California’s Monarch Butterfly Population Hits Record Low
I&#x27;d like to discuss how this fits into the broader context and ask some stupid questions. In attempt to quell some downvotes, let me state upfront that I&#x27;m fully convinced climate change is real, human-caused, should be reversed even if the cost is very great, etc.<p>That said, articles like this frustrate me because I don&#x27;t think they provide enough context for why we should care. Literally no one I know is going to give up their creature comforts of smartphones, electric lighting, driving the car they want to drive, eating meat, having kids, A&#x2F;C, commercial air travel, etc. just to save a species of <i>butterfly</i>.<p>What&#x27;s the ultimate consequence if Monarch butterflies no longer exist? Is it just early warning of other bad things? What are <i>those</i> things?<p>And the big question that I don&#x27;t see answered much: if we lose a bunch of species to climate change before we get our act together, why does that ultimately matter? Is it just sad? Is it that we don&#x27;t know what will happen if things start changing really rapidly? What <i>could</i> happen in the worst case scenario?<p>Wikipedia lists [1] a bunch of North American species that have gone extinct in the past 1500 years. I&#x27;m surprised by how short the lists are, and how few there are in the past decade. And no one seems to care about these species...I don&#x27;t know anyone lamenting the loss of the Eelgrass limpet or the Ash Meadows killifish.<p>I&#x27;m <i>very</i> pessimistic about our ability to get a handle on climate change in the next 50 years. Our civilization is not built for this challenge. I hope I&#x27;m wrong though.<p>But at the same time, I&#x27;m very optimistic about the biosphere for the next 1000 years. We&#x27;ll switch to renewables or fusion, probably do large-scale geoengineering to correct some damage, and we&#x27;ll adjust as a species.<p>That doesn&#x27;t mean hundreds of millions or even billions of people won&#x27;t suffer and die in the transition. We <i>absolutely</i> should fix it before hand if we can.<p>But the people claiming that humans will be extinct in 50 years because of climate change are completely out of their minds. It sounds like a religious argument to me, not one based on the science. Humans are cockroaches; we&#x27;re not going anywhere unless an asteroid hits the earth. And it completely undermines the rational case to be made for why we should address climate change.<p>On the non-human front, a lot of plants and animals will either go extinct or almost go extinct but then most populations will recover. Our descendants mostly won&#x27;t care about the species we lost, just like we don&#x27;t care now about the &quot;missing&quot; species we lost a long time ago. We may even figure out ways to revive extinct species.<p>But I&#x27;m not a biologist or climate scientist, so I may be completely wrong. Don&#x27;t tell me why I should be alarmed, because I already am. Tell me why people who don&#x27;t care about butterflies should be terrified about the prospect of them disappearing. And whatever that story is, start telling it more, and connecting the butterfly story to it more, because otherwise it&#x27;s just noise.