"Most scientists today live in cities and have little direct experience with wild plants and animals, and most biology textbooks now focus more on molecules, cells and internal anatomy..."

"... than on the diversity and habits of species. It has even become fashionable among some educators to belittle the teaching of natural history and scientific facts that can be 'regurgitated' on tests in favor of theoretical concepts. That attitude may work for armchair physics or mathematics, but it isn’t enough for understanding complex organisms and ecosystems in the real world. Computer models and equations are of little use without details from the field to test them against."

That's from a NYT piece by a professor of natural sciences (Curt Stager) who notes a study that "documented a 76 percent decline in the total seasonal biomass of flying insects netted at 63 locations in Germany over the last three decades, asks "Are we in the midst of a global insect Armageddon that most of us have failed to notice?," and warns — quoting Edmund O. Wilson, "If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos."

I'm worried about the insects, but I'm also worried about the city-living scientists and their tendency toward "armchair physics," "mathematics," and "[c]omputer models and equations" that fall short in understanding the complexities of the real world. I couldn't help thinking about the climate change computer modeling and the consensus of (city-dwelling?) scientists.

The insects are an ecosystem to be understood and — in a way — the scientists are also an ecosystem to be understood. They thrive in the city, doing math with computers.