
Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature' - robin_reala
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature
======
gdubs
We have to change how we grow food. Endless monocrops of corn and soy – much
of it grown for animals in industrial feedlots – totally void of biodiversity.
Without competition, well-adapted bugs can wipe out entire crops. Hence, the
ever-escalating war of farmer vs bugs, fields drenched in pesticides.

There are alternatives: Agroforestry, silvopasture, permaculture. Diverse
agricultural systems that lean on natural processes. It would mean a diet of
more plants, less animals. But frankly, meat is far too cheap. None of the
externalities are priced in.

I stopped eating meat years ago, but still eat fish on occasion. I would
rather pay $100 for sushi, than live in a world with no fish.

~~~
Smithalicious
For the vast majority of people, living in a world without fish and sushi
costing $100 are functionally equivalent.

~~~
deogeo
No, not eating fish, and sushi costing $100, are functionally equivalent for
them. The _worlds_ are vastly different.

------
canada_dry
It's not hard to imagine tobacco like lawsuits in the next decade or so that
may well uncover how the likes of monsanto/bayer et al knew and hid that their
products were killing too broadly, but that it was too costly to care.

~~~
dorchadas
I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised...And I hope it destroys them.

------
MRD85
What stood out to me in this article is that the biomass of insects is
decreasing by 2.5% per year. Exponential decay adds up quickly and we can see
significant losses over relatively small time frames. We're looking at the
loss of around 22% of insect biomass in 10 years

------
beerlord
The planet is going to be soon full of 9 billion humans, many desperately
hungry and thirsty.

Africa and West Asia is the sole source of this increase. We need an urgent
program to strip away food aid and replace it completely with education for
women, family planning, and incentives for sterilisation and not having any or
only one child.

Additionally the West needs to disallow all immigration and refugee settlement
from poor countries. We should not provide a pressure release valve for
overpopulation, nor harvest the few human resources that would otherwise help
develop and modernise these countries.

I would rather have millions of insect, plant and animal species still alive
than billions of excess humans clinging to life via destructive subsistence
agriculture.

~~~
7952
As child mortality drops, so do birth rates. The effect just lags a bit as
people change their behaviour. Healthy secure people will have less babies,
because they don't _need_ to have so many.

Letting a small number of people die of hunger is not going to change that
equation. In fact it may have the opposite effect.

And food aid is a small minority of all aid. Long term programs to build local
capability are already the vast majority of money spent.

~~~
beerlord
If this was the case then populations wouldn't be expanding - too many people
would be dying before reaching reproductive age.

Its simpler than that. Women in many parts of the world have no agency, and no
access to contraception. Change those two things (this should be the REAL
battle of feminists) and you will go a long way to solving overpopulation.

------
EGreg
How can we figure out what it is?

Cellphone signals?

Pesticides?

Something we haven’t considered?

[https://inhabitat.com/its-official-cell-phones-are-
killing-b...](https://inhabitat.com/its-official-cell-phones-are-killing-
bees/)

[https://en.reset.org/blog/are-mobile-phones-killing-honey-
be...](https://en.reset.org/blog/are-mobile-phones-killing-honey-
bees-03272017)

[http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/01/why-are-bees-dying-
your-...](http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/01/why-are-bees-dying-your-cell-
phone-may-hold-a-clue/)

~~~
T-A
The review in question says it's mainly habitat loss caused by conversion to
intensive agriculture [1].

[1]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00063...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636)

------
skookumchuck
One thing might be to mandate pesticides that degrade fairly quickly after
use, so they don't run off the fields into waterways, etc.

Also simply ban the worst of them, like DDT.

