Reply To: Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
I was not arguing against the findings of the research (that insect extinction has been proceeding at a rate of 2.5% per year over the past 25-30 years) or that this does not present a problem. What I was arguing was the way in which it was presented, in particular this:
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.”
It’s the use of the word “will”, especially as, here, the “if” or the “unless” part is missing. “Could” doesn’t cut it either as anything not logically possible could occur, e.g. socialism could be established tomorrow, or feudalism for that matter, in fact all insects could become extinct tomorrow. “Might” would be better, as that brings in the question of how probable something is. As would “would”.
Also, apparently, the survey does not actually say that all insect species “will” be extinct by 2119. That’s just common sense. You don’t have to be a entomologist to dismiss as absurd the idea that all the species of insect on the planet, including the millions in the untouched jungles of the Amazon, the Congo and Indonesia, “will” go extinct by 2119, not even if nothing is done to try to counter species going extinct.
By coincidence, the difference is neatly illustrated by the front page headline in today’s Times: TORIES WOULD WIN MAJORITY IF ELECTION HELD TODAY. If it had read ‘TORIES WILL WIN MAJORITY IF ELECTION HELD TODAY’ the meaning would be quite different (even if a pessimist might prefer it expressed the second way).
Saying “there is a problem, but it’s being exaggerated” is not the same as saying “there isn’t a problem”. All I am calling for is a bit of critical thinking when faced with sensational or tententious headlines.