The Herald News ran an excellent guest opinion on March 5, by Michael S. Engel, a paleontologist and entomologist at the University of Kansas, titled “An Insect Apocalypse will be our Apocalypse.”

The author begins with an expression of concern that the plan to build a border wall will effectively destroy the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas, which is a 100 acre refuge for 200 butterfly species, plus thousands of other plant and animal species.

He then goes on to note that “recent studies have revealed precipitous declines in insect abundance that foretell the possibility of considerable extinction,” and asserts that “we can no longer afford to be cavalier about saving those species with whom we share this world, including insects.” They are all vital to human life.

What struck me most in reading this article was that it is the first serious discussion of the sort that I’ve seen relating to the proposed border wall. There has been much talk of questions like the crisis at the border, the president’s authority to declare an emergency, the expected cost of the wall, and whether it will prove effective. Engel has shown us what has been missing in these discussions: serious professional and non-political evaluations of all pros and cons, including such peripheral matters as the fate of the National Butterfly Center.

The same is also missing from most public discourse these days. Even a subject as serious as climate change is confused by political bickering, when clearly all politics should be set aside out of concern for the future of our planet.

Thanks to the Fall River Herald News for printing Engel’s article. It is just the kind of dispassionate discussion that is needed. Please let us have more like it.

Raymond A. Jussaume

Somerset