4 ms·

Wow. I have to say that I have never considered the case where insects needed to be saved. It seems to me that as lifeforms go, they have been the most durable

Wow. I have to say that I have never considered the case where insects needed to be saved. It seems to me that as lifeforms go, they have been the most durable form of multi-cellular life on the planet. That said, that there are negative systemic effects on the planet's ecosystems that are directly related to the massive production and use of herbicides and pesticides is not as surprising. Light though? Even after reading that article and looking through scholar.google to find papers that associate lighting with insect decline, I'm not convinced the use of lighting at night has a material impact. The ratio of unlit/lit habitat seems wildly in favor of unlit. And yes, I understand that unlit areas are often agricultural, and those areas contain the most insecticide/herbicides. It still appears to me that the root cause is the use of those products in farms and not that cities are poor replacement habitats.

fwsgonzo 6y ago
It very well could be less of a problem than roundup, but at the same time it's good for everyone I think, that we turn off the lights at night. If only to see the stars.
boudin 6y ago
Sound is also actually quite problematic. Flowers can use vibrations to detect the presence of a nearby pollinator insect and makes itself more appealing. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/flowers-sweeten-when-they-hear-bees-buzzing-180971300/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/flowers-sweeten-wh... The sound pollution might have the adverse effect of causing some plants to lose this ability to preserve energy for reproduction, indirectly impacting insects via the food chain. Currently, due to the massive use of chemicals in the countryside, cities start to be havens for insects. There is a lot of beehives in London for example (too much actually according to a beekeeper I talked with). Until we manage to massively shift the way we do agriculture it might make sense to make it as safe as possible for insects in urban areas.
tksb 6y ago
Even if the light doesn't have a quantifiable effect on insects, would it not be wise to reconsider the extended use in absolute "off-hours"?
ChuckMcM 6y ago
Just to be clear, I'm a fan of cutting down light pollution for legitimate reasons (energy conservation, astronomical observation, and wildlife protection) but I twitch at reasons that are either exaggerated or misleading. I felt that throwing in lights along with the pesticide limitations was not a well motivated argument. My experience has shown that when people are skeptical of your argument they are less likely to comply voluntarily and so the good that you hoped to do is lost and you have damaged your credibility with the people you need to support these ideas. A small example of this in action was back in 2010 when Google decided they were going to stop stocking bottled water in the fridges around campus because the "energy waste and plastic disposal problem." The only problem was that Google regularly achieved over 95% capture of recyclable trash out of their bins and the energy saved was on the order of maybe half a dozen employees not commuting from San Francisco. The real reason they wanted to do this was of course cost. They could replace bottled water with filtered dispensers and that would save them a few pennies per employee per month. I had a good conversation with some folks in charge that they could have said, "We're giving every employee an insulated water bottle in your choice of size and color (12, 20, 32, or 40 oz) that you can keep at the office and use to get water from our fancy new dispensers. This will save us money, AND its better for the environment." That would have been honest and gotten a good reception I believe with the rank and file. But dressing up the reason in a cover story that everyone easily poking holes in simply lowered morale and confidence in management.
- cvendorx 6y ago
  I'm also completely in favor of reducing lights or even banning LED light bulbs, which in my opinion are also harmful to humans. Let's raise fuel prices by 100% and go back to incandescent! But you correctly hint at the actual reason for German politics: Nothing that hurts the economy like banning pesticides or cars will be done. So a scapegoat is needed, in this case the lights.
pgeorgi 6y ago
> The ratio of unlit/lit habitat seems wildly in favor of unlit. Depends on where. Germany has a very different structure due to its population density than most parts of the US, for example, with comparably less unlit habitat. So that may be a less important issue in some places but having enough suitable space for themselves in the US doesn't help insects in Germany.

fwsgonzo 6y ago

It very well could be less of a problem than roundup, but at the same time it's good for everyone I think, that we turn off the lights at night. If only to see the stars.

boudin 6y ago

Sound is also actually quite problematic. Flowers can use vibrations to detect the presence of a nearby pollinator insect and makes itself more appealing. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/flowers-sweeten-when-they-hear-bees-buzzing-180971300/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/flowers-sweeten-wh... The sound pollution might have the adverse effect of causing some plants to lose this ability to preserve energy for reproduction, indirectly impacting insects via the food chain. Currently, due to the massive use of chemicals in the countryside, cities start to be havens for insects. There is a lot of beehives in London for example (too much actually according to a beekeeper I talked with). Until we manage to massively shift the way we do agriculture it might make sense to make it as safe as possible for insects in urban areas.

tksb 6y ago

Even if the light doesn't have a quantifiable effect on insects, would it not be wise to reconsider the extended use in absolute "off-hours"?

ChuckMcM 6y ago

Just to be clear, I'm a fan of cutting down light pollution for legitimate reasons (energy conservation, astronomical observation, and wildlife protection) but I twitch at reasons that are either exaggerated or misleading. I felt that throwing in lights along with the pesticide limitations was not a well motivated argument. My experience has shown that when people are skeptical of your argument they are less likely to comply voluntarily and so the good that you hoped to do is lost and you have damaged your credibility with the people you need to support these ideas. A small example of this in action was back in 2010 when Google decided they were going to stop stocking bottled water in the fridges around campus because the "energy waste and plastic disposal problem." The only problem was that Google regularly achieved over 95% capture of recyclable trash out of their bins and the energy saved was on the order of maybe half a dozen employees not commuting from San Francisco. The real reason they wanted to do this was of course cost. They could replace bottled water with filtered dispensers and that would save them a few pennies per employee per month. I had a good conversation with some folks in charge that they could have said, "We're giving every employee an insulated water bottle in your choice of size and color (12, 20, 32, or 40 oz) that you can keep at the office and use to get water from our fancy new dispensers. This will save us money, AND its better for the environment." That would have been honest and gotten a good reception I believe with the rank and file. But dressing up the reason in a cover story that everyone easily poking holes in simply lowered morale and confidence in management.

cvendorx 6y ago
I'm also completely in favor of reducing lights or even banning LED light bulbs, which in my opinion are also harmful to humans. Let's raise fuel prices by 100% and go back to incandescent! But you correctly hint at the actual reason for German politics: Nothing that hurts the economy like banning pesticides or cars will be done. So a scapegoat is needed, in this case the lights.

pgeorgi 6y ago

> The ratio of unlit/lit habitat seems wildly in favor of unlit. Depends on where. Germany has a very different structure due to its population density than most parts of the US, for example, with comparably less unlit habitat. So that may be a less important issue in some places but having enough suitable space for themselves in the US doesn't help insects in Germany.