Current Events > Trump lifts ban on pesticides linked to declining bee populations

(+) Yeah! (+)

the_rowan posted...

It literally says in the article that the decision was made by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of growing more forage for migratory ducks and geese, as part of an effort to expand hunting in these reserves.

Since, again, you guys can't read.

I don't necessarily agree with it--the allowing of GMO crops is probably fine unless the pest-resistant ones have known effects on the ecosystem and health of beneficial insects, but I don't know enough about these pesticides to know how much of a long-term risk they pose. But the effect compared to that of industrial farming across the nation is pretty minimal.

It also says that it could pose a grave threat to bees and other pollinating insects, which is exactly what everyone is upset about. The bee issue is something that's already a problem, its not like we have the luxury of sacrificing a significant amount of their habitat for something that's completely unnecessary. Idk why you gotta act so condescending and pretentious and accuse people of not reading when they're clearly upset about something that is actually printed in the article, something you think is totally fine to ignore for some reason. That or you just aren't as good a reader as you think you are.
---

Out of all the bugs, I think I genuinely like bees the best. The fact that they're one of the most useful bugs is a great contribution factor on top of them being pretty cute, though I'm always wary of them stinging me
---

I need bees to poolinate my squash blossoms.

It's been so rainy lately and it's discouraging them from pollinating my blossoms.
---

Funbazooka posted...

I need bees to poolinate my squash blossoms.

It's been so rainy lately and it's discouraging them from pollinating my blossoms.

Then vote in November, only way to save the bees is to get rid of Trump and the more useless GOP incumbents (Though some are clearly superior to their Democratic opponents, so don't just vote on party lines.
---

nicklebro posted...

It also says that it could pose a grave threat to bees and other pollinating insects, which is exactly what everyone is upset about. The bee issue is something that's already a problem, its not like we have the luxury of sacrificing a significant amount of their habitat for something that's completely unnecessary. Idk why you gotta act so condescending and pretentious and accuse people of not reading when they're clearly upset about something that is actually printed in the article, something you think is totally fine to ignore for some reason. That or you just aren't as good a reader as you think you are.

There is absolutely no data or reason given behind that statement, so it's not very meaningful. The article is not a reliable source of information in this regard. That's all I'm saying. You can't just immediately make a strong conclusion like that because an article says "X is bad/harmful" without mention of degree, scope of impact, or confidence. They don't say what it does to bees at all or how significant the impact is.

If you go and research neonicotinoids, they're banned in all of Europe, and while there have been few studies on their impact on wild bees, they seem to have a pretty significant impact on the growth of colonies birth of new queens. So my initial impressions are that they likely deserve the ban. However, keep in mind that this is just the reversal of a blanket ban on GMO crops and a large group of pesticides as one ruling; the reversal of the ban would be necessary to allow any one thing that was banned. If they continue to deny permission to use neonicotinoids, then there's no harm done in this regard.
---

the_rowan posted...

There is absolutely no data or reason given behind that statement, so it's not very meaningful. The article is not a reliable source of information in this regard. That's all I'm saying. You can't just immediately make a strong conclusion like that because an article says "X is bad/harmful" without mention of degree, scope of impact, or confidence. They don't say what it does to bees at all or how significant the impact is.

If you go and research neonicotinoids, they're banned in all of Europe, and while there have been few studies on their impact on wild bees, they seem to have a pretty significant impact on the growth of colonies birth of new queens. So my initial impressions are that they likely deserve the ban. However, keep in mind that this is just the reversal of a blanket ban on GMO crops and a large group of pesticides as one ruling; the reversal of the ban would be necessary to allow any one thing that was banned. If they continue to deny permission to use neonicotinoids, then there's no harm done in this regard.

It seems pretty self evident to me, I mean are you actually suggesting that these pesticides are somehow not actually harmful to bees at all? That they were banned for two years just for shits and giggles? Idk why we need the exact details, Idk why you'd say its meaningless without those details. Not everything needs to follow CE's requirements to be useful information as long as the source is reliable, which this one is.
---

FightingGames posted...

what's trump's endgame?

To wipe out flowers?
---

nicklebro posted...

It seems pretty self evident to me, I mean are you actually suggesting that these pesticides are somehow not actually harmful to bees at all? That they were banned for two years just for shits and giggles? Idk why we need the exact details, Idk why you'd say its meaningless without those details. Not everything needs to follow CE's requirements to be useful information as long as the source is reliable, which this one is.

No, but the article did not mention the extent of the harm. It's incredibly poor form to assume the extent of the effect without knowing a damn thing about it, just because one article says it's harmful with no context or further information. The article also did not say they were banned anywhere but on wildlife reserves.

I don't see why you take such issue with me not forming a strong opinion on something I have no information about. That's basics of sane decision-making 101.
---

Bees are free pollinators. How does this make any sense from an economic standpoint?
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Bees are free pollinators. How does this make any sense from an economic standpoint?

Trump gets money from pesticide corporations, it makes perfect sense. This is a Captain Planet cartoon villain move, jesus

Rexdragon125 posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Bees are free pollinators. How does this make any sense from an economic standpoint?

Trump gets money from pesticide corporations, it makes perfect sense. This is a Captain Planet cartoon villain move, jesus

this

trump doesnt give a flying fuck about this planet or any of its people. he wants him and his GOP buddies to get theirs before they die off and then who gives a fuck after that
---

the_rowan posted...

nicklebro posted...

It seems pretty self evident to me, I mean are you actually suggesting that these pesticides are somehow not actually harmful to bees at all? That they were banned for two years just for shits and giggles? Idk why we need the exact details, Idk why you'd say its meaningless without those details. Not everything needs to follow CE's requirements to be useful information as long as the source is reliable, which this one is.

No, but the article did not mention the extent of the harm. It's incredibly poor form to assume the extent of the effect without knowing a damn thing about it, just because one article says it's harmful with no context or further information. The article also did not say they were banned anywhere but on wildlife reserves.

I don't see why you take such issue with me not forming a strong opinion on something I have no information about. That's basics of sane decision-making 101.

You don't have to assume the extent of the harm, you don't have to form a strong opinion. Its just clear that this is something that should be opposed. That's the point.
---

So that black mirror episode about the killer robot bees is about to happen? Of course president Waldo would do that.
---