Because it's a symptom of a much larger problem. Namely, collapse of insects in general: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-c...
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years, there've been multiple reported rapid declines across multiple species, not just "this species that for some reason stands out". Some species are naturally more studied than others (because of availability, accessibility, observability etc.), and when they collapse, it's can be immediately observed.
Robert Paine developed the theory when he went to a bunch of tide pools and picked out some of their starfish. What he found was that the ecosystems (isolated tide pools) where he removed all of the starfish rapidly collapsed. It turns out that the starfish were critical to controlling the population of another animal that was preying on herbivores. When the starfish disappeared, its prey grew out of control and ate all the herbivores. This caused seaweed and other plants to grow out of control, exhausting several key resources faster than the ecosystem could naturally replenish them, until the tide pool became a deadzone.
> This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.full?ftag=MSF0951a...
Still, I find no harm in asking "what is it about this species that makes them stand out?" I was expecting to get factual answers along the lines of "these butterflies are tied to this specific other species and we know that this could snowball into X, Y, Z". I would've liked to hear something like this instead of the other patronizing answers and the accusative tone.
> Asking questions is fine! It's great. It's how we learn. But cavalier comments like the OP are downvoted not because they are asking serious questions, but for stinking of militant ignorance.
I'm getting downvoted just like OP. Am I being cavalier too?
I'm more concerned about our inability to have a discussion without assigning nefarious implicit meaning to questions. I realize that denying human impact on the environment is a reality in US politics. I'm not from the US. I don't understand much of these things.
If you don't mind me asking, what exactly in OP's question made it stink of militant ignorance? Am I displaying the same ignorance as well? Or am I only expected to perpetuate the outrage and never question anything.
For instance can I ask where this comes from "The extinction rate today is 100 to 1000 times higher than geological norms." or will it sound like I'm denying all human impact on the planet?