5 ms·

I doubt it has much to do with homeowners and lawn care. If anything, it has to do with the thousands of square miles of cropland that gets sprayed for insects

I doubt it has much to do with homeowners and lawn care. If anything, it has to do with the thousands of square miles of cropland that gets sprayed for insects each year. Then again, you get outside any of the cities and the windshield gets bug splattered as always. Trillions upon trillions of insects versus humanity? I'd bet on the insects.

AlexandrB 9y ago
> Trillions upon trillions of insects versus humanity? I'd bet on the insects. Yup, we'll just be left with the insects that can adapt quickly - cockroaches, aphids, ants - and not the insects we need/want - bees, butterflies, etc.
- jackhack 9y ago
  And if the bees continue their die-off, they'll take a majority of the mammals and insects with them, because as much as 80% of plants are pollinated by these creatures. Goodbye food chain. As if that's not enough, imagine global warming if even a 50% decline in CO2 converting plantlife were to happen.
- appleiigs 9y ago
  Cockroaches, aphids, ants are still insects we need and want. Having the distinction between good and bad insects is part of the problem. Similar problem with the distinction with good plants (grass) and bad plants (weeds). More diversity is healthier.
jostmey 9y ago
This belief that nature has control over the planet is sadly mistaken. If humanity wanted to, it could nuke the planet eliminating all insect life. Humanity has invented things far beyond the reach of nature and far beyond what nature can cope with.
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  I think even with nuclear weapons we'd have a hard time eliminating ALL the microfauna out there. Of course the recovery time would be measured in hundreds of millions of years at that point.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  I suggest you take a look on what a big asteroid impact can do. (You can start on the one 65M years ago, it is a good example.) We are on the path, but we still didn't create something that Nature couldn't outdo. And then there are those interstellar (e.g. supernovas) and pan-galactic (e.g. gamma ray bursts) killers...
- arethuza 9y ago
  "it could nuke the planet eliminating all insect life" We'd have to spend a while building a supply of big cobalt-salted bombs because the nuclear arsenals we've actually had have come nowhere near to the level required to wipe out all people let alone all insects.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    This is just entirely untrue. We have plenty of nuclear warheads, enough to nuke the thousand most populated cities several times over. All humanity would be dead or dying. those not killed immediately have to deal with fallout and new weather patterns caused by huge amounts of dust blocking the sky. It is conceivable a few might live, but it is also entirely possible the survivors would be too irradiated to sustain a breeding populations. Vast plant populations would die off, only those not directly blasted and able to survive a few years of artificial global winter survive. This presumes the dust is also non-reflective, because if it lowers the Earth's albedo enough it could trigger an ice age. If that happens then pretty much no individuals survive the triple threat of nuclear blasting, perpetual winter and loss of vegetation, unless they have some uncommon radiation resistance and incredibly low nutrition requirements. In this last paragraph was I talking about humans or insects? Doesn't matter; the cost of nuclear war is too high for us to talk about it lightly, because it is an awesome power that can destroy us if used lightly.

AlexandrB 9y ago

> Trillions upon trillions of insects versus humanity? I'd bet on the insects. Yup, we'll just be left with the insects that can adapt quickly - cockroaches, aphids, ants - and not the insects we need/want - bees, butterflies, etc.

jackhack 9y ago
And if the bees continue their die-off, they'll take a majority of the mammals and insects with them, because as much as 80% of plants are pollinated by these creatures. Goodbye food chain. As if that's not enough, imagine global warming if even a 50% decline in CO2 converting plantlife were to happen.
appleiigs 9y ago
Cockroaches, aphids, ants are still insects we need and want. Having the distinction between good and bad insects is part of the problem. Similar problem with the distinction with good plants (grass) and bad plants (weeds). More diversity is healthier.

jostmey 9y ago

This belief that nature has control over the planet is sadly mistaken. If humanity wanted to, it could nuke the planet eliminating all insect life. Humanity has invented things far beyond the reach of nature and far beyond what nature can cope with.

AlexandrB 9y ago
I think even with nuclear weapons we'd have a hard time eliminating ALL the microfauna out there. Of course the recovery time would be measured in hundreds of millions of years at that point.
marcosdumay 9y ago
I suggest you take a look on what a big asteroid impact can do. (You can start on the one 65M years ago, it is a good example.) We are on the path, but we still didn't create something that Nature couldn't outdo. And then there are those interstellar (e.g. supernovas) and pan-galactic (e.g. gamma ray bursts) killers...
arethuza 9y ago
"it could nuke the planet eliminating all insect life" We'd have to spend a while building a supply of big cobalt-salted bombs because the nuclear arsenals we've actually had have come nowhere near to the level required to wipe out all people let alone all insects.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  This is just entirely untrue. We have plenty of nuclear warheads, enough to nuke the thousand most populated cities several times over. All humanity would be dead or dying. those not killed immediately have to deal with fallout and new weather patterns caused by huge amounts of dust blocking the sky. It is conceivable a few might live, but it is also entirely possible the survivors would be too irradiated to sustain a breeding populations. Vast plant populations would die off, only those not directly blasted and able to survive a few years of artificial global winter survive. This presumes the dust is also non-reflective, because if it lowers the Earth's albedo enough it could trigger an ice age. If that happens then pretty much no individuals survive the triple threat of nuclear blasting, perpetual winter and loss of vegetation, unless they have some uncommon radiation resistance and incredibly low nutrition requirements. In this last paragraph was I talking about humans or insects? Doesn't matter; the cost of nuclear war is too high for us to talk about it lightly, because it is an awesome power that can destroy us if used lightly.