Hacker News Reader

I strongly object to the framing where a species is considered logical to go extinct for it was not "robust" enough.

The words "specialist" and "niche" are incredibly misplaced as it comes to insects. Consider butterflies, many depending on specific host plants. The host plant is in decline hence the butterfly disappears.

Weak species. Not "robust". The point that is being missed here is that the host plant is supposed to be widely available in any half-decent ecosystem. It isn't rare, would normally be widespread, and it has very low needs. Just a tiny bit of space and healthy soil.

We're not wiping out specialists, we're wiping out the underlying habitat and ecosystem altogether.

That is a very human-centric viewpoint and a very strange one at that. It's almost egocentric.

Were big cats such as mountain lions and bobcats not robust enough in America? Because they've been eradicated due to habitat loss.

Is it really a surprise that animals that have evolved over millions of years to fit within the balance of nature are having difficulty adapting in just decades to humanity's technology destruction of that balance? The fact that some are able to make it through that imbalance is not a justification.

It's weird that you basically seem to blame evolution. And it's not just about specific populations. It's all about their interactions and relationships. We do not fully understand how all these things tie together as a system. So much of it is disappearing, we really have no idea what could happen to our ecosystems. For the most part, it cannot be good.

I am in general seriously concerned about soil and insect health. We take leaves and grass and native plants off of land and then instead needlessly dump water and fertilizer in their place because what's left is not self-sustaining. It's literally the most wasteful process you can think of for managing land, and yet we do it in full force.

I planted native plants and let things grow up in my yard this year, and it's amazing how popular the areas get with insects. This is just one year. Next year, I am hoping for much more, especially now that I know what I'm doing for the most part.

> In the 1950s in the Midwest there had already been farmland all over for 50+ years. Same with Ireland (for hundreds). The insect populations have only noticeably declined in the last few decades. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough historical data to confirm what it is exactly. Even in the 1970s you’d have solid layers of bugs on windshields driving between cornfields. Now, nothing.

This assumes that farming methods have remained identical since the 1950s or 70s, but they haven't. I don't know if the parent poster is correct, but I don't think is a good argument unless you also account for changes in agricultural practices in the last 50+ years.

> In 100-200 years it’s likely the insects that survived will re-occupy new niches.

Do you have any data to back this up?

Also, the problem is that not many insects ARE going to survive.

> The insect populations have only noticeably declined in the last few decades.

This is probably outright misleading, since you don't have the data prior to those decades. The common mistake is that people use their own lifespan as a measure for things.

---

Everybody talks about the gender pay gap and ethnic diversity these days, but biodiversity is not on the radar :(

Regarding the niche comment. Look at any invasive species. Once it arrives within 10-20 years it can dominate the region it’s in. Evolution occurs the same way; once something mutates in a way with competitive advantage it expands. With insects this can happen rapidly (because they lay so many eggs). I don’t have it handy now, but we have examples of this in grasshoppers.

Pesticide resistant insects are another example. Now, this assumes we don’t keep altering pesticides, but we do. If we keep trying to reduce insect populations we can, so I don’t think it’ll happen unless we allow it to happen.

As for the other comment, my point is really we have records showing massive amount of insects all throughout history until the introduction of pesticides. Even during the Great Depression in the US we had massive swarms of insects. Once pesticides were introduced at scale we noticed a decline in recorded swarms until now we don’t even see them on windshields.

An additional problem for monarch butterflies is a pair of introduced species, both swallow-worts. These are in the milkweed family, and they induce the butterflies to lay eggs on them, but the caterpillars die after only a few days.

I wonder how common this sort of thing is. Insects evolve to feed on certain plants, and not feed on others, but invasives could screw that up.

> These insects weren’t really robust to begin with. Take the monarch butterfly in the North America.

This a horrifying sentiment.

The modern monarch butterfly as a species is two million years old. In less than 200 years, we have mostly wiped it off the map, and the excuse is, "They weren't really robust to begin with"?

What's gonna happen in 100 years? Are the insects waiting for something?

DDT not DET