations (59%, n = 37) were sampled in only one year, 20 locations in two years, five locations in three years, and one in four years, yielding in total 96 unique location-year combinations of measurements of seasonal total flying insect biomass.
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.15590773]

>>15590657
insects are sensitive to electrical fields, has the increasing use of technology emitting and transmitting elecrtomagnetic radiation such as power lines, radio and phone transmitters and now starlink satelite internet had an effect of increasing the presence of these frequencies that have not existed in any natural environmemt before had an effect on living creatures.

[Anonymous No.15590819]

>>15590456
I think it depends on where you live. Notice the changes in human activity in your area and they might correlate.

>be me
>have summer cottage near a wetland/lagoon
>place was teeming with all kinds of bugs and birds when I was growing up
>ffwd to the last 10 years or so
>mothefuckers building houses near the waterline
>small civil aviation airport opened up barely half a click from the waterline
>lng facility on an island a few kilometers out expanded in size and operations
>far fewer birds now, mostly sparrows and magpies with the occasional swallows in spring and that's basically it
>far less diversity in bugs but some species have exploded.
>fucking aphids fucking up my pear and peach trees
>firebugs literally covering part of the fence in summer, never seen this shit before in my life.
>no more bees, ladybugs, butterflies or beetles

[Anonymous No.15590832]

>>15590456
No lightning bugs anymore. I used to see them outside every night like 20 years ago. Now they're nowhere to be found.

[Anonymous No.15590837]

Lack of fireflies is most noticeable. I don't fully believe it's an increase in ambient lighting that someone alluded to earlier. Even middle of nowhere perfectly dark locations are affected. Must be xenoestrogens in the environment and women pissing out birth control meds.

[Anonymous No.15590848]

>>15590837
>Must be xenoestrogens in the environment and women pissing out birth control meds.
Sure thing Alex Jones. They're making the fireflies gay.

[Anonymous No.15590946]

>>15590534
Why everyone ignores the correct answer and spams retarded shit about this?

[Anonymous No.15590961]

>>15590456
I haven’t been bitten by a mosquito in years.

[Anonymous No.15590963]

>>15590946
So you're saying all the bugs too stupid to avoid traffic have died out? Don't know anything about insect evolution but suppose it is possible. Why wouldn't this have worked on squirrels and other animals that getting run over as much as ever?

[Anonymous No.15590968]

>>15590946
Because the /sci/zos don't "believe" in global warming and pesticides.

[Anonymous No.15591169]

literally natural selection

[Anonymous No.15591187]

I've noticed this too. Back when I would drive with my dad as a kid sometimes the bug splatter would cover the entire windshield especially after driving near a pond or river. I haven't seen anything like it in years though, there just aren't bugs like there used to be

[Anonymous No.15591202]

>>15590963
The vast majority of insects have much shorter generations than any mammals, allowing them to respond to selection pressure quicker. And it's probably not that they're intelligent enough to actively avoid cars but probably something like being repelled by the smell of asphalt or car exhaust

[Anonymous No.15591215]

>>15591202
>smell of asphalt or car exhaust
Actually the smell of diesel exhaust confuses bees sense of direction.

[Anonymous No.15591229]

>>15590456
damn you made me realize I have not had a bug splat in a long time. It did seem more common 2010 and backer
I guess it is a good thing

[Anonymous No.15591244]

>>15590968
You're correct that a lot of "poltards" deny anthropogenic climate change and global warming, but its mostly the woke, pro-censorship SJW types that say that pesticides and plastic and processed food and that type of stuff isn't an issue. So-called "white nationalists" and "pro-Russian" conspiracy theorists and the "far-right" have been saying for years that stuff like pesticides and plastics are a serious concern, and that we shouldn't be so reliant on modern technology and unquestioning about it's safety. Actually this was just all over the news a few days ago, because RFK was saying that endocrine disruptors could be contributing to gender dysphoria and similar psycho-sexual changes, and he was smeared as a conspiracy theorist by the woke neoliberal left, even though endocrine disruptors are a genuine concern, they are produced by plastics, and they do indeed impact human reproduction and sexuality. Another good example was aspartame. Right wingers have always been skeptical of stuff like aspartame and other processed foods.

In general, leftists tend to be more willing to acknowledge the harms of fossil fuels and CO2 pollution and climate change, but conservatives are typically more willing to acknowledge that plastics and pesticides and other modern agricultural and food-production methods are toxic. This is much more difficult for woke leftist types because any criticism of modern agriculture or modern food production, or the regulatory agencies that deal with this stuff, is perceived by woke leftists as a sort of "anti-science" conspiracy theory. Basically, if you're concerned about things like plastic or modern synthetic pesticide, then you're just a scientifically illiterate white trash MAGAtard who doesn't understand modern science or that modern synthetic pesticides are just objectively better than the primitive and outdated organic farming techniques that all the white trash poltards and small family farms would prefer to use.

[Anonymous No.15591254]

>>15591244
Retarded communist

[Anonymous No.15591261]

>>15591244
You probably don't even realize you're a useful idiot, but your post is just buzzword vomit.

[Anonymous No.15591288]

>>15591254
You're post makes no fucking sense, and your pic related is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Woke leftists claim to be concerned about the environment, but then the only issue they actually want to do anything about is muh cars and muh fossil fuels. They completely ignore all the other practices and modern chemicals beside petroleum that are destroying the environment, and they'll even become completely enraged if you point this stuff out. Urbanization is a good example. Synthetic pesticides, international travel, and globalization are all good example of things that woke leftist ignore despite their terrible environmental consequences.

[Anonymous No.15591327]

>>15591244
>woke, pro-censorship SJW types that say that pesticides and plastic and processed food and that type of stuff isn't an issue
Yeah, who doesn't know pro-censorship SJW types that cheer for pesticides and plastic. Please tell me the prompt you used with chatgpt to get so much bullshit in a single comment. I got a mild stroke reading this.
>Another good example was aspartame. Right wingers have always been skeptical of stuff like aspartame
This made me laugh though.

[Anonymous No.15591385]

>>15591288
You're brainwashed
>deny anthropogenic climate change and global warming
But you believe in evolution and man came from fish, so why wouldn't you believe global warming on blind faith in the experts (your priest class)

[Anonymous No.15591390]

But they would never manipulate data or studies or results or omit data!!1! I trusted them!!1!

Yeah, you keep living in fear of the seasons and warm/cold fronts, see how it works out for you.

[Anonymous No.15591392]

>>15590456
More cars on the roads
More cars = less bugs per car
Not that there aren't fewer bugs, and that more literal idiots (people) isn't a serious problem

[Anonymous No.15591395]

>>15591327
>who doesn't know pro-censorship SJW types that cheer for pesticides and plastic

I actually provided a recent example in my post - namely RFK. When RFK brought up endocrine disruptors, all the woke neolib outlets started publishing article about how it was a crazy conspiracy theory. Pdf related is another example of an EU politician describing it as a "conspiracy theory".

Quoted from the article:
Vytenis Andriukaitis, the EU’s Health and Food Safety Commissioner, passionately defended the European Commission’s role in a dispute over delayed proposals to regulate hormone-affecting chemicals . . .
The Lithuanian Commissioner was responding to a recent report by the anti-pesticide NGO PAN Europe which accused the executive’s health department (DG Sante) of using tactics to potspone the EU’s endocrine disruptor strategy, under pressure from industry lobbyists.
But according to Andriukaitis, these are only "conspiracy theories”.

Also, you can just make a thread about the topic on sci, physicsforums, plebbit or any other relevant forum. Or bring up the topic of greenwashing or Bill Gates and his attempts to interject himself into the environmental movement despite the fact that his policies actually have nothing to do with protecting the environment and the woke neolibs instantly sperg out and start calling you a conspiracy theorist. That's another topic they hate. Anything about greenwashing and billionaires, NGOs, or the government is off limit for the woke neolib.

[Anonymous No.15591443]

>>15591327
Pic related is Bill Gates, who is considered by woke neolibs to be one of the leaders of environmental and social activism, actively promoting synthetic fertilizers. Any criticism of Bill Gates, or his positions on environmental or social issues will instantly result in accusations by plebbitors that your a crazy right wing nutjob. This is a great example of greenwashing, and corporations and the establishment left are the one's primarily responsible for this kind of greenwashing. In reality though, mainstream scholars and climate scientists recognize that Bill Gates is full of shit and that addressing the climate crisis will require widespread and systemic changes to modern agricultural practices and the modern globalized economy. Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab and their synthetic meat and insect diet are not going to save us or the planet. Relying on sustainable farming practices and localized production and a localized economy rather than globalized economy, is what will save us (and many other policies and practices need to be implemented as well). Focusing exclusively on atmospheric emissions and purely technological methods of addressing the climate crisis is not going to work. The required technology doesn't even exist yet, and it's not clear at all when it will. We can't rely on billionaires or super expensive, super modern, high tech solutions to the climate problem that don't even exist yet. Moreover, it is precisely this sort of indiscriminate development, application, and use of technology that lead to the destruction of the environment in the first place. Neoliberal policies and the unrestricted use of modern technology are largely responsible, so we can't rely on those mechanisms to fix the problem.

[Anonymous No.15591467]

>>15591443
he'll just call you a chud and/or a big oil shill in response to this, you know that right?

[Anonymous No.15591534]

>>15591467
Yeah, that's the sort of response I 'm expecting, although in this case I think I btfod the cuck so hard that he isn't going to respond. It's kind of hard to deny the fact that neolibs support synthetic fertilizers and pesticides when neolib icon and celebrity activist Bill Gates is literally simping for it on his own website.

[Anonymous No.15591853]

>>15590456
There are ongoing campaigns to eradicate "wild areas" in cities and their surrounding areas for various reasons:

>save water
>reduce breeding grounds for pests
>eliminate hiding spaces for homeless people
>raise property values which results in gentrification, creating a feedback loop

Every time one these wild areas are redeveloped, a habitat gets destroyed.

A lot of insects are killed by artificial lighting, which is much brighter and more numerous now because of cheap LED technology. Birds are dependent on the critters, so their populations get reduced as well as a result, and so on.

Liberals are all about loving animals and saving the environment but ultimately they're NIMBY kind of people at the end of the day. They smile when they see a cute puppy or cat but freak out when they see a cockroach.

[Anonymous No.15591921]

>>15591443
you'd figure he'd be up on regenerative agri practices for how into environmentalism he thinks he is. but nah, just destroy your microbial balance and encourage salt buildups and agonism with your chemical fertilizers and ipm regimes.
>but we can just burn stubble every year to fix all these problems right? this will keep working yes????????

[Anonymous No.15592041]

>>15590456
Heavy metals are essential nutrients, the bugs starved.

[Anonymous No.15592052]

>>15591390
>big oil is soo honest
lol retard

[Anonymous No.15592053]

>>15590456
The bugs starved, as they depleted soils of essential nutrients in order to make people too weak and retarded to stand up against them.

[Anonymous No.15592060]

>>15590456
source?

[Anonymous No.15592100]

>>15590832
>>15590837
Same. This is noticed by people, seemingly around the world. I've talked to people from different countries about it. Where did the fireflies go? They were here just 20 years ago. This one is strange because I live in the city and there hasn't been any decrease in greenspaces around me in the past ~20 years, nor any other change that I can imagine might affect them, yet all the fireflies are gone.

[Anonymous No.15592136]

>>15591534
>It's kind of hard to deny the fact that neolibs support synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
It's kind of like they aren't retarded enough to believe that regenerative farming techniques are some miracle solution and largely can't produce food, in bulk quantities, to replace NPK fertilizer, pesticides, and modern industrial farming to reliably feed billions of people.

[Anonymous No.15592273]

Too much insects in my backyard. What are you talking about.

[Anonymous No.15592280]

>>15592100
>I live in the city
Thats why you're the expert on nature, because you avoid it at all costs and stay in your concrete bugman hive

[Anonymous No.15592347]

>>15592060
https://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2020/09/where-did-windshield-bugs-go.html

[Anonymous No.15592398]

>>15590456
There are trucks that drive around spraying poison into the air to kill all the bugs. The fuck did anyone expect to happen?

[Anonymous No.15592680]

>>15592398
They just starved to death. There are still insects in "polluted" areas. (it should be the salt lake for the US)

[Anonymous No.15592711]

>>15592136
It determines the type of crops that need to be grown more than the amount. Legumes can grow without it perfectly fine, as long as they get adequate molybdenum, which is needed for the enzyme that breaks up nitrogen from the air.

[Anonymous No.15593326]

>>15591327

You're so misinformed about these issues and yet so self-righteous. You're not even a real leftist. You're a woke establishment dem. The same type of people who were sperging out about Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein in 2016 and 2020 and calling them Russian assets and "Bernie bros". And you woke centrists are doing the same thing with RFK Jr. in the 2020 election and claiming that he's an anti-semite and a conspiracy theorist and a white nationalist, even though there is litterally no evidence to support these claims.

The woke neolib just call's all of their enemies racists and conspiracy theorists. Even other leftists are considered racists and conspiracy theorists if they aren't willing to support the democratic parrty or the tech corporations, as the woke neolib would like.

Maybe instead of commenting on the environment and taking a really aggressive tone towards anyone who disagrees with you, you should actually research the issue. Most mainstream climate scientists and climate activists are very skeptical of the supposed "environmental" policies of mainstream neoliberal political parties, billionaires, and international organizations like the UN and the WEF. Just look up literally any actual scholar who works at a university and studies climate.

A lot of scholars who study this stuff promote like regenerative farming and permaculture, and de-growth and de-globalization, but of course woke neolibs like yourself would never support those sorts of policies because upholding modern technology and globalization are probably the two greatest values in the mind of the woke neolib.

Here's a simple artcile for a general audience that Berkeley published on the topic: https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2021/03/16/greenwashing-on-how-neo-liberal-capitalism-persists-amid-the-climate-crisis/

Pdf related is from another university, making similar claims (university of Manchester).

You can find literally dozens of similar sources by Googling neoliberal greenwashing.

[Anonymous No.15593341]

>>15590489
>cars becoming more aerodynamic and so the bow wave doesn't hit them straight into the windshield, speeds increasing and you probably driving in more urban environments even if you yourself haven't moved

Still driving my dad's car. Still living in the same neighbourhood. Speed hasn't changed.

So the only explanation is "insects dying".

[Anonymous No.15593378]

I miss these lil fuckers like you wouldn't believe. It's been years since I saw them last

[Anonymous No.15593405]

>>15593378
I've seen them in south Carolina. I don't think the exist down south.

[Anonymous No.15593760]

In the 1800s white moths evolved to be black to blend in with smoke created by the industrial revolution being more common than the whites of birch trees.
The idea that insects, over the course of a century, evolved to notice that fast moving, ultra hot, windy and loud highways means death is not even remotely unseasonable.
There absolutely is an insect decline due to pesticide use but using highway splatters as demonstration is as absurd as saying that since moths don't camouflage on birch trees they must have all died off.
>>15593378
Move to Massachusetts, I see them every night in July and sometimes I'll sit by the grill having some chicken and watching them flicker.

[Anonymous No.15593770]

>>15593326
>You're a woke establishment dem.
Stopped reading. You're obviously a braindead mutt that thinks the whole world revolves around himself.

[Anonymous No.15594084]

>>15593770
>T. Seething woke neoliberal European

The only thing shitlibs seem to be capable of is constantly seething about language and terminology.
You're a complete retard if you think politics in the US and EU are really different in any deep sense. Yes, there are some superficial differences, but ultimately the US and EU are both dominated by neoliberal ideology and support for globalization.

[Anonymous No.15594117]

>>15590773
it's possible, but only because insects are very small. I know this radiation must either pass through the organizism without doing anything or must be absorbed in the form of heat. Let us generalize from the human example:
A fresh, 80 IQ recruit is put on a ship and told "DO NOT STAND IN FRONT OF THE RADAR." The leader points to the radar. It is very large, hot, and emits a constant loud hum. The cadet stands in front of the Radar for 6 hours per day for the next two months, leading to sunburns across his entire back. This increases his risk of getting skin cancers later, however, the problem appears solved after some pain when he is removed from the deck and placed in the mess as a soup-stirrer and dishwasher where he belongs.
To generalize from this example, insects may absorb some heat from our radiation. This may cause them to move away from the area. They might instead ignore the temperature difference on their... skin? like our model idiot, which will cause them to need a bit more calories for recovery and also slightly increase their cancer risks, not that this should be a real problem for short-lived insects.
It seems more likely to me that fields have affected the migratory behavior of insects by disrupting their natural direction-sensing abilities. This means some populations have trouble finding food or proper breeding grounds. However, they have short lifespans anyways, so they could evolve to have new path finding patterns or more breeding grounds.

[Anonymous No.15594141]

>>15590534
>people refuse to acknowledge evolution
>also ignoring that the raccoons, birds, and monkeys carving niches in our cities are going to become intelligent if we're not careful

[Anonymous No.15594195]

>>15593378
We can probably just genetically engineer new ones. No reason not to add bioluminescence to whatever we want. We already made those neon fish for kids.

[Anonymous No.15594370]

>>15590456
I never thought about it, but it is true.
I have been driving long distances for the past 15 years to visit family because I prefer it to flying.
In the early 2000's when I drove through rural areas, grasshopper/locust splats were very common.
I haven't had that happen recently despite driving the same routes.

[Anonymous No.15594377]

I haven't seen a firefly in years now that you are talking about it. I used to put them in matchboxes when I was a kid.

[Anonymous No.15594381]

[Anonymous No.15594384]

>>15594141
>intelligent animal near us
We already have niggers. How bad can racoon or crow can be?

[Anonymous No.15594778]

>>15591288
That's not even true you fucking mongrel. Leftists talk about that stuff too, it's just that climate change is like THE threat of the 21st century so naturally most attention is focused on it.
Where do you think the phrase "buy locally and seasonally" comes from?
>synthetic pesticides
Monsanto and Nestle get shit on like constantly
>international travel
Frequent fliers get shamed (justifiably, in my opinion) and they want people to use the railroad when travelling.
>globalization
I'll give you that. They do support that one. I guess they see it as a necessary evil to combat racism or something.

Take COP27 for example. Two main criticisms
1) Coca-Cola was criticized for sponsoring the event, despite it being a globalized megacorp that's the no 1 culprit of plastic pollution in our oceans
2) The attendees were criticized for taking their private jets to a fucking climate conference

[Anonymous No.15595063]

>>15594778
I get what you're saying, and I was following COP 27 so I know what you're talking about and I'm aware that climate protestors were very critical of the event and some progressive outlets like Democracy Now and the Grayzone did some pretty good coverage of it, but that's kind of what I was talking about. There's this vast disparity between popular discourse on climate change, which is mainly driven by a combination of centrist neoliberal politicians and agrotech and biotech interests (represented by people like Bill Gates), and then actual climate scholars and activists who have generally been more supportive of a radical critique of modern industry and the modern globalized economy that is largely responsible for climate change and environmental degradation.

A lot of serious climate activists and climate scholars are concerned about things like petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides and air travel and global supply chains and that sort of stuff, but those people are considered to be fringe new age hippy idealist tree huggers and most normies, even on the left, are probably unaware of these sorts of issues. Instead, people like Al Gore and Bill Gates and AOC are able to dominate popular discourse on climate issues. Just pass some subsidies for electric car manufacturers and introduce a carbon tax on personal automobile travel and the problem will be solved according to these people. Just don't touch the corporations or the billionaires.

Your average normie centrist liberal might claim to care about the environment, but they're generally not informed on these issues, and most of them tend to trust the political establishment and the media and international organizations and non profits like COP or the WEF or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

[Anonymous No.15595189]

>>15595063
Gee it almost feels like there isn't just one single opinion, huh?

The house we're all living in is in flames and everyone is gathering outside arguing and debating about how to save it. OF COURSE you'll get different answer depending on who you ask. The two bickering neighbours who hate each other both point fingers and say the other one should start first, one thinks sand will be better, someone else proposes water, the rich guy who owns the rooftop penthouse wants his flat to be saved first etc.

Oh wow, the elites propagate solutions which don't entail them losing all of their power or them having to share the load justly in proportion to their huge CO2 emissions? How can we explain that? Oh right, I know. Must be a giant hoax, the entirety of it. No other possible explanation, and definitely no regular old interest politics going on here.

[Anonymous No.15595195]

>>15590456
natural selection. the insects that instinctively avoided cars didn't get splattered, causing them to propagate more frequently than car splatter insects.

[Anonymous No.15595223]

>>15590837
my neighbourhood is absolutely riddled with fireflies this year

[Anonymous No.15595266]

>>15595189
I'm not even sure why you're sperging out. I don't think climate change is fake. Right now you and I are arguing about how to address climate change, and whether neoliberal policies can effectively do so, not whether it is real or fake.

As to your point that billionaires are stubbornly protecting their own financial interests, that exactly the argument I'm making. Not only that, however. The problem is a bit deeper. It's not just that Bill Gates and other billionaires will only propose environmental solutions that don't harm their financial bottom line, but rather that some of their proposed solutions may even be counter productive and harmful to the environment.

Furthermore, the problem is not just that neolibs disagree with academics and climate activists on how to address these issues. Of course different political factions and socioeconomic groups will have disagreements about specific strategies or policies. However, the woke neolib types are unique in that they insist as a matter of principle that they are correct, that they are acting in good faith, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an anti-science conspiracy theorist who needs to be censored. Given that billionaires and neoliberal politicians generally have a lot of power and influence, this should be very concerning. Its not just that neolibs disagree with scholars and activists on how to address climate issues, but rather, the problem is that they're willing to censor these people if they challenge the neoliberal consensus.

[Anonymous No.15595281]

>>15595223
I've seen a couple so it's good to know that they're still out there

[Anonymous No.15595311]

>>15595266
Yeah, sorry. It's hard to remain calm given the amount of schizo loons on this board. I kinda got used to instantly assuming someone's a denialtard, but that's not true of course.

>the woke neolib types are unique in that they insist as a matter of principle that they are correct, that they are acting in good faith, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an anti-science conspiracy theorist who needs to be censored
This is true about every neolib issue though, not just climate change. It's actually the essence of liberalism, this idea that today's problems are technical problems, and as such they only have one real solution. This of course means that if you disagree on how to tackle a problem, you don't just have a different opinion, you're outright wrong about it.
Which is, I think, one of the reasons why the right and the left can't talk to each other anymore. Both assume they're right, and therefore it's of no use to listen to their opponents. They can't be reasoned with, only fought.
Good night, bro.

[Anonymous No.15595329]

>>15590456
everything is being poisoned

[Anonymous No.15595357]

>>15595311
they're all idiots who can't see that today's problems are technical problems and that all technical problems have multiple solutions and sometimes your attempted solutions are wrong
and everybody obviously has it wrong

[Anonymous No.15595396]

>>15595311
Yep it's pretty hard to have an interesting conversation, especially on the internet, and especially on sci.
Retards everywhere. Retards on all sides. Retards screaming past other retards.

[Anonymous No.15595490]

>>15590456
>where all the bugs have gone?
They left for somewhere that has the same weather as 20 years ago where they used to be.
t. first cricket outside my house in 15 years this summer

[Anonymous No.15595629]

>>15593760
>as absurd as saying that since moths don't camouflage on birch trees they must have all died off.
But if all the moths became black that means all the white moths DID die off.

[Anonymous No.15595647]

>>15590521
The smashed insects were the remaining ones slowly dying to pollution, gas or oil have a distinct odour so i guess that also filtered the poor guys who were unable to find food

[Anonymous No.15595743]

>>15590456
fuck off, birds and butterflies are constantly divebombing my windshield, its like sparrows decide to commit suicide by playing chicken with my car.

[Anonymous No.15595747]

>>15595743
I can't seem to drive 5 miles without hitting one of gods beautiful creatures. Rabbits, cats, dogs, birds of all types, dragonflies, butterflies, they all come to me to die.

[Anonymous No.15595755]

>>15595747
I swerved to avoid a rabbit and the damn thing JUMPED UNDER MY TIRE.

[Anonymous No.15595801]

>>15595755
That's because it was trying to outmaneuver your car the way it would outmaneuver an animal predator, with sudden changes of direction. The best thing to do is keep moving on a constant, predictable course; at most you could slow down but swerving is a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.15595826]

>>15590456
I had plenty of those few years ago when I wasn't doing WFH, the worse was when driving a bit before the dusk

[Anonymous No.15595974]

>>15595629
I suppose you're right, bugs that loved the taste of car windshields are a lost breed. Crying shame

[Anonymous No.15596137]

>>15590456
>or can something else explain where all the bugs have gone?

I've no reason not to believe the various unanimous studies coming out of America and the UK that say it's a combination of pesticide and habitat loss. Pesticide kills bugs, habitat loss makes bugs homeless and deprives them of jobs, simple as. It's just the most immediate and obvious problem, so it's probably true.

>>15590521
^ This is an interesting question I'd like an answer to though.

>>15590534
^ This is also a compelling idea and I'd like to know if anybody has tested and debunked or proven it. Maybe we have just selected away all the stupid car-hitting insects. Maybe cars are just better designed and thus hit less insects, etc..

[Anonymous No.15597077]

i ated ze bugs

[Anonymous No.15597122]

traps pretty much confirm it's insect decline, my money's on neonicotinoids

[Anonymous No.15597136]

>>15596137
It's the lack of heavy metals. The only reason why pesticides seem to correlate is the EDTA added to them and fertilizers.

[Anonymous No.15597177]

>>15596137
It's the lack of heavy metals. The only reason why pesticides seem to correlate is the EDTA (DTPA, EDDHA...) added to them and fertilizers.

>Maybe we have just selected away all the stupid car-hitting insects.
The fact that this seems like a plausible explanation only proves how dramatic the decline is. Insects used to be ubiquitous and commonly seen, not lone individuals that occasionally appear. The decline must be way over 90%.

[Anonymous No.15597919]

>>15597177
>Insects used to be ubiquitous and commonly seen, not lone individuals that occasionally appear.
My elders who grew up in the 1940s were already saying this 30 years ago. They would describe a completely different world teaming with insects absolutely everywhere.

[Anonymous No.15597996]

>>15597919
You don't even have to be that old to remember. Some butterflies used to be major pests, even those are a rare sight now.

[Anonymous No.15598013]

>>15597919

[Anonymous No.15598029]

>>15594384
I'd feel safer in a crow or raccoon neighbourhood

[Anonymous No.15598046]

>>15590521
I think this is massively overestimating the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, since that graph shows it's only going from .03% of the atmosphere to .04%. Unless Co2 is toxic to insects, I don't see how this could kill them

[Anonymous No.15598048]

>>15597919
>>15597996
Or, I guess it differs from place to place.

[Anonymous No.15598051]

>>15598046
It's the lack of heavy metals that is killing them.

[Anonymous No.15598053]

>>15598051
oh well, I guess that's mystery solved!

[Anonymous No.15598062]

>>15598053
It's the reason. Severelly polluted areas still see swarms of insects.

[Anonymous No.15598065]

>>15598062
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/03/insects-china-decline-east-asia/

[Anonymous No.15598068]

>>15597122
>Traps checked once in thirty years prove there are less insects now. By only checking the traps once, it eliminates all other variables.

[Anonymous No.15598071]

>>15598062
>>15598065
https://india.mongabay.com/2019/06/insects-are-disappearing-in-india-and-we-dont-even-have-data/

[Anonymous No.15598094]

>>15598065
>>15598071
There is not a single country now that haven't agreed to remove heavy metals.
>>15598068
Doubting the decline is completely unreasonable. It doesn't seem it can be as little as they say, if anything.

[Anonymous No.15598116]

>>15598065
>>15598071
There is not a single country now that hasn't agreed to remove heavy metals.
>>15598068
Doubting the decline is completely unreasonable. It doesn't seem it can be as little as they say, if anything.

[Anonymous No.15598160]

>>15593341
>I have no reading comprehension
That's why you're poor and drive a 30 year old car; you're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.15598182]

I think within ten years you're going to see factory farming of bugs that just release them into the environment to keep the ecosystem in balance
Maybe you could even use captured CO2 from the atmosphere to make food for them

[Anonymous No.15598514]

>>15591534
>I think I btfod the cuck so hard that he isn't going to respond.
looks like you were right
good shit

[Anonymous No.15598549]

I live in Argentina and this is definitely a thing here. I remember back when I was a kid when we went on a road trip we had to clean the windshield at every fuel stop because it was plastered with bugs. Now you can drive 500km/300miles without cleaning it even once.
My uncle who lives in a different part of the country told me how it's even worse there.

I blame pesticides and transgenic crops. I don't think there's anything wrong with gene editing crops in and of itself, I think the issues is making them resistant to even stronger pesticides.

[Anonymous No.15599338]

>>15598549
The arms race never ends. There is no permanant solution.

[Anonymous No.15599345]

>>15598182
Bill Gates is ahead of you releasing mosquitos

[Anonymous No.15599356]

>>15594117
Effects are not restricted to heating it can disrupt electrical signalling and other effects like carcinogenic effects
this stiff is known but under studied

[Anonymous No.15600395]

>>15590521
>>15598046
>>15598051
How are you idiots this easily distracted and fooled? It's not CO2 or lack of heavy metals killing bugs, IT'S THE FUCKING TRUCKS DRIVING AROUND SPRAYING INSECTICIDE EVERYWHERE.

[Anonymous No.15600588]

>>15598051
>>15597177
>>15598116
>>15600395

Explain the "lack of heavy metals" killing insects idea to me someone.
Because I know offhand that insects are highly sensitive to heavy metal contamination and will die early from exposure to a host of heavy metals found both in fertilizers and some *pesticides such as: iron & copper sulphates, cadmium, zinc, etc.. Which cause anything from development problems, to bad shells, neurological issues, etc. I can't remember what one, but one heavy metal in particular causes some kind of neurological disorder where if insects are exposed to it they can't help themselves but to lay their eggs near and around it.

Granted, that's second hand information. I can, though, personally, attest that aquatic insects like crayfish, dragonfly larvae, mayfly and especially stonefly larvae, can't tolerate really any level of pollution or heavy metal contamination. And their absence is a simple and concise biomarker of said contamination. That might not be a 1 to 1 since they live in the water and have gills and are thus more *permeable*, but you get the point hopefully.

*I even looked it up a little and have a paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475001730149X
"In this work, we also identified by mass spectrometry the heavy metals arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors, as contaminants in 22 pesticides, including 11 G-based ones. This could also explain some of the adverse effects of the pesticides."

Like, we're loaded with heavy metals. Explain. Explain this.
Because it's obviously insecticide. It's *obviously* that.

[Anonymous No.15600697]

>>15600588
>Explain the "lack of heavy metals" killing insects idea to me someone.
They are essential nutrients, not poisons. It's that simple. Yes, they can act as poisons in extreme amounts.
>Like, we're loaded with heavy metals.
No, we are not. They were originally depleted around 26 thousand years ago (when most animals got extinct) and we've been struggling to recover since then, usually a civilization reemerges for a couple hundred years, then collapses as it depletes the metals again. We might be at the lowest point in history right now.

[Anonymous No.15600721]

>>15590484
There's fewer butterflies here than even a handful of years ago.

[Anonymous No.15600764]

>>15600697
This is the boomer cope for lead overdose?

[Anonymous No.15600783]

i live in the midwest and routinely visit family in the south
there are still fuckloads of bugs everywhere, as many as when i was growing up. my suspicion is that this is because these are places that have always had lots of bugs and in particular have had enough of a mosquito problem that they've been spraying insecticide for a long time, while many other places only started doing that when west nile virus hit the US. if you recently started to try to cut down your mosquito population you've probably caused some collateral damage and the situation probably hasn't reached equilibrium yet.

[Anonymous No.15600799]

>>15600764
No, boomers were already deficient. They began fortifying fo odwith iron in the 40s, and iron poisoning blocks the absorption of divalent metals. (the DMT-1 transporter)

[Anonymous No.15601519]

>>15600588
>Explain the "lack of heavy metals" killing insects idea to me someone.
This is an anon trying a bit too desperately to buld a meme. He has been pushing this for years. It is quite possible his writing is the result of taking his own advice but since he is still alive, he hasn't gone all the way.

TLDR: it is garbage.