Do you believe that the cause will be humans?
The human population issues appear to be local in some regions only. The insect decline is globally so it appears that it cannot provide an explanation for the official announcement that millions of species will be extinct in 1-2 decades of time.
Scientists: “We wanted to really wake people up. When you consider 80% of biomass of insects has disappeared in 25-30 years, it is a big concern. In a few decades, the insects are gone.”
According to several sources the decline is mostly blamed to "new pesticides".
NGC: "Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides" (2019)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... riculture/
America’s agricultural landscape is now 48 times more toxic to honeybees, butterflies and other insects, than it was 25 years ago
The past 25 years is the same period that GMO or genetic engineering has been introduced on a large scale. I wonder if profound corruption of nature by genetic engineering may be a possible cause.
Toxins can be circumvented by nature. It will find a way to clean up the mess. It can create new bacteria for example. The plastic in the oceans is already being cleaned up by new bacteria.
Genetic engineering however is something else. GMO can 'corrupt' vital parts of nature that affect the purpose to live in tiny creatures. The symbiose between animals and plants that is obvious for humans, such as ants that live together with a plant, or flowers that are adapted for bees, may be applicable on a much greater scale than humans could comprehend.
How does a bee and a flower establish a symbiose? As my footnote argues, something that is good as it was doesn't have a reason to come into existence. The bees and flowers are not just meaningless humps of chemicals. They serve life in a greater whole and the complex coherence of genes may hold vital information for reaching the future, for serving others (nature) in the best way, for purpose
Big Pharma like companies are currently investing trillions of USD per year in 'synthetic biology' for a planned 'revolution' to redesign life.
Big pharma raises bet on biotech as frontier for growth
https://www.ft.com/content/80a21ca2-136 ... f78404524e
Hint: red flag / corporate corruption on the cover of The Economist
Biotechnology is already a bigger business than many people realize. Rob Carlson of Bioeconomy Capital, an investment company, calculates that money made from genetically engineered animals and plants accounted for about 2% of American GDP in 2017.
Those given to grand statements about the future often proclaim this to be the century of biology in the same way that the 20th century was that of physics and the 19th century was that of chemistry. ...
Humans have been turning biology to their own purposes for more than 10,000 years. ...
Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance other than making money. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
The idea by which synthetic biology is possible implies that there will be literally 0% respect for nature. Animals and plants will be considered meaningless humps of chemicals that can be "done better" by a company.
The corruption would be purely driven by "making money" which could be seen as a deviance of a potential "good" purpose of nature.
Maybe GMO is destructive for the will (purpose) to live.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.