Can someone make the connection for me between mass insect die-off and civilizational collapse? Whenever I see this implied there’s research cited about why we should believe insects really are in trouble, but the rest of it is always handwaved. I looked it up and it seems like a large portion of crops do not actually require insect pollination. So wouldn’t that mean we would survive, albeit somewhat worse off, even if much of the ecosystem does not? Am I missing something here?
Every species is a food, resource, predator, or competitor for resources for another species, so a decline of one species can have ripple effects on many other species. I guess one example is that parasitic wasps keep caterpillars and aphid populations in check (caterpillars and aphids can cause huge crop losses).
I get that there are ripple effects, and that some of them might be unexpected, but I don’t see how it could translate into an apocalyptic scenario for human agriculture. If there was somehow an increase in the population of pest species, why wouldn’t variations on the techniques we already use for dealing with those (which mostly do not rely on other animals) ultimately work to handle it, at least enough to feed everyone?
Pesticides are becoming less effective; pests are becoming resistant to them resulting in reduced yields across the world. Many conventional farms are now starting to use integrated pest management which involves biological pest control (which involves using and creating habitats for beneficial organisms to control pests).
IDK, maybe civilization can figure out a way to survive during massive ecological collapses, but it would be hard, and we don’t have to.
Can someone make the connection for me between mass insect die-off and civilizational collapse? Whenever I see this implied there’s research cited about why we should believe insects really are in trouble, but the rest of it is always handwaved. I looked it up and it seems like a large portion of crops do not actually require insect pollination. So wouldn’t that mean we would survive, albeit somewhat worse off, even if much of the ecosystem does not? Am I missing something here?
Every species is a food, resource, predator, or competitor for resources for another species, so a decline of one species can have ripple effects on many other species. I guess one example is that parasitic wasps keep caterpillars and aphid populations in check (caterpillars and aphids can cause huge crop losses).
I get that there are ripple effects, and that some of them might be unexpected, but I don’t see how it could translate into an apocalyptic scenario for human agriculture. If there was somehow an increase in the population of pest species, why wouldn’t variations on the techniques we already use for dealing with those (which mostly do not rely on other animals) ultimately work to handle it, at least enough to feed everyone?
Pesticides are becoming less effective; pests are becoming resistant to them resulting in reduced yields across the world. Many conventional farms are now starting to use integrated pest management which involves biological pest control (which involves using and creating habitats for beneficial organisms to control pests).
IDK, maybe civilization can figure out a way to survive during massive ecological collapses, but it would be hard, and we don’t have to.
Earth is currently experiencing a sixth mass extinction - 60 minutes
https://youtu.be/6TqhcZsxrPA