4 ms·
Yup. And worse yet, they are likely to start to do so with interventions that are broadly-effective across many species, not only a specific target. IFF there
by toss1 1y ago
Yup.
And worse yet, they are likely to start to do so with interventions that are broadly-effective across many species, not only a specific target.
IFF there is a way to specifically target, e.g., their first example, the corn rootworm, and extend diapause so the eggs hatch in winter, it would be an effective control and eradication method of a pest that explodes in population only in response to human farming.
However, if it has the same effect on a broad range of insects, the result will be not only fewer insects, it will be a lot of dead birds, who will lack a primary food source and a lot of fruitless crops which will go unpollinated.
And this is on top of the 70%-80% insect population loss we've already seen.
So, IFF it can be targeted with high specificity, and allow us to stop using broad-spectrum insecticides that kill everything including beneficial insects, it might be an advance. Otherwise, it's just more death from the skies for the ecosystem that supports every one of us.
- tomaskafka 1y ago… and tens of millions of Chinese will have died of hunger for nothing, in Mao’s war on four pests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
- toss1 1y agoyup, and I'm pretty sure they already died for nothing anyway —— or died for at most a few bad ideas and an authoritarian government's hubris (looking at our CDC it seems the administration is going to force the US to (re-)learn a parallel lesson)