3 ms·
The Insect Apocalypse That Never Was
- m0llusk 5y agoThis appears to assert that there is no great die off of insects because there are still ecologically diverse places on the planet. That ignores the dramatic spread of agriculture across almost all arable land, much of that land having been created from former wetlands, where insect diversity almost inevitably crashes. Then there is the ongoing usage and build up of pesticides. Arguing about whether ecological damage is merely widespread or a genuine global collapse seems kind of silly.
- Arnt 5y agoIndeed. They don't even argue that the factors that led to decline in the observed locations are peculiar to those locations (and therefore won't lead to later/slower decline elsewhere). Rereading, they don't even advance any theories that such geographically limited factors might exist, they just take them for granted.
- teorema 5y agoCall me skeptical too. The essay concludes by highlighting a meta-analysis the author considers comprehensive, and the best that can be said is that insect population decline isn't as bad as was previously reported, only a "3 to 6 fold decline". Pyrrhic rhetorical victory it seems. Also the author makes a big point of variability in declines across species, as if it's ok to wipe out some classes of insects if others increase. The message I got is that insects like butterflies are vanishing, but crop pests like locusts are increasing. Am I supposed to be reassured by these types of arguments? I appreciate good skepticism for the sake of rigorous thinking but this essay maybe had the opposite of its intended effect on me.