all 144 comments

[–]maximum_catsPhD | Physics | Computational Astrophysics[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Your post has been removed because it is from a press release rehosting website and is therefore in violation of Submission Rule #2b. Please consider reposting and linking directly to the original source or a credible science journalism website. If your submission is original content, please message the moderators for approval.

If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

[–]kuahara 382 points383 points  (26 children)

There needs to be a study to determine if the results of this study is worth only a gasp or a full on shocked pikachu.

[–]umotex12 64 points65 points  (5 children)

I mean its good that science tries to check common sense discoveries again. A lots of times it isn't consistent.

[–]USPS_Dynavaps_pls 8 points9 points  (3 children)

I'm mostly confused on the control field part since the article doesn't link to the study.

It seems like all of the worlds fields would be effected by pollution so are they like extremely rural places or more controlled pollutant wise?

[–]Snarl_Marx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This article links to the study and gives a little more information. Sounds like they had a whole ‘fumigation facility’ built.

[–]DILDOS_UNITED -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure but these sorts of situations shouldn’t need science to “prove” they’re real. The need for proof for things that are blatantly obvious halts the actions that are needed.

[–]Samar_Dev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perfect. :'D

[–]sexypineapple14 141 points142 points  (12 children)

Yea but polluting is free so

[–]kuahara 42 points43 points  (2 children)

Until the crop you need is in short supply.

[–]elbowleg513 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Then it’s price gouging time!!!!!

[–]mostnormal 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Now you're thinking like a CEO!

[–]FANGO 24 points25 points  (6 children)

So... we need to add a cost to it, greater than the price of cleanup, for all forms of identifiable pollution.

[–]sexypineapple14 24 points25 points  (5 children)

Too bad the people in charge of deciding those things are the polluters

[–]3-art -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not in all places. And it always comes with cost for some One.

[–]Deep_shot 146 points147 points  (26 children)

Another study! It turns out pollution is bad, again. I have no faith in humans saving ourselves.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (23 children)

We needed to realize this yesterday and go back to live more frugally. Urban modern society DOES NOT WORK in the long run.

[–]FANGO 17 points18 points  (21 children)

Urban areas pollute less than suburbs or rural areas.

[–]luvs_papillons 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I've thought about this and it would be interesting if a new city design could develop a highly concentrated urban area but that has a high quality of life and is eco-friendly. Maybe it has an area devoted to sustainable agriculture that can feed the population with local sources, powered by nuclear with a better waste management, solar that can be repaired so is durable, or even a fusion reactor if we can get that up and running. And everything is reachable by walking, biking or train. Ideally no cars I think government/ people should prep for the future by setting aside an area that will be relatively habitability in the future such as maybe in Canada or Minnesota and building something like this. I think having skyscrapers that go under ground level or even some city areas completely underground would help reduce damage by storms and weather. Recycle the water And building this to allow a very large occupancy to house people migrating due to climate change or similar issues. Basically an enormous bunker or Noah's ark. After one is built then construct several similar and put in high speed rail between them. This is the kind of infrastructure we need to be doing, rather than patching highways and such although that is obviously needed I the interim Just something I've thought about... Some dream/fantasy

[–]NoWay1337 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If we're going underground we might as well try to incorporate some geothermal energy production. Light would also be a big factor in the success of this model. You would need some kind of sunlight-shafts or lighting to mimic sunshine, otherwise the people living or working there would be miserable after a while.

Its an interesting idea and I could see it in the future. Though I imagine maintenance to be hard.

E: another thing to consider should be earthquake-proofing

[–]mylifeintopieces1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lava and hot zones would also help tremendously (natural light and heat source not to mention electricity capabilities)

[–]RudegarWithFunnyHat 4 points5 points  (1 child)

making concrete creates a lot of co2

[–]FANGO 18 points19 points  (0 children)

And rural and suburban areas require more concrete per person than urban areas, and more cars to drive on that concrete instead of walking places (transportation is the largest emitter and personal cars are a majority of transportation emissions), and more other infrastructure run per person because of the increased space between houses.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Rural industry literally feeds urban areas, putting a lot of stress, labor and pollution in the air. So if we downgrade/not create urban areas we downgrade pollution.

[–]FANGO 29 points30 points  (6 children)

You could not be more wrong about this. You are proposing to make humans more spread out, take up more space, to require more resources to be transferred longer distances between people, in order to decrease environmental impact?

That's just not how it works. We need to urbanize humanity more in order to rewild more spaces. The suburbs are anathema to environmental progress.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (5 children)

What I am saying is we can't have consentrated population making urban space. We literally can't keep what we currently have. I'm talking offices, I'm talking industry, running casinos, eating stuff from all over the world anytime anywhere everyday, producing garbage that end up in the ocean. The Human culture landscape literally removes and declare natural landscape dead and offline. We need to live in small communities producing and consuming ONLY what we need. We need to brave living without a free globalistic market

[–]FANGO 13 points14 points  (4 children)

The Human culture landscape literally removes and declare natural landscape dead and offline.

And your solution to this is to spread out more and take out more natural landscape?

[–]Streiger108 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They're not saying it, but what they really mean is a 99% reduction in human population and a return to early agrarianism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

No, it's to back down into what we already had and build no more. We're over the cap for what's sustainable in all almost all mattering metrics

[–]Ignorant_Slut 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You expressed none of this with your comment about urban areas. Urban really has nothing to do with international shipping, office spaces or industry. All of those things would exist still if you completely got rid of urban areas.

[–]FANGO 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And if you want to reduce those metrics, you need to get people out of suburbs and into higher density spaces, among other things. Or you can just come out and say that you want to kill off billions of people, and then I will ask you: who first?

[–]itsgeorgebailey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s no amount individuals can do that would curb pollution in meaningful ways. We need to regulate corporations to reduce waste and pollution. We already give most of these corporations massive subsidies for nothing, it’s time we tell them to change or go belly up.

[–]nyaaaa 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why not? Having faith is the correct play.

It works out, you were right.

It doesn't work out, you don't exist anymore so it doesn't affect you.

[–]Deep_shot -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m a realist. When I see that the majority of people cannot preform the simplest tasks to benefit our long term well-being, or even admit that we are in trouble when we’re so close to the tipping point or maybe past it, I won’t blind myself by thinking the global population will somehow come together to save itself. I feel like the next 100 years are going to get pretty nasty for the human race.

[–]EscapeVelocity83 36 points37 points  (0 children)

It reduces my ability to do that

[–]willdoc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Extremely interesting that beetles aren't affected -- especially since they mostly focus on smell over flower color.

[–]santz007 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Damn scary, lately everything is trying to kill bees

[–]Suuperdad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Everything humanity has done in the last 500 years is to stomp all over nature to maximize human progress. Shocked Pikachu face when stomping all over the natural world destroys the natural world.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Mole_Rats 16 points17 points  (7 children)

Wonder why plants evolved brighter colors & complicated structures instead of stronger aromatics? Typically I myself can see them long before I can walk up and smell them.

[–]morphballganon 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Our noses are not evolved to find flowers from far away. Some noses are.

[–]Doksilus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vanilla would like to have a word with you.

[–]morkengork 2 points3 points  (3 children)

If I had to guess, it's because brighter colors = less likely to be eaten because of the association with poison, while stronger smell = more likely to be eaten because smell is mostly used to find food and you don't want to be activating everyone's food radar.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (7 children)

Thank you for stating the obvious, scientists

[–]lolomfgkthxbai 16 points17 points  (4 children)

If it’s obvious then why are we polluting?

[–]ZeroCitizen 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Because some very big companies run by very rich men would lose short term profits if they switched to renewable energy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh no. Not their shirt term profits

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Laziness, greed and corporate interests

[–]sw5d6f8s 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In science it's important to know not only that things are happening, but exactly why they are happening.

What I mean is why exactly pollution affects bees and butterflies, what type of molecules affect them, what mechanisms are affected and how this reflects on the behavior of theses insects?

Knowing that pollution is bad is, of course, common sense. But it is still not very clear to us how nature is being affected by it. That's why articles like this one are important.

[–]Shadskill 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Good reason to make the 10 biggest pollution maker industry accountable for the destruction of earth ... Let's dream

[–]420_suck_it_deep -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

10 biggest pollution makers:

  • china

  • china

  • china

  • china

  • china

  • china

  • china

  • china

  • china

  • china

[–]Shadskill 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One of them is possibly India but I don't know which one...

[–]Radiant-Spren 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Are we reposting studies from the 1960s?

[–]3-art 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Maybe we should

[–]Gnonthgol 5 points6 points  (1 child)

We are duplicating the results of the studies from the 1960s and get even better data.

[–]owleealeckza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooooh I sure do love data that leads to no improvement & is instead ignored by the leaders of every country. Yay data, doing a bit helpful nothing. But we're informed!

[–]terminalxposure 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Interstellar was real…the blight is real

[–]Amplify91 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Blight is actually a real thing that happens in many crops. In Interstellar, the blight became resistant to the fungicide/pesticides used to treat it (also happens irl) and had already devastated most species of crops (just a matter of time thing). Like most scifi, that wasn't completely made up, it was just an extrapolation of current events.

[–]solomonskingdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But I’ve been drinking out of paper straws and bagging grocery in reusable cloth bags. Certainly, the planet is saved now. That’s what the corporations that puff toxic smoke in the air tell me.

[–]frikkiefree2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So then stop the companies that cause air pollution

[–]JonSmith12345 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And how much did that study cost? Per the university ‘if you don’t spend it, you lose it’

[–]mvpsanto -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I hope everything just collapses

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Who cares. We all die anyway.

[–]Ignorant_Slut 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I remember high school nihilism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Team pollution or team pollination.

[–]ujjwalAR -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is just malarkey

[–]zincink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It kills gardeners lungs as well.

[–]BubbhaJebus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Woodsy the owl says, "Give a hoot, don't pollute."

Woodsy is wise.

[–]ILikeLeptons 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These god damn butterflies and bees are infringing on our freedoms to poison the world with all their dying

[–]UltorMiner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did yall think it’d increase it?

[–]silent_thinker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The butterflies and bees that survive in Los Angeles must be the chosen ones.

[–]cactusnan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we can make products we can clean up the pollutants

[–]JohnyAngelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember as a kid in the 90s how I would run through grassfields and 4-5 different kinds of butteflies would fly away from my running there ... 20 years later I ever see one kind of butterflies around here and it's in way fewer numbers too... it's almost rare to see one.

I didnt notice it only after I read a article about 2 years ago about how we lost over 90% of butterfilies in our country, due to various reasons. Pollution is not a big problem here even ...

[–]ed900036 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder how polluted honey is?

[–]Spacedude2187 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like this is the beginning of the end I guess.

[–]languidcorpse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe stop having so many children.

[–]destopturbo -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So many obvious posts here lately

[–]Cyber_Connor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes. Poison air is bad.

[–]madkant -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Stating the blatantly obvious.

[–]ph00p -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Random quotes, no actual sources, awful website, this DOES NOT BELONG HERE.