Wow, I was actually shocked by your bad attitude and ignorance here. If everyone though like that there would be no wild animals or ecosystems left 😢

I've always thought its so strange that insects are the only animals with actual wings, not just modified forelimbs

These sorts of articles appeal to the mass public which are completely ignorant. I read the comments on here before watching the video, and am truly dumbfounded at how many are completely butthurt from your viewpoint on this.

Dinosaur feathers? Dinosaur feathers WITH creatures in them?! I'm ready to take this ride! Your sea insect video was a great jumping off point. Gynandromorphy video even had more visual examples than just the classic butterfly and bird! I see many more subscribers in your future.

Ok, but about amazon deforestation... not really caused by people with no other means to make a living. It's caused by big farmers that illegally expand their properties ('grilagem') to increase production with no costs. That said, the consideration of the local people interests is fundamental for any conservation project.

Fun fact: Most insects are not crickets

Subscribed! Always excited to find a science channel that actually dives into research. Fantastic talk. Can't wait to watch your other vids \o/

Could they be dinosaur pube lice? Proving man and dinosaur lived at the same time.

This is the most idiotic video I've come across in months, jesus fucking christ my guy.

I'm relatively new here - started watching your videos when your "why no sea insects" video went popular, and I subscribed thinking why not, maybe I'll find something else interesting sometime in the channel. Gosh, reality is, I have watched every video you released since, and they are all interesting even if I don't think I'll be interested in them from the title. So, basically, I see a video of yours, I click. Thanks for your hard work.

Not to be a 🤓☝️, but insects are just land crustaceans. Stuff like shrimp are the ocean insects you’re thinking about.

I love trying honeys from different plants. Mesquite honey is probably my very favorite type; mixed with taco spices and chipotle pepper, it's fantastic on grilled chicken. I've also had Nepalese mad honey (from rhododendrons), which is red and has a taste of tannins a bit like dried fruit. I experienced no hallucinations from the doses I took in spite of the claims of its potency, but it is narcotic and, drank with herbal tea, spurs on deep and dreamless sleep. Anecdotally, I also noticed that I didn't go into withdrawals when abstaining from caffeine as I normally would if I'd consumed it the night before.

Liked, subscribed and commented. 👍

So basically, every bug that is not immediately relevant to medicine, agriculture, or economy is just "lol who cares fuck em"? Imagine if we applied this thinking to vertebrates. I think these hyper niche habitats and species make the world more enriching to live in. Also, arthropods are not all fast breeding. Many arthropods do actually have long generation times or low offspring numbers.

They simply evolve into a sea creature

Great content as always.

First.

I haven't watched the video, but from the top of my mind I guess the reason is that most of the ecological niches fulfilled by insects on land are being occupied by crustaceans in the ocean. That's my take on why

Bro, dont listen to these folks unsubscribing. A comment here literally called humanity a swarm. Conservation of our ecosystems IS important, but not at the cost of human life. A single human being is more valuable than a billion isopods. Unfortunately, so many of the folks in academia hate their own species. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I completely disagree. I actually know a few of the authors of this paper, since I study Oniscidea myself,and had already read the article when it came out. The trade of isopods is being detrimental for Spanish species, as there is many indigenous species that only occur in very restricted areas. So because woodlice are not popular for conservation, we shouldn't try to keep healthy wild populations? Why? What's the harm in this paper? Shouldn't we try to protect every species? Just "let them die because who cares?" really? And things CAN be done about their conservation. For example, protecting the restricted ranges of many species, like caves. Why wouldn't we try? "Why protect them?" Why not? I like to hike, and I specifically like isopods. So I want to see them, I think they're neat. When I go take a hike I like seeing as many things as possible, that's what a healthy ecosystem looks like. I don't want to go out and just see one species of plant, one species of arthropod, one species of mammal and one species of bird. Why protect them? Because they're beautiful and unique. Each and every species is the process of millions of years. And we're lucky enough to be able to experience them! Why wouldn't we protect biodiversity just for the sake of the beauty it provides? From your point of view, why study most arthropods anyways? Why study most live things for that matter? What a bad take man... Just found your channel a few videos ago and think what you do is great, but this? What a way to shoot yourself in the foot...

I thought the title said Creationists and got excited, then got very disappointed. Ill watch before deciding though

Allowing the continuation of isopod trade reinforces the anthropocentric, short-term oriented ethos that produces so many of our worst environmental problems. By permitting ourselves to potentially annihilate such species for our own momentary gain, we are reaffirming the belief that we are superiors to the natural world and can treat it however we want, justifying more egregious actions that may get us killed. While I don't believe it would be best to start tearing down this ideology with matters such as this (as the general public tends to hate invertebrates, no matter how essential they are to the survival of the earth), it should be done regardless, as this framework isn't something the earth can handle. I also love how you justify hatred towards woodlice conservation efforts with the idea that woodlice are "icky" to the average person, and "not something that a typical person would support spending money on conserving". Why would we trust the opinions of the average human, who doesn't even know of the existence of the vast majority of non-Apis meliffera pollinators (which produce the food they eat)? Why would we agree to follow the ideals set by the average individual, who doesn't understand or recognize the extensive negative impacts of eutrophication or invasive species (which endanger ecosystem stability and human livelihoods). I have more comments (and could've fleshed out my preexisting thoughts to diminish the possibility of miscommunication), but feel they are wasted on someone who dismisses those of others without considering the ideas put forth, simply responding with ad hominem.

Atlaspro released a video on butterfly extinctions recently, and his comments on conservation efforts had me thinking about your channel. Consider doing a react video, the KZbin algoritm really likes that sort of in-house channel cross-pollination (pun intended)!

what a ridiculous video.

This is such a pressing issue that's right under all of our noses, and so many claim ignorance to it. It's simple anthropocentrism. Thank you for bringing this issue to light.

So as an entomologist, you are OK with humans exterminating species because of their needs and greed? This is an odd take given you hopefully love these creatures. Is it only OK if they are rare, isolated, or fragile. You really want a handful of exotic species, and screw the species that can't adapt to our swarming BILLIONS and BILLIONS? What a strange take. I'd be horrified if I set up my moth sheet and I had a 1000 exotic Noctua pronuba and a handful of 10-20 other species. That is an absolute disaster.

It isn't anti-humanism, but anti-biodiversity! What right do we have to exterminate even the cave dwelling isopods? What hubris humans have as a species. The "Delta Smelt incident" suring the CA fires brings to the forefront the difficulty in convincing humans that species are worth preserving. We are a species just like the Smelt is a species so in the grand sceme of things so both deserve to exist on this planet. As a biodiversity fan I am insulted that people just don't care about keeping species extant and are just like "who cares, it's just a fish". Imagine the disaster if the leaders of the world decided that we should just not care and live in just a world with House Finches and Starlings, and every lake having Largemouth Bass and Grass Carp. I think EVERY species is ecologically signioficant and just because the human species is so overpopulated and intelligent, doesn't mean we should just exterminate biodiversity because we can. We also have the intelligence to keep our planet biodiverse too. The problem with outreach, is the "why do we care about the smelt" argument is fairly weak with the laypublic. Saying "it deserves to live" or "I'd rather live in a world with it" are easily mocked and non-persuasvie. I wish there were stronger arguments

While you bring up some decent points, as well as other commenters, I understand your point of view when you say these niche conservation efforts are a "waste of time." It's not so much about the isopods themselves, but the fact that the conservationists expect humanity to just stop its habits as a whole. While humans aren't going anywhere for sure, we are a part of nature, and it's important to be aware of any greater risk human activity poses to ecosystems. We don't have to stop mining, but there are ways to do so more sustainably. I agree with your point about Spain needing to provide more economic opportunities for its citizens, however, I don't agree with people capturing wild animals and trying to domesticate them. It's a complicated issue, with not just one right answer. It's also important to note that isopods don't have near as much depth of research put into them, since they are not a species that is of "economic interest." It would be nice if research could be funded despite purely anthropocentric interests. So the impact of the isopod trade, especially on more niche species, may not be fully known. I can also see your point that conservation efforts can sometimes interfere with nature. Sometimes it's better to leave very small ecosystems just the way they are, because the natural order may reduce it to the point of extinction regardless of if humans exist or not. It did happen frequently before humans existed.

Anybody clickbaiting this hard is an immediate DNR

Man, you are so arrogant. So dismissive of less charismatic organisms. Disgusting. You get a comment so the algorithm sees that this topic gets engagement, but you yourself should feel bad about yourself.

That's so interesting, but also the worst thing I've seen all day

I've seen flat erthers argument their lunacy better, ofc I want an isopod that lives at 1 specific place to keep existing for my grandchildren to be able to appreciate it, wtf is worng with you

Eucalyptus in the sutro forest of California monoarchs use the tree as a host and nedting tree yet they have been getting destroyed cause theyve been blamed for spreading fire even though these are fore adapted trees and even have picturse of huge trees with burn scars but still green and standing the eucalyptus also is home to hummingbirds and eagles and garter snakes. They cut down a massive eucalyptus obliqua in the cemetery and replaced it with a manzanita i fail to see how destroying hybrid ecosystems is some how "helping" biodiversity. Im just going to refer to them as "those people" fail to understand that ecosystems are NOT stable they're always open to opportunistic species casue ecosystems are constantly disturbed due to natural phenomenon and human disturbance which is natural the fact the dispersion vector of these plants and animals are a primate makes it natural but invasion biolgist argue that biological invasions arent natural cause humans cause them which is a contradiction because humans are natural which makes anything we do natural as it is the normal behavior of humans which makes "invasion" natural. Allianthus is a prime example its considered an invasive species cause its found alive today in Eurasia, but there are fossils of tree of heaven in nroth America dating back to the mid tertiary bht now that its home again its considered invasive or rhododendron ponticum in europoe is considered invasive and responsible for the destruction of old growth oaks yet just like the allianthus altissima fossils of it have been gound in paleocene sedements but because modern ecology grew without them they arent native if thats the case the i guess ginkgos and other gondwanna remnants cant be cataloged as native either.

Cool video. Appreciate your position deviating from the common bleeding heart PETA angle, which usually disregards any costs or ROI and asks people to make serious sacrifices for the .001% chance that we'd be screwed if we didn't protect x species indefinitely

I hate calling "conservation/invasion biologist" native nazis though when you hear them talk they sound crazy to people with critical thinking they all have this queer idea that we can somehow garden the globe they eant to get rid of earthworms, they wanna eradicate bugs, and plants alike to get the world back to some idea they think earth looked like over 130,000 years ago and when i hear them talk the conversation quickly bouls down to "well you kill some you win some" im big you're small im smart you're dumb, and thats potentially exactly why most people that are not accustomed to biology will hear them and not care cause even mediocre average everyday people know how crazy these people sound alot these guys also HATE cultivars/hybrids of "native species" cause it lessens biodiversity even though hybridization is what gives natives resiliency in a changing climate they talk about biology but believe in stagnant ecosystem which would kill off biodiversity and have adverse effects as cliamtchanges we will see more animals and plants that can handel humans disturbance by rapidly adapting and evolving im all for having pockets of "novel ecosystems" but culling the globe and regulating and outlawing basically banning things i fail to see how this isnt eco imperialism with a bit of eco fascism but they hate being called native plant/animal nazis. This whole thing of "invasive" vs "native" falls apart when you look at humans and they're also considered invasive species and on the behalf of my friends and other fellow sapien creatures i fell its my duty to protect this position, if invasiveare so bad and awful does that mean humans should also go back to east africa and kill their daogs and cats cause cats and dogs are also classified as an invasive so if we're outlawing non native speices should no one be able to own cats dogs, rats, pigs ect pothos, ivy, viburnum, nandinas, autumn olive, dutch elm, allianthus altissima/confucii, eucalyptus the list just keeps going.

Great and thank you for that! I never understood the just because of the conservationists, and I am an entomologist for 10 years now...

this is just...... wow. 'old man yells at cloud', indeed. unsubbed dude (¬_¬")

Exactly because it is a niche topic, this is why they can be so dangerous. Because not many people are interested, they can monopolize the discussion and contribute to the formation of very strict legislation. This is quite common in the European Union as it regards animals. On the other hand, I don’t believe that because a species is small, it should not be worthy of protection. Conservationists cannot safeguard thousands of years ahead, but at least those extinctions may be natural and unavoidable. So why are you dismissing those animals so often? It seems that you’re working with them, but you don’t really like them. Is it possible that you were working in pest control before you started the channel? I am more involved in reptiles, and I cannot imagine a herpetologist publicly stated that snakes are less important or that it is right that people dislike them. Everyone tries to bolster his own field and this is the expected thing. We don’t come here to listen to affirmations that bugs are disgusting. We come here to listen that they are the most intricate and diverse creatures in the world. Then it is the job of a skilled politician to balance the different interests. Also being somewhat anti-human is normal, especially here in nature and zoology related places. Although I don’t describe myself as 100% anti-human, I might be at 60%. Much of your viewer base might be nerds that socialize more with isopods or roaches rather than humans, keep this in mind. We are basically here because we were collecting little billbugs and similar stuff during our childhood, and now the same places have been developed and no bug is moving on the same walls. We have felt what destruction means and destruction does not only need to involve protected areas to be considered worthy of discussion.

"The reason no one cares about wood lice conservation is because it is well outside the boundaries that are reasonable to care about." This is the direct qoute which made me stop taking you seriously. Protecting an entire ecosystem protects the creatures within it. It isnt about saving exclusively isopods. It is about conservation efforts as a whole. While the paper focuses on isopods, the discussion of conservation is obviously far reaching and to pretend that we're only capable of protecting a few species is ridiculous when you consider it truly only take a law maker writing a single bill to ensure the public sale of possibly endangered species is regulated. This video feels so hateful and incredible pointed and quite frankly, if this is your new normal... I will unsubscribe. You summed it up perfectly yourself when you said; "old man yells at cloud." Your lack of self awareness, needless aggression and downright intentionally condescending, superior than thou attitude truly does match that of an old man, who is indeed; yelling at clouds. Unfortunate.

I whole-fully dissagre with you. Biodiversity have an value of itself, that something I believe and is an base value that can't be argued with logic. I care as much for some obscure cave isopod as some charming big and spectacular animal as pandas. I agree that it's rare that collecting arthropods have an significant effect on the populations. Spreading them to new places can on the other hand have dramatic effect. Isopods definitely have diseases that can be spread like most other living things, don't know much about the it and probably not is known about it by anyone. Your rant is very strange for someone that is interested in insects, how can you be interested in them and don't care? Habitat loss and invasive species wreak havoc around the world with the arthropod fauna and thousands and thousands of species is going extinct, many we never even know existed. And that barely anyone cares is a huge issue. And you should try to make more to care (not the easiest).

At 4:30 you say that pill bugs aren´t in any realistic danger of going extinct but this is a blatant ignorance to the fact that lots of the species mentioned are isolated for example the multiple species from the Canary and Balearic islands that were found to be sold in unregulated online trade; they are by definition of what an island is, isolated, and, as such, are in supposed higher risk of extinction that other species and merit extra protections. We as people often look at the great species from the past that were lost by pure negligence but in the future we are going to be looking back at a lot more of them because of simply not valuing them enough to warrant legal protections, and this is where unregulated trade is most harmful; when we don´t know enough to protect a species.

Just discovered this channel a few vids ago. Like it a lot and subbed.Not sure about this one though. I don't think conservation is anti-humanism perse. Many studies have proven that having acces to healthy ecosystems is great for both physical and mental health. Forest is better than pasture is better than concrete. Conserving nature is therefore a very humanist thing to do. Also: there's a difference between anti-humanism and not being human-centric. Human-centrism (humans are the only important species) makes nature just a resource to use up, this mindset has caused a lot of extinctions of both big and small species. Yes, people will mine, but thinking about processes that reduce harmfull impact on ecosystems isn't a bad thing to do imo. It's not anti-human to feel that all species, including humans, have the right to a healthy living environment. Human-centrism is often anti-nature though, by not acknoledging it's intrinsic worth and just valueing it's profitmargin. You use the same logic as american car enthousiast who claim building proper infra for pedestrians and cyclists is anti-car. It's not, it's just not car centric. It creates room for more styles of transportation. It makes traffic more flexibel and customizable. Kinda like the difference between mono cultures and natural ecosystems, natural ecosystems are more resilient than monocultures. Anyway, i'm rambling. Thanks for posting, gave me a good think.

You ignored so so so much of the information provided. For example several species that are considered rare are being traded ( although the extent of if they where reared in captivity or constantly captured from the wild is mostly unknown ) and this could obviously eliminate isolated subspecies or populations and could also have cascading effects because of their role as decomposers. We should also value these smaller species and their genetic material because of the value of biodiversity for what it is and because it provides new medicines and drugs for example. Also nowhere in the paper does it say that unregulated trade is the only thing that is affecting these populations, the authors even say that the greatest issue is that there is simply not enough research into these crustaceans. To be honest I enjoy most of your videos but this one screams "old man yells at cloud" . The only reason this channel exists is because of the research and work of conservationists.

Portugal Mentioned. So I was summoned. TLDR. The real reason random cave bugs have become a talking point. Is because Portugal has one of the largest lithium deposites in Europe. We are constantly ill talking fossil fuels, we are constantly promoting "green alternatives"... EXCEPT when WE should be the ones to actually work on said green alternatives. Then it's a race to find excuses to kneecap ourselves and prevent any kind of industry to develop here, because we should import everything from abroad and not actually produce anything until the end of time.

Bullshit science still strong.

I think you do some very thorough and reasonable thinking here, but I don't necesserarly agree with you. I think this whole conservation question when it comes to little known, insignificant species, is all about ethics. Why should we humans have the right to decide which species are going to live, and which species that should forever be gone and die? Why do we have more right to live than a little woodlouse? Evolution will always clear out the species that can't adapt well, so many of these endemic, highly specialized species will die out one day, either way. But I think we should try to conserve species while we can, because most of the extinctions we are witnessing nowadays, are caused by the rapid changes we make as a highly arrogant and "intelligent" species. They are too dumb to save themselves from us, so why can't we reach them a helping hand?

I am surprised there are conservationists left. Four people working in conservation style jobs I know lost their jobs with the rest of the EPA type employment since Trump decided to dismantle the US and our ability to manage our environment in order to own the libs.

I do love the symbiosis between Sirex wasps and Amylostereum chailetii fungus.

amazing video. I hate all the needless, thoughtless "good causes" that end up wasting everyone's time. Those people are arguably worse than people who are actually polluting and endangering the world.

I'm a simple man, I see a 'jak, I like.