Of course that:
a) Destroying the environment is probably more destabilizing than keeping it intact... that's almost always the case with conservation vs change, conservation is the safe move
b) Destroying all insects (i.e a whopping 2/5th of all multi-celular bio diversity) would result in catastrophic damage... destroying 2/5th of all biodiversity would result in catastrophic damage.
The onus on any given insect conservation advocate is to prove:
1. Insects are more critical to the environment than other things we put more money and time into preserving (e.g Australia should spend more on preserving black widows and less on preserving koalas)
2. A very specific insect is critical and thus should be preserved at all cost, even if it means putting more money into the nature-preservation system
3. The bio-diversity of insects as a whole is dropping at an alarming rate compared to other species and this is harmful and unprecedented (biodiversity boom and bust cycles are the norm, usually)
I'm not saying the above 3 points can't be made.
But this article doesn't make them.
It sounds just like someone signaling "Hey, I'm a hippie ecologist, I love nature, even insects that sting, I'm that much of a group member, love me" rather than providing any new information or concrete policy proposal or even a meta-level argument for getting new information or creating new policy proposals.
The general idea of "we shouldn't destroy" nature has been around since, I assume, at least 5000 years ago or so, when bronze-age humans burnt down most forests in Europe and then realized this was bad and proceeded to replant and protect, or even venerate, forested areas. It's old new, nobody disagrees we should protect nature, it's just a typical tragedy of the commons problem, and one that hasn't been handled that badly thus far.