
'Insect apocalypse' more complicated than thought - pseudolus
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52399373
======
erpellan
Meanwhile the pesticide manufacturers are following the cigarette company
playbook and busily funding bullshit research and top notch PR to deflect
blame. This is what happens. We blanket our fields and their surroundings with
chemicals specifically designed to highly efficiently kill insects and are
surprised when insects die in droves. But sure, blame people living in cities.

~~~
mikorym
But keep in mind that pesticides (in the correct quantities) are crucial for
high yields, whereas I am not sure whether tobacco is crucial for anything.

~~~
amelius
I think we would survive on 50% of the yield.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Maybe "in general", but they don't have that big a margin everywhere.
Remember, food shortages is more of a logistics problem than a farming
problem.

~~~
ashtonkem
Famine and other large scale hunger are often more political than logistical.
The capability to feed everyone exists, the will to do it does not.

Or, in more tragic cases, the will to make _certain_ some people can’t eat
occasionally exists at the highest levels.

------
dao-
> The scientists say there is no smoking gun on insect declines but they find
> the destruction of natural habitats due to urbanisation, to be key.

Urbanization, i.e. people moving to larger cities? This doesn't seem to make
sense and is inconsistent with every other report I read on this topic
pointing out habitat loss and pollution from farming. I guess modern intensive
farming methods correlate with small farmers moving away in favor of big
industrial farmers, but concluding that urbanization kills natural habitats
seems like a gross misrepresentation. Industrial farming can and should be
reformed to weigh less heavily on nature without reversing urbanization.

~~~
fvdessen
I think part of it is also the upper middle class moving out of larger cities,
and buying a house with a big garden in the countryside, and then turning the
garden into a sterile architectural monument.

~~~
hutzlibu
What I increasingly observe in europe, is the opposite: diverse gardens with
different flowers, bushes and trees.

The sterile garden type still exists, but has gotten very uncommon. And I have
seen lots of europe in the last years. So it is really cheap, to target garden
owning people, when you have large areas with monoculture and insect poison
everywhere.

~~~
11235813213455
There are both kinds, some are obsessed with over-pruning/mutilating trees and
mowing the garden like a golf green (another heresy), some let the nature
develop. For example, France has many extended private areas, with forests

~~~
hutzlibu
Btw. insects love deadwood. But yeah, most gardeners do not .. which is
alright with me to remove, if it is a hazard in a tree, but deadwood lying in
a bush could be tolerable.

------
MrJagil
Insect hotels are becoming quite the thing here in Denmark, to the point that
my local grocery store carries smaller versions. I think it's a very sweet and
compassionate idea that kids can learn from and have fun with:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_hotel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_hotel)

------
fiblye
This article says freshwater insects are increasing, but doesn't really
specify which ones aside from mayflies. I'm assuming one of them, if not the
main group, is mosquitoes.

------
11235813213455
I've seen insects coming back on my shirt while cycling since a few weeks,
thanks to lockdown, and an amazing blossoming along roads, where it's usually
dead-polluted.

We need periodical lockdowns. The activity, traffic and pollution is way too
intense in cities otherwise, not just for insects.

We need to rethink air-traffic too (mainly as individual choices, because I
don't see politics going against it), as someone living near an international
airport, it's a massive change currently. Almost all if not all flights are
unnecessary

------
fit2rule
I am fortunate enough to live in an area where insects are still pretty
common.

Every summer and spring we are visited in our garden house by bees and wasps
and butterflies, praying mantis and hovering moths - all variety of other
things, beetles and bugs galore. Our kids have learned to keep bees safe and
how to safely shepherd a wasp out the window. We delight in the butterflies
visiting our noses, and even in the last week witnessed our pear and cherry
trees turn from flower to fruit bud with a little help from our friends.

Then there was a time I witnessed a mantis defending my outdoor shoe from my
foot, only to discover its egg sac deeply embedded in the shoes depths, which
I of course left alone until a thousand critters made their way into our
garden.

It's hard to imagine there are places in the world were such delights are not
so easily experienced.

I believe the modern world has done us all a disservice by breeding squeamish
generations incapable of holding such critters in their hand, in wonder.

If you're a parent, teach yer kids to love bugs - with respect of course, we
have not much use for ticks - and encourage experiments which show the world
of insects and their life cycles to future generations.

------
raarts
Seems wind turbines contribute significantly to this. Germany also happens to
be one of the most active countries in investing in them.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/26...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/26/why-
wind-turbines-threaten-endangered-species-with-extinction/)

------
29athrowaway
Every 61 years, world population doubles.

That rate will slow down but population will still keep increasing.

More humans = more habitat loss for other species.

~~~
sgt101
I don't think that this is going to be true. I think it is pretty clear that
population is going to fall from mid century on. It may fall very fast at the
tail end of this century the current crop of young adults die. It looks like
real fertility rates (the actual incidence of people having babies has fallen
and continues to fall).

~~~
drclau
Can you provide some data to support this? I’m genuinely interested.

~~~
rb808
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate)

Still many countries are >2 but they're falling rapidly too. Its surprising to
me to see Bangladesh at 2.1 and India at 2.2.

Places like S Korea 1.1, Italy 1.3, Japan 1.4 you can do the math yourself.
(1.3/2)^N means without immigration their populations nearly disappear in 100
years.

Russia 1.6, China 1.6, Thailand 1.5 takes maybe 12 generations to do the same.

~~~
nfc
I think if what we are discussing is population growth we should talk about
the global data not that of individual countries. Whether some countries
population is increasing or not is a different question.

I looked at this source [https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-
rate](https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate) which seems to imply that
globally the number of children per woman is 2.5 so still much higher than the
replacement rate (of course we'd have to talk about more than fertility rate
to have a real discussion).

As far as I understand the projections about population stabilization are
based on predictions of a reduction of children per woman in countries where
this is still very high. It's possible that these predictions are right but
they are just that, predictions.

As an aside, I think we should dedicate a bit more effort to try to understand
the implications of both possibilities and a bit less to try to assert as
certain what is just a prediction.

This is not obviously not only a reply to the parent's point, I just found
myself writing a longer reply than expected ;)

~~~
mrkstu
Except it has consistently been reducing everywhere- its just that some
continents started much higher and will take longer to get down to ~2 or
below.

~~~
nfc
I'm not saying it will not happen, there are certainly clues pointing out in
that direction so no need for "except" :). On the other hand there are
scenarios compatible with the data you are mentioning that do not lead to
population stabilization.

For example. Let's say that while the majority of the population (Population
A) is reducing its fertility rate a subpopulation (Population B) keeps it at a
higher rate. Let's suppose that both populations maintain this behavior for
several generations. In this case we would see an initial reduction in
fertility rate not leading to a stabilization of the population

Will this happen?, I don't know. What I'm saying is that I feel in these
discussions often people place too much faith on their preferred
extrapolations ;)

