7 ms·

Anyone with eyeballs can tell there are far far far far far fewer insects than there were thirty years ago. This isn't a fuddable topic.

rootusrootus 5y ago
I'd prefer actual science, human memory is extremely unreliable and often tends to be self-serving.
- Dumblydorr 5y ago
  When does preference for "actual science" become satisfied, given we on HN skeptically pick apart all presented evidence of anything? The above is in Nature for goodness sakes, is that too weak of a journal? If so I'm weaker than a weak scientist who publishes there. I'd say entomologists should judge what is actually good science, the rest of us? We do have valid if flawed memories of more insects previously. Combined with the invasive species, widespread pesticide use, and all this evidence, I don't think it's wise to slow-walk our response to such a pivotal biological foundation's crisis. We slow walked cigarettes, millions died. We slow walked climate, and we're on a path of worst outcomes. Shall insects be another failure of humans to respond? When do the skeptical technicians lay down their doubtful instincts and push for change?
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    "Anyone with eyeballs" is clearly below the threshold.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      Not in this case. I really don't know how anyone can deny the massive cuts in insect numbers. Even if you missed the news about bees dying, even if you don't follow the science showing unprecedented and extremely alarming drops in biomass and species counts, even if you haven't noticed the loss of fireflies and mantises and crickets, even if you haven't noticed the extreme drop-off in bugs on windscreens - how the fuck do you ignore everyone else talking about these things?
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    I think this is interesting because it's such a common issue on this board. You can tell when people are requesting evidence to shut down a discussion vs. to broaden a discussion by the way they reply - if they bring in their own counter evidence and address the points being raised they're probably engaging in good faith and using evidence to find nuance.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    I think it's OK to say "hey we need to really think about our usage of pesticides" and less ok to say "anyone with eyeballs can tell". I don't recall there being more/ less insects at any given point in my life, I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. I'm completely willing to believe that insecticide use is bad and that there are less insects, fwiw.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      > I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. ... My jaw drops. Try not to be too offended, but, do you go outside? Do you have eyes and ears, to see the extreme drop-off in bees, moths, fireflies, crickets, mantises? Do you really have no experience with other people talking about this stuff? I can't think of anywhere on the planet where these issues could have passed you by.
      - esyir 5y ago
        I'm in one of the heaviest pesticide laden areas of the world. I haven't noticed any notable drop.
      - staticassertion 5y ago
        I've lived in numerous parts of the US, hiked and camped, and traveled across Europe. I don't think insects have ever come up as a conversation of topic. I'm not really offended at all because, again, I don't find this whole type of argument to be compelling or valid. You're also entirely off base in your implication that I don't go outside (this last year is obviously exceptional). It's interesting that this seems to come up for you quite a lot, but I don't find it compelling in terms of evidence, which is what I stated earlier. Again, I'm entirely willing to believe (and would even naively assume) that pesticides and human behavior have negatively impacted insect populations, even greatly so. But "open your eyes" and "do you go outside?" are not helping anyone.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        > ... My jaw drops Apparently anecdotal evidence is only valid when it agrees with you. You see the problem now with the "open your eyeballs" approach to science?
- ruined 5y ago
  we're soaked. rain was in the forecast. i say it's really coming down out here, you tell me to wait for the inches measured at seatac
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    If you want to make policy based on the rain, yeah, I'd prefer to wait for it. Otherwise your 'really coming down out here' might be my 'light drizzle.' Especially if you've ever lived in the midwest.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  Okay, go nuts: More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I've read it. There has been a huge backlash over that paper, from actual scientists critical of the methodology and conclusions. They make a compelling case that this one particular study should be taken with a grain of salt.
    - ABCLAW 5y ago
      All of the backlash I've seen over the paper has to do with the precision and effect sizes measured - I haven't seen an argument, let alone a credible argument, that the effect itself is not real. Follow-up research has confirmed that the effect is real and significant: Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1684-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1684-3 The follow-up indicates that the effect sizes are greatest for agricultural areas.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  This is hilarious. "Actual science", presumably meaning, "peer reviewed paper". Science is not some elitist endeavor. It is available to all of us, to observe the world around us and form hypotheses and discuss them and test them, if we're motivated and it's possible. This attitude is so, so bizarre. You won't believe the changes in the world around you, easily observed, are even happening unless there's "Science The Meme" being done about it. This short youtube video succinctly explains the problem with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEhPFIlH3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEhPFIlH3U
  - esyir 5y ago
    When people say this, my main gripe is that it's used to legitimise anecdote, rather than well structured citizen science. The key thing that separates well constructed datasets from shoddy anecdote is a keen eye for potential confounders and proper data metrics and collection protocols.
zhynn 5y ago
Another datapoint is dead-bugs-on-windshield. It's so many fewer than there used to be.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  There are confounding factors for this observation. Many insects move very little (like dozens or hundreds of yards) over the course of their lives and increased salt usage has increased the number of roads with seriously disturbed ecosystems along side them and width of said disturbed areas. I'm not saying pesticides aren't the cause or aren't part of the cause but roads have all sorts of other terrible stuff that can decimate insect populations going on. The sooner we switch to beet juice the better.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Another confounding factor is requirements for increasing gas mileage. One way to do that is reduce wind resistance, which could mean a more sloped windshield with less turbulent airflow. Insects could just be diverted more effectively now without striking the windshield.
    - drran 5y ago
      Old cars are still on the road. Even very old ones.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - handrous 5y ago
        Owned a sleek and sporty (styled, anyway) '98 sedan, around the turn of the millennium. Just as with my parents' cars in the 80s and 90s, the windshield got splattered all the time. Had to clean it on road trips. Owned a far less-sleek '01 minivan... from like 2015 on, not when it was new. Near-zero "ew" bug impacts, even on road trips. I'm not sure I ever cleaned the windshield at a gas pump, which used to be routine.
refurb 5y ago
That’s not how science works.

rootusrootus 5y ago

I'd prefer actual science, human memory is extremely unreliable and often tends to be self-serving.

Dumblydorr 5y ago
When does preference for "actual science" become satisfied, given we on HN skeptically pick apart all presented evidence of anything? The above is in Nature for goodness sakes, is that too weak of a journal? If so I'm weaker than a weak scientist who publishes there. I'd say entomologists should judge what is actually good science, the rest of us? We do have valid if flawed memories of more insects previously. Combined with the invasive species, widespread pesticide use, and all this evidence, I don't think it's wise to slow-walk our response to such a pivotal biological foundation's crisis. We slow walked cigarettes, millions died. We slow walked climate, and we're on a path of worst outcomes. Shall insects be another failure of humans to respond? When do the skeptical technicians lay down their doubtful instincts and push for change?
- pfdietz 5y ago
  "Anyone with eyeballs" is clearly below the threshold.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Not in this case. I really don't know how anyone can deny the massive cuts in insect numbers. Even if you missed the news about bees dying, even if you don't follow the science showing unprecedented and extremely alarming drops in biomass and species counts, even if you haven't noticed the loss of fireflies and mantises and crickets, even if you haven't noticed the extreme drop-off in bugs on windscreens - how the fuck do you ignore everyone else talking about these things?
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  I think this is interesting because it's such a common issue on this board. You can tell when people are requesting evidence to shut down a discussion vs. to broaden a discussion by the way they reply - if they bring in their own counter evidence and address the points being raised they're probably engaging in good faith and using evidence to find nuance.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- staticassertion 5y ago
  I think it's OK to say "hey we need to really think about our usage of pesticides" and less ok to say "anyone with eyeballs can tell". I don't recall there being more/ less insects at any given point in my life, I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. I'm completely willing to believe that insecticide use is bad and that there are less insects, fwiw.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    > I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. ... My jaw drops. Try not to be too offended, but, do you go outside? Do you have eyes and ears, to see the extreme drop-off in bees, moths, fireflies, crickets, mantises? Do you really have no experience with other people talking about this stuff? I can't think of anywhere on the planet where these issues could have passed you by.
    - esyir 5y ago
      I'm in one of the heaviest pesticide laden areas of the world. I haven't noticed any notable drop.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      I've lived in numerous parts of the US, hiked and camped, and traveled across Europe. I don't think insects have ever come up as a conversation of topic. I'm not really offended at all because, again, I don't find this whole type of argument to be compelling or valid. You're also entirely off base in your implication that I don't go outside (this last year is obviously exceptional). It's interesting that this seems to come up for you quite a lot, but I don't find it compelling in terms of evidence, which is what I stated earlier. Again, I'm entirely willing to believe (and would even naively assume) that pesticides and human behavior have negatively impacted insect populations, even greatly so. But "open your eyes" and "do you go outside?" are not helping anyone.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      > ... My jaw drops Apparently anecdotal evidence is only valid when it agrees with you. You see the problem now with the "open your eyeballs" approach to science?
ruined 5y ago
we're soaked. rain was in the forecast. i say it's really coming down out here, you tell me to wait for the inches measured at seatac
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  If you want to make policy based on the rain, yeah, I'd prefer to wait for it. Otherwise your 'really coming down out here' might be my 'light drizzle.' Especially if you've ever lived in the midwest.
ABCLAW 5y ago
Okay, go nuts: More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I've read it. There has been a huge backlash over that paper, from actual scientists critical of the methodology and conclusions. They make a compelling case that this one particular study should be taken with a grain of salt.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    All of the backlash I've seen over the paper has to do with the precision and effect sizes measured - I haven't seen an argument, let alone a credible argument, that the effect itself is not real. Follow-up research has confirmed that the effect is real and significant: Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1684-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1684-3 The follow-up indicates that the effect sizes are greatest for agricultural areas.
sjwalter 5y ago
This is hilarious. "Actual science", presumably meaning, "peer reviewed paper". Science is not some elitist endeavor. It is available to all of us, to observe the world around us and form hypotheses and discuss them and test them, if we're motivated and it's possible. This attitude is so, so bizarre. You won't believe the changes in the world around you, easily observed, are even happening unless there's "Science The Meme" being done about it. This short youtube video succinctly explains the problem with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEhPFIlH3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEhPFIlH3U
- esyir 5y ago
  When people say this, my main gripe is that it's used to legitimise anecdote, rather than well structured citizen science. The key thing that separates well constructed datasets from shoddy anecdote is a keen eye for potential confounders and proper data metrics and collection protocols.

zhynn 5y ago

Another datapoint is dead-bugs-on-windshield. It's so many fewer than there used to be.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
There are confounding factors for this observation. Many insects move very little (like dozens or hundreds of yards) over the course of their lives and increased salt usage has increased the number of roads with seriously disturbed ecosystems along side them and width of said disturbed areas. I'm not saying pesticides aren't the cause or aren't part of the cause but roads have all sorts of other terrible stuff that can decimate insect populations going on. The sooner we switch to beet juice the better.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Another confounding factor is requirements for increasing gas mileage. One way to do that is reduce wind resistance, which could mean a more sloped windshield with less turbulent airflow. Insects could just be diverted more effectively now without striking the windshield.
  - drran 5y ago
    Old cars are still on the road. Even very old ones.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - handrous 5y ago
      Owned a sleek and sporty (styled, anyway) '98 sedan, around the turn of the millennium. Just as with my parents' cars in the 80s and 90s, the windshield got splattered all the time. Had to clean it on road trips. Owned a far less-sleek '01 minivan... from like 2015 on, not when it was new. Near-zero "ew" bug impacts, even on road trips. I'm not sure I ever cleaned the windshield at a gas pump, which used to be routine.

refurb 5y ago

That’s not how science works.