• LukeMedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thinkimg about it, more humans is a terrible ecological effect as of current lifestyle and economics norms.

      • CapraObscura@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mosquitoes specifically can all fuck off and die without anything really noticing. Anything that uses them as a food source has other options. They provide no net benefits in the way bees, spiders, worms, or basically anything else does.

        The rest of the multi-legged realm is kind of really fucking important.

      • Boinketh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if there were some ecological consequences to wiping out mosquitos, they kill so many people that it’d probably be a net gain for us as long as we could do it in a precise and targeted way. Wiping them out without wiping everything else out is the hard part.

    • Zalack@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even though things seem shitty now. I think that, on average, humanity’s story is one of self-improvement. This Good Place quote comes to mind:

      What matters isn’t if people are good or bad. What matters is if they are trying to be better today than they were yesterday.

      I think humanity is trying to be better today than it was yesterday. Human history is a story of more and more types of people being given more and more rights. Of slowly putting down our rocks and spears and guns and trying to live together. Of learning to care for nature while holding the power to destroy it. We’ve had backslides, but overall we’ve come a long way from the Apes we once were.

      I think humanity deserves the chance to keep trying to better itself. I hope we get to the point where we are good enough to give ourselves that chance. As another scene from Good Place put it:

      Come on dummy, faster.

    • Sigh_Bafanada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m kinda thankful that even if we kill ourselves off and most life on Earth, it’s almost certain that life will come back in full eventually. We’d have to do some real Earth -shattering stuff to prevent that.

      • Fapp@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I argue this point all the time and no one ever likes it. In order to eternally prevent as much suffering as possible, we need to cause a vacuum decay event. Otherwise something is always going to evolve to take humans place and then we’re in the same shitty boat.

        • volodymyr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s nice because it is always hard to find motivation for fundamental sciences. Stopping all suffering for good is so honorable! Particle physisics should include it in grant proposals.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • 80085@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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).

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

    • Demuniac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You wouldn’t directly no. Except it’s food for a lot of animals and would be a huge problem soon enough

  • aidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The thing is when populations are near extinction they have been at low enough levels usually to see what the effects are of their extinction for a long time. Furthermore no complains about random tiny species of bacteria going extinct even though overall bacteria are extremely vital to ecosystems

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    One exception: wasps. Those useless stupid motherfuckers can go extinct. Fuck’em.