[photolady95]

LOL! Keep him away please!

I'm trying. He's moving next week from here anyway I finally get to do my happy dance. LOL

[WPRESTO]

I'm not sure I like that idea. We need beneficial bugs. They do a lot of good on this planet. And some are pretty to look at, Butterflies, being one in particular I like to see flitting around my yard. Plus they're beneficial to our environment.

Scientists doing the study are deeply concerned about angiosperm pollination. An estimated 80% of flowering plants are pollinated by insects, a reason for thinking that flowering plants and insects "co-evolved" both in mutually beneficial ways (pollination) and negative ways (= huge numbers of insects feed on angiosperms, and the plants in turn have evolved a massive number of chemical defenses).

[photolady95]

I've heard the decline of Butterflies are due to the eradication of the Milkweed plant, any thought s on that, Walt?

[WPRESTO]

Eradication of milkweed plants is certainly impacting some butterflies, the monarch in the USA, but these are also impacted by logging, much of it illegal, in the monarchs' overwintering refuges in Mexico. Decline of insects is attributed to multiple causes: destruction of meadows, fields, and any/all naturally vegetated land; more extensive use of pesticides; and global warming (fecundity of many insects drops dramatically with increases in temperature, readily demonstrable in a lab). All of these generally come back to human activity, but it's what driving that activity that is the prime villain, and it can be stated in three words that I constantly put forth: too many people. I have no hope whatever for a solution or even the slightest mitigation of the problem because there is not a politician who draws breath who is willing to use it to even ask this question: how many people can this planet support with decent housing, sufficient food, and satisfactory employment? IMHO, the number lies between 250 and 400 million at the uppermost.

[photolady95]

Yeah, I agree there are too many people on this planet. That's why I like living away from these people and why I like photographing nature, I don't have to deal with people. LOL


My nephew, in his endeavors to get rid of the weeds in the yard, got rid of the bugs too. I stopped him from spreading his "weed" killer in the back yard because the small flowers I was photographing were weeds. Then my brothers move in and my oldest brother, kills the wild Morning Glories growing on the neighbors fence. Grrr!!! Can't win for losing with this bunch.

I guess what I'm going to have to do is fence me a patch in the back corner of the property and build my own wild flower bed, and tell them, that's off limits to any weed killer.

[WPRESTO]

This image is more flower than insect, but there is one incoming.

[noelcmn]

Eradication of milkweed plants is certainly impacting some butterflies, the monarch in the USA, but these are also impacted by logging, much of it illegal, in the monarchs' overwintering refuges in Mexico. Decline of insects is attributed to multiple causes: destruction of meadows, fields, and any/all naturally vegetated land; more extensive use of pesticides; and global warming (fecundity of many insects drops dramatically with increases in temperature, readily demonstrable in a lab). All of these generally come back to human activity, but it's what driving that activity that is the prime villain, and it can be stated in three words that I constantly put forth: too many people. I have no hope whatever for a solution or even the slightest mitigation of the problem because there is not a politician who draws breath who is willing to use it to even ask this question: how many people can this planet support with decent housing, sufficient food, and satisfactory employment? IMHO, the number lies between 250 and 400 million at the uppermost.

Crude, but a work colleague from many years ago stated it simply- Another world war would help with the population growth! I of course protested! Perhaps he did not understand, that in the nuclear age, that is just not feasible!
China's 1 child policy may work! 2 at most!
It is of course a much bigger problem. One I am confronted with daily - The rich get richer, and the poor get Pregnant!

[WPRESTO]

China's 1 child policy may work! 2 at most!

The last I heard about the one child policy in China, and it years back, it was working reasonably in urban area, but was pretty much a failure in rural China. Tradition dies very, very hard, and rural Chinese have always valued big families. Another supposed unexpected consequence. Chinese men particularly value male offspring to carry on their name, so some have insisted on amniocentesis to determine the sex of an unborn child, then demanded an abortion if it is not a male. Perhaps that was only a rumor spread by people opposed to any form of family planning, much less government imposed limits to family size. Can you image what would happen in the USA if the feds tried to implement a no-more-two-children policy?

[mohb]

[TER-OR]

I guess what I'm going to have to do is fence me a patch in the back corner of the property and build my own wild flower bed, and tell them, that's off limits to any weed killer.

Do this and you both conduct a "Square Meter" observation project. The results will be obvious.
square meter – The Prairie Ecologist

I only really keep some yard to let the dogs have their space. Less next year, but I'm going to need help weeding the areas with wildflowers I want to keep, otherwise the crabgrass, creeping charlie, dayflowers, parsnips, and wild geranium will strangle everything.

Yes, insect popluations are crashing. With that, everything will go haywire. Everything that depends on insects for food, pollination, decay will suffer. It's our fault, but don't expect change without outrage from people like us.

[WPRESTO]

don't expect change without outrage from people like us.

Outrage from people like us is like trying to stop a ten-meter snowball that's rocketing down a hill, or spitting in the ocean then coming back a year later to see the difference you've made. It's treating symptoms not causes. The cause = too many people. That is ultimately what drives deforestation, spreading weed killers & pesticides, conversion of meadows, vacant lots, grassy fields into either housing or agriculture. And there are huge numbers of "developers" who only see financial opportunity, and well meaning people who see only human needs and will always place those above "nature." "We need more food" = end of discussion. "We need more low-cost housing" = end of discussion. For essentially all politicians and economists there are only two kinds of economy = growing and stagnant. The only important "sustainability" is "sustainable growth."

[photolady95]

When my mom and dad bought this property in 1959 they purchased two city lots, our house sits in the middle so we have plenty of space for my mom's flowers she planted at that time. Now most of her flowers, fruits, etc are gone, but some survived. The roses, and the grape vines are still intact, and the Weeping Bottle Brush tree is still with us. Most of the oak trees, and the iron tree and the rain tree is still here. We have plenty of yard, to plant more flowers, and wild flowers, in various places. My mother's white rose bush is still bearing roses even today. The Mr. Lincoln rose bush was killed by my nephew and I'm still ticked off about that incident. Those were planted when we moved into the house in early January 1960.

My two brothers are living in this house and the one closest in age to me, has started to reclaim what we had as far as flowers are concerned. He said the other day he has ordered me some flowers that are supposed to attract the butterflies back. I hope they do because I miss seeing them in the yard.

[TER-OR]

Outrage from people like us is like trying to stop a ten-meter snowball that's rocketing down a hill, or spitting in the ocean then coming back a year later to see the difference you've made. It's treating symptoms not causes. The cause = too many people. That is ultimately what drives deforestation, spreading weed killers & pesticides, conversion of meadows, vacant lots, grassy fields into either housing or agriculture. And there are huge numbers of "developers" who only see financial opportunity, and well meaning people who see only human needs and will always place those above "nature." "We need more food" = end of discussion. "We need more low-cost housing" = end of discussion. For essentially all politicians and economists there are only two kinds of economy = growing and stagnant. The only important "sustainability" is "sustainable growth."

We know how to curb population growth. Northern Europe has shown this, along with other populations. Education, particularly for girls, opportunity and equal treatment and reproductive rights. Human history is against us, but it can be done.

The most threatened landscape is grasslands. Those are almost completely agriculture now.

[noelcmn]

We know how to curb population growth. Northern Europe has shown this, along with other populations. Education, particularly for girls, opportunity and equal treatment and reproductive rights. Human history is against us, but it can be done.

The most threatened landscape is grasslands. Those are almost completely agriculture now.

IF ONLY TER-OR! Regrettably, my experience is that none of those (Education, opportunity or equal treatment) do the job. I can offer a lot of real life experiences, but I'll desist, and simply add that history is indeed against us! Something a bit more drastic imho is needed!
Here in South Africa, social grants is one of the factors that contributes to the population explosion. Woe betide you if you speak against it, and you'll be considered a bigot, non-compassionate, along with host of other accusations! Having said that, South Africa has a rather enviable reputation for the percentage of game/nature reserves it has in relation to the country size. But it is changing by the day, and yes, primarily due to the population explosion.

[swanlefitte]

The New York Times just published "The Insect Apocalypse is Here" just two days ago. It is behind a pay wall but you can read 5 articles a month for free.