That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Wow. That's unlucky. I get those all the time, I probably pull down 15-20 nests a year around my house and garage, and I've never been stung by them.....yet. Granted, I do it at night or early in the morning so they're asleep/cold and can't react, and often just use a hose to spray them down from the overhangs, but they have seemed to be far less aggressive than even my bees, and almost domesticated compared to hornets.

PS: Is it possible your hippy neighbor gets upset not because of what you're poisoning, but because you're poisoning, period? Maybe he would be happy if you just squashed them or hosed the nests down? Many people are hyper sensitive to poisons, some for medical reasons, some for philosophical or ecological reasons. I grow a lot of my own produce at home, so I would be pretty upset if my neighbor started spraying poison on the fence line, because it would get all over my crops, and most insect poisons that cause instant death are not designed to wash off or be human safe. Just a thought.

For any non-Australian viewers, the poisonous insect is our minister for border protection, who's ultimately in charge of the offshore Gulags mentioned.

I don't consider the chemical reactions of plants to be the same. I said that 'even' plants have a response to negative stimuli. Animals have instinct, a response coded into their DNA, that allows them to respond to negative stimuli. Does that make them a fully sentient being, capable of self-awareness and logical thought? No, it doesn't.

Do insects have rational thought? Do clams or lobster have rational thought? If your entire goal is to avoid (formerly) living matter that can respond to negative stimuli, then why draw the line at plants? Do you really believe that a sea urchin has more capability of self-awareness than a head of lettuce?

This is the fallacy of logic that lies at the core of vegan ideology. Vegans say "I will eat this item because it doesn't understand pain!" when there are, in fact, many life forms that do not understand pain beyond a stimulus reaction.

You can replicate it yourself. Also, killing other insects? Murderer...

I've cut down a lot of trees. I've never even heard of this. I can't even imagine how:
1) the core of a tree could be hollowed out like that without some very specific rot/infection/insect.
2) a snake would find/penetrate that in the first place.

Are trees really snakes?!

you have people living in artificial environments that use tons of power because they want to, because they like it, not because they REQUIRE it. native americans lived in southwest USA for a thousand years just fine without the need of AC or diverting rivers.

go read up on the absurd agricultural subsidies tied to the colorado river- that isnt a problem created because farmers need to produce food to feed the world, its a problem created because politicians want money making businesses to tax, and because people are willing to spend money to eat what they like instead of what there is, a lot of money is made.

same with trawling- nothing to do with feeding all those people, everything to do with money. trawling has been going on for over a hundred years, well before the world population was even a 3rd of what it is currently- fishermen trawl because they want to be efficient because that makes them more money, not because they are concerned about how they are going to feed undernourished people.

the problem isnt getting people to eat insects. the problem is getting the developed world to stop eating so much, especially so much meat. there is an obesity epidemic around the world, over 3000 tons of food are discarded every day, and you want to tell me the problem is not enough food?

and lets not be disingenuous about nuclear waste, nuclear technology was invented as a weapon, not an energy source. you're telling me that if tomorrow a terrible plague wiped out 90% of the earths population, that nuclear armed states would give up their nuclear weapons? bs.

the video is on point. the environmental crisis is caused by greed, not because there are too many people on the planet. and if you feel so strongly that there are too many people on the planet, I assume you are relieved when your family members die? Unless you are willing to volunteer yourself and your family to die for the greater good, overpopulation is a facile bogey man to mask what you really want to say- lets get rid of all those "other" people so *I* dont have to change my own lifestyle.

By far my favorite insect! Am waiting for them to emerge for the summer here. *quality design

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

It makes sense that we would process plants somewhat better than meat, as meat in a survival situation is hard to come by compared to vegetation. However, it cannot be denied that we evolved as omnivores and still are such barring a personal choice.

A plant based diet may be more healthy for you, I don't care to argue the science of it. I would note that science, at least in regards to our diets, continually changes. I went through multiple phases of science saying that a certain substance (alcohol, chocolate, eggs, butter, etc) was bad, only to reverse the decision as time went on and further studies were done. I don't say that as an excuse or to deny which diet is best, simply that we have a long way to go in determining what is best for one of us versus another.

My complaint about vegans is that they usually slam anyone who doesn't choose to be vegan over their choices. I've had many vegetarian/vegan/pescatarian friends tell me that the food I choose to eat is sentient. Where do we draw the line on sentience, I usually ask them? For a vegan that seems to mean on any non-plant product, even honey. A vegetarian might choose to drink milk or eat cheese, since nothing is being killed. A pescatarian obviously thinks fish are the cutoff for sentience. But if we are going to cut to the nitty gritty, insects that most any scientist would agree have no idea of what is going on other than an instinct to perform a set series of actions are consumed in mass quantities for their protein. Worms, insects, crabs and lobsters don't even have the pain transmitting chemicals that allow a creature to feel pain. Of course, they do react to stimuli, but so do plants.

Basically we all individually make a determination as to what we consider to be truly sentient and able to understand the far reaching concepts of death and pain. Some people draw the line at plants, others at lower level life forms, but in the end it all comes down to what you believe.

You know we're talking about insects here, right?

Their IT people aren't up to date.

There are a number of other techniques for suppression or elimination of particlular pest species around the world. Check out the Sterile Insect Technique being used against the screwworm fly which has already 100% eliminated that particular nasty from the US and Mexico. There is also the Daughterless Carp Project in Australia aimed at eliminating an invasive carp species from the Darling River system. It involves releasing genetically modified male carp that are incapable of producing female offspring. Unlike 20 or 30 years ago I think the possible consequences of these various techniques are now being considered.

I used to become physically ill because my wife likes watching these for some reason, and I'd pass through the room, look, and become nauseous.

I think it was the idea that the puss oozing out of these holes is reminiscent of insects. Once I reminded myself that it wasn't a worm being unburrowed, it got easier.

It's still not my go-to for entertainment, but it's tolerable now. It's also admirable that this Dr. realizes the stigma associated with conditions like this and is helping to change that & help people to take care of their skin free of charge.

It's insane that this was one of the original suspects in Colony Collapse Disorder, and only now, 10+ years into the decimation of bees (and many other insects) can the EPA admit it's a problem....yet they won't likely make ANY changes until the end of the year, ensuring another year of CCD for the bee industry as well as all other native insects that are effected.

Always a week late and $99 short seems to be the motto of our species these days. More and more I tend to think we aren't worth saving and that the collapse of the eco system is a strong, scorched earth type of chemo therapy the biosphere needs to remove the cancer that is man. It's delicious irony that we'll do it to ourselves, but unforgiveable that we'll also probably take 99% of life with us.
Where's a plague when we need one?

@eoe, I have a question for you.
What do you do about insects like ants in your home, or on your body? Do you kill them, or live and let live?
If you kill them, poison them, or toss them outside in the freezing weather, you can stop pretending you care about all animals and realize you only care about the one's you think are worth caring about, and only to the level you think is proper....just like all those meat eaters.
If you live and let live, good for you for living your convictions, but stay away from me with your bugs. ;-)