Dear Anup,

the issue of conservation of insects should not be a matter of benefit to humanity.

I think it is our ethical duty to grant a right of life to all the inhabitants of this wonderful Earth.

Otherwise, it might easily turn out that we humans are actually the biggest disruptive factor in the system ...

We all have seen a spider's web. If we break a single thread, the structure becomes weak and if many are broken the entire web will collapse. Our ecosystems are also like spider's webs and individual organism is like a thread. So we need to protect every organism for maintenance of the balance of our ecosystem.

It depends. May be NO for a specific purpose; may be YES for all purposes combined.

Subir, I think this is a hypothetical relationship. I dont believe that each element of an ecosystem is equally important for the ecosystem, although I believe that many if not most insects are crucial for ecosystems and our own survival.

Most insects can only be conserved when their habitat is conserved, which is forest (one of the most comlex spider webs, when using Subir's comparison). When we protect forests, we have partially answered the initial question. To me, the question how to protect forests is much more significant, as the survival of many people depends on the clearance of forest.

Best regards,

Robert

Someone may have asked if all fungi were important 100 years ago, but I don't think anyone today would agree that penicillin was not vital for the development of medicine.

I think it is not equally important for the ecosystem

Not every species is equally important for the ecosystem in its current form. But everything is dynamic and changing, we have no idea which species will become crucial in the future, which ones will become beneficial to us (and these are two completely separate points). Having only named maybe 10% of all the species, and knowing the biology of less than 1%, it is very delusional to think that we have any idea what is going on. What we know is that species are disappearing with increasing speed, and we have also a moral responsibility, next to our own interest to survive a bit longer as a species, for which we need a stable environment.

Dear Anup,

the issue of conservation of insects should not be a matter of benefit to humanity.

I think it is our ethical duty to grant a right of life to all the inhabitants of this wonderful Earth.

Otherwise, it might easily turn out that we humans are actually the biggest disruptive factor in the system ...

Sofia, Rudolf, Robert, Subir and others have already persuasively confirmed the - anyway obvious - conclusion: yes, it is as well our duty as our interest to do our best to assure survival of any existing organism - whether a protozoan or an ape. I would like only to add, that we should start with strong adherence to the old principle primum non nocere (first of all: don't harm): avoid such actions which further deteriorate natural environments (not only forests) and result in situations when organisms (insects or others) become so endangered than we must deliberate on their "conservation"!

This is a highly tricky question. a. Because the issue is not only about insects, but concerning all the earth species, including bacteria, fungi etc.; b. Because, as a result of the natural selection, species are constantly disappearing and ecosystems are changing as well; c. Because our existence as humans significantly enhances the species disappearing; d. Because we deliberately had, and are trying to terminate destructive and pest species: bacteria, fungi, insects and more; e. Since we have only identified 10% of the earth species (or much less, I believe); f. Because we don't really understand how our activities are influencing the natural species populations. Well, I believe we should: a. Minimize our nature destructive activities as much as possible; b. Conserve the earth natural ecosystems; c. Try to conserve single interesting species that are endangered; d. Continue to terminate destructive species; e. Continue to search, recognize, learn and understand the earth numerous species.

It often happens that we intervene in the ecological system for a supposedly small advantage for humanity. This often causes damage that we try to balance with another procedure. Sometimes the cost of compensation exceeds the original benefit. What I mean by this: It should become the rule, in our personal, but especially in political action, to take into account the overall consequences, the so-called "ecological footprint", and include them in a cost calculation.

Then we will refuse many interventions, and the compensatory measures will cause less shakeup. That would perhaps stem excessive, uncontrollable negative consequences such as the plastic in the oceans.

Protecting endangered species often costs enormous sums of money, which could often be saved if one were to consider it beforehand.

Arguments for conservation can - crudely - be divided into two types: anthropocentric, i.e. how is this species useful to people? - and biocentric or ecocentric, based on the idea that all species have an intrinsic value that does not depend on us. If you take an ecocentric viewpoint then, yes, we should conserve all species. If you take an anthropocentric viewpoint, you would ideally conserve only the ones that are useful to us in some way. However, we don't (yet) know which ones are not useful with any confidence, so even with a purely anthropocentric viewpoint it probably makes sense to try to conserve everything.

Dear Richard, its probably more a nomenclature thing, when you apply the Ecosystem approach ("...humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems...") (see Ibisch et al. 2010, reference below), then there remains only one type of conservation arguments.

I agree absolutely with the idea that species have an intrinsic value that does not depend on us, and everybody who has any empathy for life may agree with this.

I think the initial question ("Are all species of insects need to be conserved?") can also be interpreted in a different way.

No, not all species of insects do need protection. There are several species that are perfectly adapted to human environments and several of their populations even depend on humans. E.g. I live in a city that is infested with Dengue transmitting mosquitos.

Thinking of such insects, I am asking myself what is their intrinsic value.

The attempt of ecosystems to control human population?

Ibisch, P.L. & A. Vega E., T.M. Herrmann (eds.) 2010. Interdependence of biodiversity and development under global change. Technical Series No. 54. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal (second corrected edition).

At first, based on our poor knowledge of natural ecosystem, we couldn't identify all these natural enemies and pollinators now. Protecting them is tolerating our ignorance. Because our Earth which has undergone many great changes in 4, 600 million years, doesn't care about us. We are protecting ourselves, we can hardly survive without the high level of biodiversity, without these insects.

Dear Sofia, thanks a lot for your post.

Like most in my family I have first hand experience with Dengue, for what reason I definitely dont conserve mosquitos in my house (Aedis aegypti is perfectly adapted to urban conditions) and work in several projects to control the mosquito population. I would say in my urban environment, Aedis aegypti is food for a comparably low diversity of urban wildlife. I consider the mosquito as the problem, as the Dengue virus would be unable to live without it. This discussion reminds me of the slogan "people kill, not guns".

As you surely know very well, the transmittion of avian virus occurs mostly due to direct contact with secretions from the nostrils, mouth, and eyes of infected poultry (e.g. Pigeons do not contract or spread the virus) as well as their droppings, and mainly during slaughter or plucking, often combined with low hygiene conditions and close quarters. In areas with cases of infections I would not keep, slaughter, pluck or eat poultry, but nevertheless enjoy a bird watching tour in a nearby forest fragment, of course using great amounts of insect repellent (e.g. forest in my area is inhabited by Malaria transmitting mosquitos).

I assume that you live in an area without virus transmitting mosquitos and birds.

From my point of view there is a difference between "not conserving species" and "exterminate" them, I never said that I would welcome the extermination of any insect species.

The contrary, when you have a look at the last sentence of my previous post.

However, nobody wants to die or lost a loved one because of an insect transmitted disease.

Best regards,

Robert

Dear Sofia, thanks a lot for your answer and little provocation, stimulating, it motivates further explanation and discussion.

In Italia, mosquitos dont carry dangerous diseases because early in the 20thCentury the Italians erradicated Anopheline Malaria vectors.

In urban contexts, mosquito control is species specific, Aedis aegypti breeds in small recipients with standing water, like gutters and tree holes, while Culex (transmitter of the Zika virus) breeds in channels with flowing water. Anophelines do not occur in urban environments.

The question if we should conserve each insect species may be answered for different populations differently. I am sure that the non-urban population of A. aegypti is large enough to ensure the survival of this species. Additionally, it is an invasive species, which is adding a further aspect to this discussion. In one part of the world we may conserve this species, while in others not.

Speaking about the remaining 99.99 % of insect populations, I already said that we need to protect ecosystems entirely (which in the case of most insects, including mosquitos, is forest), and not to focus on specific organism groups, as the initial question suggests.

Best regards,

Robert

Sofia and Robert: Extinction of Aedis aegypti in urban contexts, how do you manage this? If you guarantee, that you hit only this species, I see no problem. But if you need insecticides, you will hit the whole system. In our times, (that is really strange) the urban ecosystems are in better conditions than in the rural surroundings. I do not think, we should make that worse...