Locusts 'high' on Serotonin

[Morphie]

It's pretty neat when you stop and think about it but doggone weird too.

[DutchHerp]

Do locust swarms have positive influences on certain environments?

If this is, truly, a way to control them, won't that (negatively) impact the native ecosystems too (if they in truth depend upon them, which I guess is very likely)?

[ev477]

Do locust swarms have positive influences on certain environments?

If this is, truly, a way to control them, won't that (negatively) impact the native ecosystems too (if they in truth depend upon them, which I guess is very likely)?

I think I've seen some discovery channel special about locusts or pests or something. If I am remembering correctly, they provide a surplus of food for birds at certain times, maybe during migration or breeding time or something.
It could become a counter-productive strategy, if we limit the swarming of locusts, which will limit the population of birds that prey upon the locusts... maybe causing an even larger population of locusts.

I'm sure things like that will be thought out before initiating any attempting to control the populations. Nature is a very sensitive thing, in regards to controlling it, we have been selfish in the past and thought of preserving humanity before preserving the entire environment.

[wilomn]

I'm sure things like that will be thought out before initiating any attempting to control the populations. Nature is a very sensitive thing, in regards to controlling it, we have been selfish in the past and thought of preserving humanity before preserving the entire environment.

Did you mean to say you HOPED things like that would be thought out? Because with man's prior record with rabbits and toads and rats and cats we're not exactly batting a thousand here. At least not in a good way.

[ev477]

I probably should hope for that kind of thing to be thought out. The human population as a whole may not learn from it's past failures as the individual person would, like you are suggesting.

I just assumed that because of said problems, we will be more careful about such matters in the future... it's probably just wishful thinking.

[Morphie]

Did you mean to say you HOPED things like that would be thought out? Because with man's prior record with rabbits and toads and rats and cats we're not exactly batting a thousand here. At least not in a good way.

(your words inspired another tangent - sorry)

Live and learn. Man's not, like, out to destroy the balance of ecosystems or anything, he just sometimes doesn't realize the impact of certain things on the environment, or sadly sometimes just doesn't care.

Take fishing: We thought, oh hey, it's cool. To maintain a stable population we can just put a size restriction on the fish you catch. If it's too young, you throw it back and give it a few years to breed, pass on its genes and THEN you can have it (only take larger fish). The evolutionary impact of this was not obvious to people at the time, but it makes total sense: the fish who became fertile at a smaller size lasted longer than the bigger ones, and thereby almost completely replaced the population. Now, large fish can only rarely be found at all because the vast majority of the population is maturing "too early", inhibiting their growth, and thereby reducing the size of almost the ENTIRE species (the exact species this anecdote represents, i've forgotten, but I know it applies to at least one).

The great thing about life is it isn't easily stopped. Catastrophes have befallen (or crashed into) the earth many times over the course of history, sometimes wiping out the vast majority of life on board, and yet it soldiers on. The more man does this kind of thing, the more he can learn, so long as he is paying attention. The consequences of big mistakes are the loss of entire species (which almost everyone can agree is a tragedy), but I think biodiversity itself is not easily controlled or done away with. Perhaps it is only as frail as our planet...

*hugs a tree*