I have also found dying birds in my yard a few days after the neighbor sprayed their house perimeter for ants. No toxicology report but there was no sign of any physical damage.
I work on RNAi-based biopesticides (sprayed dsRNA) - non-GM, doesn't impact beneficial species, doesn't hang around in the environment, etc. Already ubiquitous in nature (and part of our diet). Peptide-based biopesticides are another approach that is going well. Both approaches are now commercialised by smaller players (e.g. for varroa mite control in bee hives by GreenLight), and not by the Bayer, Syngenta types.
If these substances slowly cause cancer (making it harder to trace) or other health problems, like birth defects or fertility problems, it can take a generation to figure out. The money has long been took and the getaway car long gone. Just lots of damaged and sick people wondering what happened, who will likely not even get a "sorry".
Such numbers might be ballpark correct, but I think the "without them" here literally means "if we take current industrial agriculture and simply drop pesticides" i.e. without any other change. Pretty obvious that yes, doing so will easily get you to numbers of that magnitude.
So it's a bit strange not considering the various root causes of what requires those pesticieds in the first place: monocultures on dead soil and nothing which even begins to resemble a normal ecosystem in sight. Those causes happen to be exactly among the causes of the massive insect/more general biodiversity decline we're witnessing. Along with pesticides, sure, but habitat loss is likely an even bigger factor.
So while those biopesticides are probably a net win over what is used now, it's rather unclear if they'll have a meaningful impact on that decline. Which is why reports on solutions for the decline also always include adressing at least part of the root causes, like partial shifts back to landscapes which are a mix of nature and agriculture. Where there's at least a bush/tree line between fields, for instance. Which also helps keeping certain pests in control.
We send rockets to the moon and every person is getting phones. We would survive without pesticides.
maybe they don't make great decorations, but the spiders generally stay in their webs and don't bother me. i once watched one defeat a wasp twice its size. i might feel differently if we had any dangerous spiders around here (just black widows, and they stay in dark hidey holes), but i'm happy to trade a little space for their services.
Some of ours are decorative enough, eg this orb weaver I exchange greetings with most mornings: https://www.pasteboard.co/07o5TWpFLUY8.png
Whenever I see a spider indoors I try to remind myself that for every spider I see I am probably seeing 10 less of other bugs. And if the spider is unsuccessful in catching other bugs it will leave on its own
Or rather, that maybe we're learning the wrong lesson each time. Maybe instead of "asbestos is bad" or "DDT is bad", the real lesson should have been "biological and ecological systems are incredibly fragile outside of the exact combination of environmental conditions and chemical inputs they've specifically evolved to handle".
Too much complexity, too many delicate mechanisms and feedback loops. Can't afford to keep playing whack-a-mole, every generation we replace the old poisons and add some new ones. If we keep introducing new molecules and quantities of substances that evolution hasn't had a chance to adapt to, then we shouldn't be surprised that we keep breaking things.
But let's not pretend we don't use pesticides for a reason. People gotta eat, and pyrethrins are already an improvement AFAIU, less toxic to mammals, similar to molecules that exist in nature. But still, a cudgel. Maybe we need to take ecological engineering seriously, control pest species by simultaneously cultivating stable ecosystems of insectivores/predators and hyperparasites, poison spray not required...
An hour later, monarch having a seizure on our porch. Oops. Never again.
That's not to say something can't work better on one particular type of biotic, but its still harmful to the others as well.
We’re using scented lures which have the right salt + lipid combo to attract mosquitoes. It helps but I still wish Nathan Myrvold had seriously developed that “photonic fence” product.
There have been some anecdotal reports of people having to clean their car windscreens a bit more often. That's a good thing. It means more bugs are flying around. Insect counts go up, counts of anything that eats those goes up as well.
Reducing the use of pesticides is a good idea as well. If only because modern farming still depends on pesticides and pollinator populations collapsing seems to be correlated with the use of pesticides. No pollinators, no fruit/vegetables. It's in their own interest to do something about populations collapsing. Allocating some of their land for pollinator friendly vegetation would also be smart.
A lot of over the counter toxins should be banned and in EU the use and sale of those is already restricted. Even rat poison is banned in some places now. Unfortunately, farmers seem to have successfully lobbied for being able to continue to use some pesticides. But it seems that awareness of the issue is growing; including of the health effects of living close to a farm that uses pesticides. It's likely that more restrictions will come eventually.
homeowners have nothing on farms, acres and acres of pesticides and monocultures
Hard to do that when the very thing you're fighting against drastically lowers the cost of the product.
No, this is what regulation and laws are for. Too bad science and the like seem to be on the way out currently. :/