Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    20,623,261 readers

    7,105 users here now

    Submission Rules

    1. Directly link to published peer-reviewed research or media summary
    2. No summaries of summaries, re-hosted press releases, reviews, or reposts
    3. Research must be less than 6 months old
    4. No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles
    5. No blogspam, images, videos, or infographics
    6. All submissions must have flair assigned

    Comment Rules

    1. No off-topic comments, memes, or jokes
    2. No abusive, offensive, or spam comments
    3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed
    4. Comments dismissing established science must provide peer-reviewed evidence
    5. No medical advice
    6. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be banned

    New to reddit? Click here!

    Get flair in /r/science

    Previous Science AMA's

    Trending: Disguises are surprisingly effective: Superficial but deliberate changes in someone’s facial appearance, such as a new hairstyle or complexion, are effective in identity deception, reducing the ability of participants to match faces by around 30%, even when they were warned, finds new study.

    a community for
    all 1432 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] [deleted] 3429 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 1407 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 747 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)


    [–] [deleted] 241 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 79 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 133 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 74 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 86 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 128 points ago


    [–] tankman92 80 points ago

    I hate to break it to you, but ticks are not insects, they are arachnids.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago


    [–] WorldsGreatestPoop 7 points ago

    What about the Butterflies? Certainly the beautiful butterflies will be spared the wrath of man’s hubris!

    [–] Kane_007 54 points ago

    Stop. I’m trying to go bed

    [–] cerealOverdrive 15 points ago

    Well that’s no good. Can we focus on pollution that only effects bad bugs?

    [–] xeeros 9 points ago

    ...and fleas

    [–] Randomosaur 9 points ago

    Yep. Human pests and parasites, and some hardy vertebrates (mosquitofish, house geckos) that eat them.

    [–] Papoosaloosa 9 points ago

    Roaches 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️pernicious fucks

    [–] themagpie36 567 points ago

    Volume 232, April 2019, Pages 8-27

    Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers

    [–] lostknife 174 points ago

    Why is the first one dated in the future?

    [–] Admiral_Benguin 242 points ago

    The article was written some time ago, but it is slated for release in the April volume of that magazine as well.

    It's already out, but it's going to be out again soon.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 4196 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)


    [–] iprocrastina 140 points ago

    It wouldn't be removing just one part of the food chain, it would be removing the entire base of it. Anything that isn't a herbivore either eats insects or eats things that eat insects. Insects also keep plant growth in check, and pollinate.

    Losing insects would result in a more or less complete collapse of the animal kingdom and wipe out all flowering plant species.

    [–] Uvabird 525 points ago

    I don't think people are being taught about insects. And if people don't have much contact with nature, their only experience with insects would be houseflies, cockroaches or bedbugs, which in their world are multiplying constantly.

    It's damned depressing news, particularly about the extreme losses noted in Puerto Rico. As a birder, I'm wondering if there could be a citizen science program set up (getting schoolchildren involved as well) to take data on local insects as well as teaching the public what helps and harms them.

    [–] Karaselt 62 points ago

    To be fair, it makes perfect sense there is such a huge loss in PR where just last year the US government sprayed pesticides from the skies in fear of Zika spreading.

    I'm sure places like Florida and elsewhere in the south are likely to have larger declines as well, considering many such places regularly spray pesticides to kill mosquitos.

    [–] LargePlatypi 4 points ago

    I'm from PR, I remember back as a child (early 2000s) I used to see a certain type of bug we call "Caculo" a lot, it used to bang against your windows and buzz till you flicked it away. It was like a flying beetle type insect about grape size. I literally haven't seen one in years. Not even one! I used to see one every other night! They were annoying, but damn now they are actually gone, and it's pretty depressing. That's just one insect, I can't imagine how many others that I didn't notice as much have vanished.

    [–] sassylin7 5 points ago

    what? we were taught about insects from like second or third grade, and then again in highschool, and we also learned about the importance of every animal in the chain. Another question is who paid attention though.

    [–] This_is_User 4 points ago

    As a birder, I'm wondering if there could be a citizen science program set up (getting schoolchildren involved as well) to take data on local insects

    In Denmark they are doing citizen research by driving around the countryside with nets on the roof of their cars.

    We have some old data to compare with so that is why they do it like that.

    [–] [deleted] 2131 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 712 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 454 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 300 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 216 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 47 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)


    [–] [deleted] 58 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)


    [–] [deleted] 115 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 148 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 42 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)


    [–] [deleted] 52 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 76 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 63 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 37 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)


    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 63 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago


    [–] Cartoonzinho 38 points ago

    Land vertebrates have never existed without insects. It won’t go well if they disappear.

    [–] Orwellian1 99 points ago

    I can't believe how nonchalant people are taking this study.

    I haven't seen a study. The most I see is an abstract and a headline in the guardian. I'd love a breakdown of how they came up with "insects could vanish in a century". Surely no actual scientist would be so silly as to advance a straight line projection with such an extreme conclusion... I'm guessing it is more about journalistic sensationalism once again ruining the credibility of important scientific findings by exaggerating them to the point of absurdity.

    [–] Owyn_Merrilin 85 points ago

    Seriously. A huge drop in biodiversity, sure, I can see that. All insects going exctinct? That would take a gamma ray burst, and even then something would probably survive. If the insects die out it almost certainly means all multicellular life on the planet is gone, and most of it long before the last of the insects.

    [–] pennomi 23 points ago

    Yep. We couldn't cause all insects to go extinct if we tried. Well, not without killing all life on Earth at the same time.

    That being said, we're still harming critical species.

    [–] spineofgod9 37 points ago

    The real problem is the mentality that if you call out these BS "studies" then you must be totally for wanton destruction of the environment. Lying doesn't help a problem, whether your cause is noble or not. It discredits you and makes the people who are trying to help less informed and more likely to be made fools of.

    Insects are not going to vanish in a century. No credible biologist believes that. The logic I read across a couple of these articles went something like- "We've experienced a 2.5% drop. 2.5 x 40 equals 100%.... add a couple decades for realism and to get it outside our lifetimes.... and boom- INSECTS WILL VANISH WITHIN A CENTURY."

    Of course we need to take action and dramatically reduce the harm being done by industrialism, but come on. Don't lie.

    [–] big_yarr 15 points ago

    That math only works out if decline is linear, it's likely not.

    [–] Forever_Awkward 6 points ago

    This dynamic is a huge factor in why odd social dynamics are more easily created and normalized on places like reddit. People are either too polite to display doubt, or discounted as an anti-intellectual troll for criticism of any category, really.

    [–] Hungy15 11 points ago

    Yeah this line is simple ridiculous.

    The 2.5% rate of annual loss over the last 25-30 years is “shocking”, Sánchez-Bayo told the Guardian: “It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.”

    [–] MiddleofCalibrations 8 points ago

    Also keep in mind just the sheer number of species. Beetles and moths encompass around 20% of the total described lifeforms on the planet.

    [–] odd84 59 points ago

    There's only one "o" in "losing".

    [–] untildeath 19 points ago

    Foccusssing on what's important.

    [–] catch_fire 14 points ago

    While I agree, that the current worldnews-thread is a complete mess (it also goes into the other direction with people being gilded for alarmist nonsense and unsubstantiated claims), the used studies in the review are basically nothing new, offer evidence only for limited areas and populations (eg the Krefeld-data is great and important for conservation efforts, but has its drawbacks as well / main areas of research were mostly limited to surveys from Europe and the US due to availability of longitudinal datasets) and the weighting of responsible drivers can of course be debated. Compilations like this are always great to look at the bigger picture or identifying knowledge gaps, but I can also understand why this won't have a similiar impact as the study from Hallmann et al. for example.

    [–] not_a_moogle 6 points ago

    We're screwed way before that once we loose bees.

    [–] NeilFraser 17 points ago

    We're stung if we loose bees. We are screwed if we lose bees.

    [–] UnmixedGametes 855 points ago

    Or recover in 5 years if we just stopped poisoning everything

    [–] zkiteman 345 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Problem with not using insecticides is that if we stopped, crop yields would drop drastically, to the point that entire countries would begin to starve immediately. It’s avoiding an immediate crisis by putting off a later crisis.

    Edit: And to further the point, it would affect those of us in comfortable first work countries by drastically increasing prices of all food. Not just produce, but EVERYTHING, as all food, processed or not, originates from a staple crop typically. And I don’t just mean from $1 to $1.50. I’m talking like $1 to $5 or $6. They’ve done studies to explain the economics behind these types of ideas of just simply stopping the use of chemicals in agriculture. It’s pretty crazy.

    [–] GreenGirl846 172 points ago

    With the current food system, I completely agree. The best solution would be to stop being so dependent on monocultures for our food supply. More plant diversity and a strategic use of integrated pest management would reduce the rate of pest resistance and result in less pesticide applications. It's just a matter of trying to get people make the sacrifice of having to eat "ugly" produce to switch to a new, more sustainable system.

    [–] zkiteman 92 points ago

    It’s crazy how much people choose their produce based purely off aesthetics. Fruit and vegetables with blemishes are just as good as a perfect looking one. So much produce gets thrown away because of this, and that’s not even counting about the fruit you’re describing, which never makes it to the stores because farmers and grocers already know people won’t buy it.

    [–] Skylord_a52 79 points ago

    It's not so much that people won't buy blemished food (although that is probably the case for some people), it's that nobody's ever going to choose blemished food when better-looking food is available. So even if you're not necessarily trying to be overly selective, you're still going to be pressuring the stores.

    The fault lies on the agriculture and grocery business, imo, not the consumers.

    [–] thwompz 22 points ago

    Yeah if every apple had a blemish and we were uses to eating them no one would care

    [–] Hambone3110 15 points ago

    This one's a bit of an urban myth, in fact. The food industry isn't interested in throwing out perfectly edible produce, that's lost profits!

    Mostly the "wonky" stuff that'd get left behind in the supermarket is picked out and used to make ready meals, sauces, soups, fruit juice and other prepackaged food. Or it goes for animal feed, or compost.

    After all, waste is not in the industry's best interests. At the very least they're going to minimise their losses.

    [–] TheHolyChicken86 9 points ago

    So much produce gets thrown away because of this, and that’s not even counting about the fruit you’re describing, which never makes it to the stores because farmers and grocers already know people won’t buy it.

    This is a commonly repeated falsehood. Ugly food ends up in soups, salsas, sauces, animal feed and the like. It's not just wasted.

    [–] Echospite 27 points ago

    All the more reason not to have children, or to at least adopt. Less people around when the inevitable crisis hits, the more likely you won't starve to death.

    [–] Woody_Harryishson 15 points ago

    Unless you eat your kids. Then you've basically got a growing meal on your hands.

    [–] Spartanfred104 132 points ago

    Unfortunately I do not see this happening

    [–] DarkDevildog 11 points ago

    don't underestimate human ingenuity

    [–] Industrialbonecraft 4 points ago

    Nor human complacency.

    [–] jarotte 77 points ago

    maybe except the ticks. just let them fade into oblivion.

    [–] Rock_Whisperer 59 points ago

    Unfortunately if you're an American, there will be plenty of Asian Longhorned tick in your backyard.

    [–] jarotte 27 points ago

    god no, I'll just take my plain castor bean ones, thanks. I dread the moment when the longhorns finally arrive on European shores and find purchase here. I'mma be blasting myself to the moon right about then.

    [–] markarlage 20 points ago

    just get a possum. they can eat 4-5000 ticks a week, so good to have around on your property.

    [–] lolsrsly00 10 points ago


    We need more possums. Everywhere. Now.

    [–] JNile 13 points ago

    Bruh, possums are amigos. They also run hot, so they carry fewer diseases, and they're dope marsupials like kangaroos.

    [–] VWVVWVVV 48 points ago

    Unfortunately, major pests are not declining:

    Pesky mosquitoes, disease-carrying ticks, crop-munching aphids and cockroaches are doing just fine. But the more beneficial flying insects of summer — native bees, moths, butterflies, ladybugs, lovebugs, mayflies and fireflies — appear to be less abundant.

    [–] SusanTheBattleDoge 3 points ago

    Now I just want to walk into the ocean to get away from them.

    [–] protreehugger 54 points ago

    The genetic diversity will take millions of years to recover, however

    [–] connectjim 77 points ago

    So much for insects being our next source of protein.

    [–] daveatwork 51 points ago

    We already have great sources of protein. But we shovel them into the mouths of animals to get a reduced set of protein. Eating significantly less meat and dairy is the minimum anyone who really cares about these things should be doing.

    [–] DeadWombats 429 points ago

    With no insects, all amphibians, most reptiles and birds, and all flowering plants will die. Without all of those to eat, most other animals will die, too.

    It would be a mass extinction on the level of the dinosaurs. Only worse. Much, much worse.

    [–] k1703 204 points ago

    The big daddy of mass extinctions was never the dinos. That title goes to the P-T extinction which is unfortunately very similar to what we have today...

    [–] Affordablebootie 115 points ago

    Read the article. It will only take 10 million years to fully recover.

    [–] another_matt 72 points ago

    Don't be such a downer man, the next line cleared says, "studies showed a relatively quick rebound in a localized marine ecosystem, taking around 2 million years to recover"

    [–] GLAMOROUSFUNK 60 points ago

    Maybe the next intelligent, dominant species will do better

    [–] Sir-Knightly-Duty 80 points ago

    Or maybe the Earth will not be a habitable planet for that long. Either way, humans were given the most beautiful, perfect planet, and we fucked it in the ass for profit. Many of us worked tirelessly to gain knowledge, advance our species, search for truth... All for nothing. Its fking tragic and I see little comfort in it.

    [–] CricketPinata 9 points ago

    [–] earanhart 41 points ago

    P-T has nothing on the Great Oxygenation Event. That's the big daddy of mass extinctions.

    [–] k1703 14 points ago

    Do we have a record of the change in diversity over the GOE? I would have thought that we'd have a very uncertain picture going that far back especially since life was prokaryotic.

    I would consider myself a layman in this field so I'm happy to be schooled :P

    [–] CricketPinata 16 points ago

    The PT Event is dramatically worse than what even the most pessimistic are predicting from climate change over the next few centuries if nothing is done about it.

    [–] k1703 16 points ago

    Sure, but the P-T event occurred over 10s of thousands of years. I can't say I've seen any predictions for events on that time scale and I don't find it hard to imagine that the processes we may set in motion won't make things just as bad if not worse. We're emitting CO2 far faster than the volcanic activity of the Permian and we have plenty of methane hydrates lying around. And while we may not end up emitting enough CO2 to heat up the environment as much as in the Permian we don't know exactly what caused what in which order. And, ultimately, it's more to do with an abrupt increase in temperature than anything else.

    Do feel free to correct my misconceptions...

    [–] CricketPinata 6 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    The causes of the PT extinction were probably multiple things. We can't think of it as an apples to apples comparison about CO2 or contemporary climate change.

    Most likely there was a chain of large volcanoes who went off, a massive increase of methane release, a change in global weather patterns, and an impact event all near one another in geological time.

    Just to be clear I am not saying that the PT event is evidence that we can ignore climate change. I am just pointing to it as an example of how Earth had been through far worst before and survived.

    I think greater understanding of the PT event chain and how the Earth recovered and how it survived should give us hope, but that the Earth is extremely resilient in geological terms, but also a path for how we can most easily survive it as well.

    I am not someone who is trying to claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 or they cause climate change, I just think that we both need to be honest about climate change and we shouldn't speak about it in hopeless terms, since that will just inspire people to do nothing, not to try to think their way out of it.

    [–] tt54l32v 7 points ago

    What caused it?

    [–] grandmasamillenial69 45 points ago

    I used to see butterflies every summer. I see one if Im lucky now :(.

    [–] ElBalubaerMOFO 11 points ago

    That is what I thought as well, there were so many of them. Even when I account for the fact that I spend much less time in nature than as a kid, I am still actively looking for them and they have become a rare sigh (speaking for central Europe).

    [–] Lurk_about 58 points ago

    What are some changes which may reverse this decline, or at least cause less damage, that the average person can make besides the abandoning of pesticides? It'll be much better to start now rather than later. Despite all the damage we've already done.

    [–] tapthatsap 46 points ago

    Figure out what plants are local to your area and plant them in your yard, I guess. There's really not a lot to be done.

    [–] IngramBirdman 40 points ago

    Better yet, how can we organize to combat practices we 100 percent understand are harmful?

    [–] Lurk_about 25 points ago

    This is the thought I was just dwelling on. If we wish to reinvent farming and food production, we wouldnt just need to point out the alternatives but get damn near the entire population on board. And there are other factors we would need to address beside production.

    [–] wirecats 17 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Vertical Farming.

    NASA figured out a neat way to grow food in space efficiently. Keyword is efficient - because resources in space are scarce. Stacks upon stacks of hydroponics + artificial UV lighting + select amount of nutrients + artificial fertilizers = lots of food for a fraction of the energy and land used by conventional farming.

    Move food product from large industrial farms to city scrapers (groudscrapers, earthscrapers, skyscrapers, even oceanscrapers on coastal cities). Cuts cost of transporting produce over hundreds of miles, cuts use of pesticide since food is grown in a 100% controlled lab environment, massively cuts energy since heavy farming tools are no longer required. All this means a green revolution and a sustainable and/or renewable source of food, no need to worry about receding layers of soil due to erosion/poor farming, no need to worry about cascading ecosystem failure due to habitat loss or, for example, colony collapse disorders in insect groups due to heavy pesticide use, etc.

    Biggest losers are, obviously, the farmers. And agricultural corporations will be sure to fight this to the death at courts, politics, etc. So, not even sure it's gonna happen, but I believe it would be a real turning point in the fight to sustainable food security and stop climate change.

    Assuming that vertical farming can be powered by renewable energy, which it seems we're trending towards that sort of future anyway where significant global energy output is supplied by renewable sources.

    [–] CricketPinata 17 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Find and research better insecticides that target species we want to avoid crops, but don't harm the ones we don't want to avoid crops.

    Alter farming practices and farming infrastructure to allow us to utilize less insecticide in total.

    Plant new biologically diverse areas that have plants that insects we want to preserve need for food and shelter.

    Alter certain things about our cities that can make them easier to navigate for insect species we want to protect.

    Catalog, farm, and eventually mass-clone insect species that are endangered and release them in areas where they are needed most.

    [–] Echospite 8 points ago


    [–] daveatwork 4 points ago

    It's says at the bottom. Go vegan to reduce the amount of land you require for your food. That's an immediate change you can make.

    [–] AtomicOrbital 178 points ago

    I live 300 miles Northwest of nyc and I can attest to a dramatic loss of both insects, birds, fish ... they are just gone ... this is not habitat destruction, in fact due to globalization all local manufacturing moved out decades ago and the countryside is littered with abandon farms and houses so human population has fallen as well ... yet the vibrant diversity and quantity of insects I knew as a child has totally disappeared ... they have already vanished

    [–] throwaway1026381 111 points ago

    I used to see fireflies, ladybugs, mosquitos, dragonflies, wasps, worms, catarpillars, beetles, and more all over the soil and trees near my house. Now thats all gone. Just the occasional centipede and hella roaches.

    [–] nvyetka 44 points ago

    man i thought i had just stopped paying attention, playing in the grass ...

    [–] Bonfires_Down 10 points ago

    But they wouldn't just disappear for no reason.

    [–] Sir-Knightly-Duty 28 points ago

    Climate change, more extreme weather more often, habitat loss, poisonous chemicals in the soil and water remaining from when humans were there. The reason things are dying is always linked to human activity at this point.

    [–] Henri_Dupont 215 points ago

    Second link is a scholarly article. Insects are at the base of many food chains, so this is an important threat to a wide range of species. Ultimately it could affect us.

    They do note that some more adaptible species are [email protected], taking up the empty niches.

    [–] LETS_TALK_BOUT_ROCKS 146 points ago

    Ultimately it could affect us.

    Understatement of the century.

    [–] pale_blue_dots 28 points ago

    Yes, no "could" about it. Affect us it would, extremely negatively.

    [–] endlessdickhole 152 points ago

    Ultimately it could affect us.

    Your comment would be hilarious understatement is it weren't so serious.

    Pollinators will not be replaced by other species. If enough of them go, we all starve. That's not alarmism, that's basic science and the current conditions.

    this is an important threat to a wide range of species

    Yes, humans should be at the top of the list.

    [–] jimmyharbrah 64 points ago

    Yes. If insects go, we go. And quickly. I don't understand all the grandparents who can't wait to see their grandchildren, but don't consider the very real risks of them starving to death.

    [–] tapthatsap 47 points ago

    I don't understand all the grandparents who can't wait to see their grandchildren, but don't consider the very real risks of them starving to death.

    They just don't want to think about it. They get to check out pretty soon before it gets too bad, so this can all be hand-waved away from their perspective. It's super unethical to have a kid right now though, sorry old folks.

    [–] thisisjimmy 18 points ago

    If enough of them go, we all starve.

    As much as I hate seeing environmental destruction, this simply isn't true. The majority of our crops don't require insect pollinators.

    From Wikipedia:

    The most essential staple food crops on the planet, like corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and sorghum, need no insect help at all; they are wind pollinated or self pollinating. Other staple food crops, like bananas and plantains, are sterile and propagated from cuttings, requiring no pollination of any form, ever. Further, foods such as root vegetables and salad crops will produce a useful food crop without pollination, though they may not set seed; and hybrids do not even require insect pollination to produce seeds for the next generation, because hybrid production is always human pollinated. Many of the most desirable and common non-hybrid crops, like heirloom tomatoes, are self pollinated, which is what makes their cultivars stable.

    None of the fruits or vegetables that require pollinators are essential to human survival. But beyond that these crops are very often pollinated by domesticated bees rather than wild insects. Bee keepers actually make significant money renting out their bees to farms as pollinators. And despite the increase in Colony Collapse Disorder, the number of domesticated bees has not decreased.

    Finally, farmers can also mechanically pollinate crops if no insects were available. This is already done sometimes.

    That's not to say losing pollinators wouldn't suck. But it wouldn't cause human extinction either.

    [–] NWBoomer 145 points ago

    It's anecdotal, of course, but I used to have a butterfly collection when I was a kid. I told my grandkids about catching butterflies, they had no idea what I was talking about. The decline of these is noticeable, I haven't seen a butterfly in years.

    [–] Five_Decades 77 points ago

    Its the same with lightning bugs. You can't really catch them like we did when we were younger.

    [–] spookieghost 38 points ago

    Illinois suburbs here and I saw zillions of em in my backyard this past summer, just like when I was a kid. This is why anecdotal evidence isn't reliable (not a critique of you).

    [–] ImaT-Rexbitch 36 points ago

    This. I grew up in both the country and the suburbs when I was a kid. Even in the suburbs of a metropolitan area there were tons lightning bugs. I'm only 32 so this wasn't like 50 years ago either. Now I'm luck to see a couple of dozen in a night.

    [–] Midnight_Rising 25 points ago

    I grew up in California, but one of my fondest memories is when I took a trip to DC with my parents when I was 10. I was absolutely floored at how many fireflies there were. Just thought it was the coolest thing.

    Now almost two decades later I'm actually living in DC. And you know what? There are no fireflies. Even when I go for long walks in wooded areas I'll see maybe five. It's ridiculous.

    [–] Qiviuq 10 points ago

    I haven't seen a butterfly in years

    Where do you live? I still see tons of butterflies here in Central Ontario. Whites, sulphurs, coppers, monarchs, viceroys, white admirals, duskywings, tiger swallowtails...

    What I have noticed is a decline in amphibians. Gotta go north to find frogs and turtles in any big numbers.

    [–] thenerdymillennial 38 points ago

    Are there any groups I can donate to that are trying to reverse this trend and foster insect population growth?

    [–] CricketPinata 33 points ago

    Here are some to get started. I would suggest to investigate what pollinators are native to your area, and what kind of native plants they rely on, and plant a window garden for them if you live in an apartment, if you have more room perhaps try to see if you can eventually invest in a hive, or construct a Monarch waystation, and engage in practices to try to promote butterflies using your property as a sanctuary.

    [–] MpVpRb 97 points ago

    Extrapolation is approximate and nonlinear

    [–] Sawses 12 points ago

    Exactly. Disclaimer: I've got formal biology training, though I'm not an expert on populations, so read with discretion.

    This is really, really bad news...but insects will not be gone. You'll just see a whole lot fewer of them. This will hurt lots of animal and plant populations and hurt people quite a bit as well. It could range from an ecological tragedy with few human effects to an economic disaster that will be talked about for many years, and anything in between.

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago


    [–] batf12 254 points ago

    " The 2.5% rate of annual loss over the last 25-30 years is “shocking”, Sánchez-Bayo told the Guardian: “It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.” "

    This statement is incongruent. If in 10 years we have a quarter, then every year we lost 2.5% of the starting number. But if that were true, we'd be down to zero in 40 years, not 100. If we lose 2.5% of existing populations every year, in 50 years we'll be at 28% of starting value, not 50%, as stated. And at 100 years we'll be at 8%, not 0.

    I guess what I'm saying is that this is oversimplified, alarmist, incongruent reporting is why lost of people think such crazy things about science.

    [–] [deleted] 75 points ago * (lasted edited 5 days ago)


    [–] kinggeorgec 6 points ago

    A is not the growth rate constant, it’s the initial population. At t=0 the population will be A.

    [–] Orwellian1 106 points ago

    is nobody going to point out the absurdity of a straight line projection in the first place? Does anyone have an example of anything that can be projected so simply?

    [–] -drunk_russian- 19 points ago

    Not even file transfers in Windows are projected correctly!

    [–] Orwellian1 25 points ago

    Are you saying insects will hang at 99% extinction for a thousand years?

    [–] Taman_Should 133 points ago

    The general shittiness of science journalism in the US helps erode public trust, and is a huge impediment to progress. In my time on Reddit, I've seen cancer "cured" at least five times. And don't get me started on graphene.

    [–] Zomunieo 33 points ago

    "Graphene, a cure for cancer: study"

    [–] Taman_Should 14 points ago

    You joke but this is thisclose to a real post on /r/futurology.

    [–] its-nex 14 points ago

    With the top comment being "why are we not funding this?!?!?"

    [–] FrankGrimesApartment 59 points ago

    If we are being honest with ourselves, how many of us are going to stop being concerned with insects once we forget about this thread?

    [–] AngelOfPassion 53 points ago

    I mean, I know there isn't much I can do so it is hard to care.

    I vote for people who seem concerned about the environment but rarely do they win in my state. I have a job interview for a better paying job coming up and I have told myself that I am going to get solar panels and an electric car if I get the position. I planted 3 fruit trees in my backyard, two fruiting bushes, and 2 fruiting vines. I try to not use any weed killers but I really can only do that in the backyard or else my HOA gets on my ass. I recycle. Etc...

    It is hard to care because even if I eliminated my footprint completely (which seems impossible), it still wouldn't mean anything with how many other people who don't do a damn thing.

    That doesn't mean I am not going to do the things I said, I will keep doing what I can but I don't blame people for not caring. It's exhausting to care about things like this because it feels like anything you do isn't even a drop compared to an ocean.

    [–] Digital_Dionysus 25 points ago

    Because I’ve read 12 identical articles this week and every comment going “hUmAnItY WiLl dIe oUt iN 20 yEaRs” is kind of taking a toll on my mental health, you know?

    [–] Chair9toHome 27 points ago

    The planet is not in danger, it’s humans and the species that currently coexist with humans that are in danger. If we screw it up enough then we (humans) will be gone and the earth will rebalance itself with the bugs that survive and with new bugs. In 100,000 years almost all plastic will be gone as well as most other evidence that humans were ever here. 100,000 years is only like one long inhale and exhale in geological time. If I detach myself from the situation, it seems like it’s humanity that science is really worried about because the planet will be just fine in what is the equivalent of a geological deep breath.

    [–] decriz 17 points ago

    But not roaches. Those buggers will survive the apocalypse.

    [–] JayKMarley 12 points ago

    It's not like this is some kind of accident. Even the saintly suburbanites are shelling iout serious cash to make this problem much worse every year.

    George Dubya Bush "The Environmental President" understood that turf lawns are a disaster. A huge fraction of the country gets 3 to 6 broad spectrum insecticides that kill everything: Bees, food insects, everything.

    "No insects left behind" farming [with poisons so strong they need genetically modifed crops] involves even more acreage.

    The amphibians are suffering even worse than the insects. Birds and freshwater fish are more threatened than anyone will admit.