You saud
Specifically stating “environment” which includes climate. I am responding directly to your comment. But you deflect with an equally erroneous comment about me being off topic.
You can’t defend this with logic, so you misapply science:
Civilization is us depending on each other. We all do better when we all do better (Paul Wellstone)
But, then our chemicals are destroying them in droves.
The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors.
Oops looks a though AGW driven climate change is also having an impact, but we know insects are prepared for that and will adapt - renewed speciation. The unprecedented chemical assault is another story.
The collapse of insects
The most diverse group of organisms on the planet are in trouble, with recent research suggesting insect populations are declining at an unprecedented rate.
By Julia Janicki, Gloria Dickie, Simon Scarr and Jitesh Chowdhury
Illustrations by Catherine Tai
Fascinating, informative article, though here’s another example of that “self-absorbed, self-serving” state of mind we are immersed in.
But insects are so much more than food. Farmers depend on these critters pollinating crops and churning soil to keep it healthy, among other activities.
- Insects pollinate more than 75% of global crops, a service valued at up to $577 billion per year, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) says.
- In the United States, insects perform services valued in 2006 at an estimated $57 billion per year, according to a study in the journal BioScience.
- Dung beetles alone are worth some $380 million per year to the U.S. cattle industry for their work breaking down manure and churning rangeland soil, the study found.
With fewer insects, “we’d have less food,” said ecologist Dave Goulson at the University of Sussex. “We’d see yields dropping of all of these crops.”
And in nature, about 80% of wild plants rely on insects for pollination. “If insects continue to decline,” Goulson said, “expect some pretty dire consequences for ecosystems generally — and for people.” …
Yeah but all 8.1 billion of us are dependent on a fairly narrow range of environmental conditions, and we depend on crops that also depend on fairly narrow range of environmental conditions and lots of fuel.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02837-6
Sad thing is, as much as all of us desperately want the status quo to continues, the longer it does - the worse our chemical poisoning assault on biological processes: the worse Earth’s geophysical energy imbalance will increase, the wilder weather patterns will become; and to top it all off our CO2 driven ocean acidification is radically impacting the oceans chemical balances, and screwing with all sorts of creatures and chemical process. - The smaller our chances of long term survival become. Of course, in all probability, the true horrors will taken generations to play out.
That was not my intention. I said it was a distraction not an erroneous comment. I find you seldom make erroneous comments. The problem is cultural exchange is already a complicated enough topic without adding another layer of complexity.
Part of the complexity of global warming is that it involves cultural exchange. So far nothing the West has done to reduce co2 emissions have made a significant difference. When the West decided it was a good idea to export slave labor and pollution to China the West gave up much of its control over co2 emissions. For every coal powered plant shut down in the West China has built two and is continuing to build them, not to mention place like India. This topic become even more complicated because of BRICs. The main leverage the West has over co2 emissions is financial. If BRICs is successful and the US loses the advantages of the petro dollar, specifically the dollar as the world trade currency, what little leverage the West has will disappear. I think now you can see why I didn’t want to discuss it.
Tell that to the deplorables and clingers who’s jobs were exported to China. Your statement is accurate but complexity reduces its impact. Better in what sense and for whom and for how long?
Anyway now that you brought up global warming it looks like we have to deal with the added complexity.
I really hate the global warming topic. As I told lausten it is sufficiently complicated that it is almost impossible to discuss.
The real question it seems to me is the tipping point problem. At what point is a positive feedback situation created that is irreversible. My guess is we have already crossed that threshold. There is another problem however that nobody seems to want to talk about.
The decline of atmospheric CO2 over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘CO2-starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to CO2 levels than are C3 plants. Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. This was accompanied by the most significant Cenozoic faunal turnover on each of these continents, indicating that ecological changes at this time were an important factor in mammalian extinction. Further expansion of tropical C4 biomass in Africa also occurred during the last glacial interval confirming the link between atmospheric CO2 levels and C4 biomass response. Changes in fauna and flora at the end of the Miocene, and between the last glacial and interglacial, have previously been attributed to changes in aridity; however, an alternative explanation for a global expansion of C4 biomass is CO2 starvation of C3 plants when atmospheric CO2 levels dropped below a threshold significant to C3 plants. Aridity may also have been a factor in the expansion of C4 ecosystems but one that was secondary to, and perhaps because of, gradually decreasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Mammalian evolution in the late Neogene, then, may be related to the CO2 starvation of C3 ecosystems.
Then of course there is also the complications that result from politics. A good example being what happened in Sri Lanka.
I didn’t “bring up” global warming. You made a statement about intelligence, saying all species fit the scientific definition. Correct me, or defend that. Adaptation to environment was part of that definition. Thats what you brought up.
You’re talking about my family. I was born in Flint. I lived through the horror that Michael Moore showed us.
A cursory understanding of Paul Wellstone would answer your question about “what sense and for whom”. But, then that would be a tangent, and you’d bring up some other point supported by a claim that you claim you made an argument for and can support with facts that may or may not be facts. That’s not why I come to this forum.
Now your introducing US politics and you wonder why I said it was a distraction?
Anyway I try to respond to you but I guess I just as well give it up. I try to respond to every comment as a matter of politeness. If you have a specific question I will respond otherwise not so much.
You asked me a question about civilized behavior. I answered it. You made a statement about all species adapting to environments.
I responded to that.
What you should give up is broadening your discussions then complaining about your discussions being too broad. You are very much in control of staying on topic. I said this when you first got here. It is still my advice to you. Pick something to focus on.
When you catch yourself typing that you could go more into some background but it would take too much time. Stop. Delete. Edit offline if that helps. Save it in a file and give it a day. Whatever works.
And maybe stop doing that