You must log in or register to comment.

atlantis_airlines t1_iru1kfn wrote

Might a lack of biodiversity amongst plants be a factor?


Totimon t1_iruqkv4 wrote

Introduction of predatory species (by humans) that impact the herbivore/omnivore population but indirectly causes a decline in plant proliferation due to the lack of the digestion cycle/fresh groundwork causing less plants to grow in a given environment. Then insects are “forced” to migrate elsewhere and have potential to become invasive and ergo predatory in other ecosystems that were once more isolated.

Urbanization is also a factor for obvious reasons.

We’re killing our planet in more ways than just pollution and climate effect. No one ever talks about the corruption and flat out lack of accountability in agricultural administrations.


SexyOldHobo t1_irvgove wrote

Hey, I’m totally down to socialize agriculture after we socialize healthcare and overthrow the worlds oil kings


Guilty_Perception_35 t1_is3ywaw wrote

Socializing agriculture is the scariest thing I've ever heard of

Liberals know half of the politicians are corrupt (conservatives)

Conservatives know half of the politicians are corrupt (liberals)

And people with common sense know 99% of all politicians are corrupt

It's already getting spooky with certain folks buying up major farmland in the US. No thanks with socializing agricultural


SexyOldHobo t1_is60drx wrote

This country already socialized agriculture once, it was called “the homestead act”.

Socializing agriculture would mean breaking up big farms and then subsidizing and paying individuals to grow food.

Our current system of spraying a layer of pesticides multiple times a year over large swaths of the country so we can have as much corn syrup pumping through our blood as possible is terrifying to me. That’s why I’m offering solutions

Socializing agriculture would literally mean paying people to eat healthier choices from their gardens and it would give more property to more people


SnowyNW t1_irtb0rl wrote

So, an unhealthy ecosystem doesn’t lose all insects, only the necessary ones?


pmmbok t1_iru747d wrote

I missed something. Doesn't this study compare creracious to modern insect damage. Not current insect damage to 100 year old insect damage. Not relevant to modern global warming.


SnowyNW t1_iruhbou wrote

Cretaceous? How is it not relevant?


nartarf t1_irujay6 wrote

I would assume more biodiversity back in 1900. The native bugs have less native plants to go around? Or maybe the samples from the 1900 were not collected with bug damage in mind. Maybe pristine as possible plant specimens?


WiltshireWizard t1_irv37a2 wrote

Was this researched paid for or sponsored by a pesticide company?


AutoModerator t1_irt0a95 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.