#this is probably the most extensive rant i'll do since i doubt anything will improve in the final three episodes

[asgardian--angels]

*emerges from the depths of the bog muck to tweet after 84 years*

I was bitter enough after yesterday’s Seven Worlds One Planet episode to actually get on Twitter and rant about it. For those in Europe, this series is still airing new here, I think there’s 3 left. I frankly cannot believe the nerve of BBC to make a show supposed to celebrate biodiversity and the unique flora and fauna of each continent and then turn the whole thing into another show about mammals. THREE EPISODES IN A ROW HAVE FEATURED BEARS SO FAR. You have 1.5 million species to choose from, and you use polar bears TWICE. What, ran out of ideas? 

There are so many stories to tell, and it’s severely disappointing to see the ridiculous focus on mammals. Even birds have been pushed to the wayside, and I’m not sure if there’s even been an amphibian yet. If there has, then it was so short I don’t remember it. I’ve been counting how many features each episode has had of the ‘major’ groups - mammals, birds, fish, herps, and insects, and on average, mammals got 2-3x more screentime than any other group, and usually still more than all groups combined for each episode. For South America and Asia, the only insects shown, besides a 2 second shot of butterflies at a salt lick, were those being eaten by primates. South America and Asia, the most biodiverse places on Earth for terrestrial invertebrates, and they act as if they’re not important enough to even show in passing. Not a single one has been named to species. Heck, the plants aren’t even named. AND NO FUNGI. Their mammal features are waaaay too long, cutting out time they could have used to show more species.

Seven Worlds One Planet is supposed to paint a picture of each continent, show us the heart of that land. In the future, we may even look back on it to remind us what things were like. Not only have the ratios of animals been severely skewed, but big chunks of ecotypes have been passed over. I already made a post about how much of North America was un/underrepresented, and how Central America was eliminated entirely. Leaving insects out of the story of life on each continent is a crime. They form the basis for ecosystems and without them, none of the other animals they feature would exist. But even aside from their importance to other creatures, they themselves are incredibly beautiful and interesting. Does the BBC really think that their stories aren’t worth telling, that there’s nothing to work with? With over a million described species (and a few million more still out there) they can’t seem to find enough material. 

This bias towards the photogenic, fluffy flagship megafauna has always been present in nature documentaries. I don’t think I’ve ever watched one that has accurate portrayals of biodiversity. But this one is certainly pretty bad, and given the viewership and importance of this particular series as a worldwide look at not just the continents themselves but the state of them as impacted by humans, leaving insects out of the discussion is shameful and harmful. The only one they’ve mentioned in any sort of positive light is the firefly (which kind? we just don’t know), and a brief, vague mention that tropical insects that monkeys eat are ‘getting harder to find.’ Insects are impacted profoundly by our rampant destruction of habitat. We have barely scratched the surface in evaluating just how badly they’re declining, and how many may already be extinct. And trust me, if they go, we all go. Insects are incredibly resilient, so if they start to show problems, you know we’re in deep shit. They are the pollinators, the decomposers, the seed-spreaders, the predators, the prey, the herbivores, the pollution alarms. They are the EVERYTHING that makes our planet function. 

Please recognize how detrimental and concerning it is when high-profile documentaries exclude them, and demand their presence. Too many people today do not even think of insects as animals, and assign them little to no value to either their lives or the planet, when this couldn’t be further from the truth. One of the biggest ways to combat this is to just include them in nature shows, things seen by large audiences. Treat them as equals, avoid using language like ‘monsters’ or ‘creepy’ that put suggestions into the viewers’ minds. The most screentime we ever got for insects from a major BBC production was during Life, when an entire episode was dedicated to them (and each other ‘major’ group). But you know the problem with that? Firstly, they make up the vast, vast majority of life on earth and if mammals also get an hour, then insects should get their own ten part series. But even more importantly, it gives viewers a choice to avoid it. Those who like insects will watch it, those who don’t just won’t tune in, and thus no benefit. Insects (and other invertebrates) need to be represented ALONGSIDE other animals, and given equal treatment in terms of screentime and storytelling depth. This forces, per se, viewers to sit through them and acknowledge them as animals like all the others. 

These companies (BBC) need to work way harder to change the minds of the general public about insects, especially given the state of insect diversity in Europe right now (declining badly!). If absolutely nothing else, they should at least be showing more of them in passing, as scenery between stories. They really go from one mammal to the next. People are enthralled by the cinematography of BBC nature series, but BBC is falling very short on accurately representing the natural world and that does a lot of damage. They have a big responsibility to do good, since they are so high-profile. It’s high time they step up. As an entomologist, I’m sick to death of seeing insects left out or portrayed in a negative light. It only makes my job of convincing people otherwise much much harder.