Fun with numbers

[Mark Walker]

> 
> >Only 0.0000001% of the population actually likes doing what I do.  We are
> >responsible for killing 0.0000000000000001% of the population of bugs
> >(which is only 0.0000000001% of those killed by other humans), and we are
> >the first to be told to put down our nets. 
> 
> 	If I have not miscounted zeros, Mark is saying that 0.3 collectors
> (assuming he's talking about the U.S.) are killing (per year??) 0.07 insect.
> (C. B. Williams estimated that 10^18 insects are alive at any given time.
> About 7% of these would be in the U.S., going by land area.) I guess col-
> lecting can't be much of a problem...  :-)


Hey!  I'm feeling pretty good, considering I pulled these numbers out of my ...
well, you get the picture.  Actually, I did attempt to make the numbers of
zeros somewhat _realistic_.  So I added a few, deleted a few, and so on.

Let's take a closer look:

My number for collectors was as a percentage of total world population.  In the
U.S., the percentage can't be larger than 0.001% - but for the world, this
number might be an order of magnitude smaller.  Are there 5000 hunting
collectors in the U.S.?  You suppose there are 50,000 of us on the planet (I
don't think so)?  We're obviously not talking about trading here (and I suspect
reared specimen don't count either).  C.B. Williams' number of 10^18 insects
presumably accounts for the billions of insects that are being killed every day
by human beings (let's conservatively assume that each person kills 100 a day),
so using his(?) number is a bit misleading.  In any case, collectors are
_selectively_ and _conservatively_ killing an additional 6.25 x 10^7 per year
(based on my own rather aggressive collecting habits - 50 collecting days of 25
specimens or 25 days of 50 specimens, either way a total of 1250 per year). 
The people of the world are indiscriminately killing something like 1x10^14
bugs per year.  The numbers being collected would therefore correspond to
0.000000001% of the total (my original error being 0.00000001% too small) and
0.0001% of the number being indiscriminately killed by humans.  Even using
Kenelm's 7% by land area figure, the number of collected specimens would be
1x10^8 (5000 x 1250)\0.07 which is 0.00000001% of the total.

Now, all of this fun with numbers not withstanding, Neil and Doug have made the
valid point that any added predation on a small and sensitive species could
prove to be fatal (to the species - it's already fatal to the individuals).  We
all agree here - selectively killing these bugs is _unethical_ and very bad for
the future of collecting (not to mention the bugs - which I already did).  But
then, these species represent a very small percentage of the total (here we go
again... - no, I'll spare you).  Can't we manage these effectively without
legislating the net out my (our) hands?  My point here, AGAIN, is that we are
more part of the solution than we are part of the problem (we still
indiscriminately kill our 100 bugs a day, so we are at least PART of the
problem).

Propagating the notion that a person in a field with a net is a _croock_
(Paulo's definition) is inappropriate, not _fair_, and not even in the best
interest of bugs and those who want to preserve and protect.

Hmmmmm.  Currently, I use a green net.  Do you think that'll help to keep the
revolvers holstered?

Mark Walker.