> The logic here seems to be "insect populations are dropping so let's forbid some things that are killing insects". And the counterargument is - let's keep ki

> The logic here seems to be "insect populations are dropping so let's forbid some things that are killing insects". And the counterargument is - let's keep killing them anyway? Why is that more logical? It's the same logic as - fly/drive/heat less, to reduce carbon release; eat less meat to reduce land usage and methane release; etc. It seems to me that maybe the primary reason we're doing so much damage to our planet is a combination of a) for most people, personal convenience > planetary health, and b) as you say: "I have an extremely hard time believing average citizens are having such a huge effect" The latter is especially pernicious - we are so successful as a species because, working together, we can achieve tremendous changes that aren't possible alone. But that potential for collective action can also have severely negative effects as well. Even a mountain can be leveled eventually if you keep chipping away at it. As an example of collective action, take a trip to Borneo and drive the 100km route from Tawau to Semporna - palm plantations literally as far as the eye can see in every direction, the whole route; it used to be rain forest. Individuals working together (whether deliberately or unknowingly) have a lot more power than they think. Am I making sense? I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp about all this.