Thanks alene! These are interesting points and are important to think about. I agree there’s a decent chance that insects are sentient (maybe 0.1 to 20% range with extreme uncertainty, and variance depending on which specific species we are talking about). The best source I know on this is Rethink Priorities’ report, with exhaustive results here, and the bottom line opinion of each author summarised here. The number of insects and potential for suffering is gravely concerning.
However, I don’t think that justifies a complete opposition to pesticide use. Pesticides are extremely useful and valuable for feeding more humans and reducing the amount of land needed for crops. Washuck et al. (2022) analysed studies of pesticide use in the U.S. and Canada 2015-2019. They calculated that pesticides preserved millions of hectares of habitats and fed millions more humans (table below).
But there’s a deep discussion about ecology, climate change, food systems, agriculture, wild animal welfare and much else that besides that complicates the above; I really don’t know.
As well as the large benefits of pesticides, the other reason I would tentatively oppose a blanket ban is tractability. Regulating organophosphates is already difficult; trying to ban all pesticides would be extremely difficult politically, with profound opposition by industry and agriculture. Especially if the main benefits of such a ban were based on insect suffering.
I think there’s a middle way though, following the lead of the wild animal welfare ideas I’ve heard. That idea would be to try to guide farmers/governments/industry to pesticides that cause less suffering as they move away from organophosphates. I would need to read and think a lot more about this to figure out my own views, but this report by the Wild Animal Initiative looks promising. Interestingly, they note a possibility that organophosphates are a (relatively) more humane class because they are faster acting. Non-pesticide based methods may be most promising. It appears unclear and complex though.
I’m not sure of the promise of trying to guide farmers to more humane alternatives—at face value that seems a more difficult outcome to reliably achieve than bans/de-registrations. But if work on organophosphates or pesticide-suicide prevention built networks to influence pesticide policy in LMICs, that may be a resource to layer in insect welfare efforts in the future.
Thanks alene! These are interesting points and are important to think about. I agree there’s a decent chance that insects are sentient (maybe 0.1 to 20% range with extreme uncertainty, and variance depending on which specific species we are talking about). The best source I know on this is Rethink Priorities’ report, with exhaustive results here, and the bottom line opinion of each author summarised here. The number of insects and potential for suffering is gravely concerning.
However, I don’t think that justifies a complete opposition to pesticide use. Pesticides are extremely useful and valuable for feeding more humans and reducing the amount of land needed for crops. Washuck et al. (2022) analysed studies of pesticide use in the U.S. and Canada 2015-2019. They calculated that pesticides preserved millions of hectares of habitats and fed millions more humans (table below).
But there’s a deep discussion about ecology, climate change, food systems, agriculture, wild animal welfare and much else that besides that complicates the above; I really don’t know.
As well as the large benefits of pesticides, the other reason I would tentatively oppose a blanket ban is tractability. Regulating organophosphates is already difficult; trying to ban all pesticides would be extremely difficult politically, with profound opposition by industry and agriculture. Especially if the main benefits of such a ban were based on insect suffering.
I think there’s a middle way though, following the lead of the wild animal welfare ideas I’ve heard. That idea would be to try to guide farmers/governments/industry to pesticides that cause less suffering as they move away from organophosphates. I would need to read and think a lot more about this to figure out my own views, but this report by the Wild Animal Initiative looks promising. Interestingly, they note a possibility that organophosphates are a (relatively) more humane class because they are faster acting. Non-pesticide based methods may be most promising. It appears unclear and complex though.
I’m not sure of the promise of trying to guide farmers to more humane alternatives—at face value that seems a more difficult outcome to reliably achieve than bans/de-registrations. But if work on organophosphates or pesticide-suicide prevention built networks to influence pesticide policy in LMICs, that may be a resource to layer in insect welfare efforts in the future.
Anyway, interesting comment!