Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#61

Post by ItsMe000001 »

cjensen wrote: post #20
sverige wrote: post #2

I don't know of any studies to prove it is true, but I suspect that the US Midwest (in particular) has had a similar decline. Anecdotally I can say that there are certainly far fewer insects here than there were in the 60s and 70s when I was growing up, and also that there seem to be far fewer birds. I wonder if we'll stop dumping this stuff into the environment before it's too late. It would require a whole new way…

No there are not fewer birds. Ornithologists routinely census areas for species and counts. They notice when species decline in an area. They notice when new species arrive in an area. There have been zero reports of birds in general declining. EDIT: Here's a reference [1]. Note that it specifically calls out species in general decline: the Northern Bobwhite, American Kestrel, and the Loggerhead Shrike. [1] http://ww…

The link that you give mentions "record setting count circles" - but this is about the number of areas in which they count, not about the number of birds!

In fact, apart from two or three statements about one particular species I see not a single statement about the overall status. So I don't see how this article in particular supports your assertion of "No there are not fewer birds.", it does not say anything one way or the other. The only statements about bird numbers made in that article are about declines, but only about two or three selected species, for example with this sentence (quote from your linked article): "A disturbing finding from last year was the continued decline of the Northern Bobwhite".

So you may or may not be right, the one reference that you provide does not help me to come to a conclusion, except that I wonder why you chose it.

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#62

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

JetSetWilly wrote: post #49
debJC wrote: post #5

GMO anyone?

GMO is illegal in france. If anything it is the lack of GMO causing the problem. No GMO crops means you must use incesticides in large quantities, with GMO crops you don’t need to use incesticides and therefore insects and the environment are less effected. A good way fir France to tackle this problem would be to allow GMO crops. Alas, hysteria and superstition are against sensible solutions.

Using GMO crops doesn't mean you don't need pesticides. The crops are engineered to withstand the pesticide, but you still have to use pesticide to protect the plants.

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#63

Post by briandear »

bambax wrote: post #50

What's so infuriating in France is that farmers are basically sacred: nothing can be said, let alone done, to curb their behavior. They benefit from all kinds of advantages: they don't pay taxes on fuel and don't pay for water (water in France is very expensive for everyone else except farmers), have all kinds of special conditions and fiscal deductions, and that's in addition to the direct payments they get from the…

I live in the Luberon on a hectare of land. But check this out— all real estate sales of land claimed to be agricultural land (such as mine,) must be approved by a farm association. So farmers can even control the buying and selling of my home that they don’t even own. If, for example, I wanted to buy up a bunch of agricultural land and turn it into a nature preserve, that sale could be blocked by a third party despite not having any ownership rights to the land in question.

It’s a bit insane.

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#65

Post by adventured »

newnewpdro wrote: post #40
Jesus_Jones wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They deny science, but also fact-based decision making and inconvenient facts.

This should be expected when your population is still predominately religious. Religions condition people to believe fiction as fact.

That's blatantly false. US common adherance to science in terms of progress has varied throughtout its history, while general religious belief has almost perpetually declined for two centuries. They do not appear to be very strongly linked in the US; that's due to its secular foundation. The US has been the world's leader in scientific output since the Civil War, there hasn't been a close #2.

Under your theory, the US should be radically more scientifically oriented now than it was a century ago, as religious beliefs have plunged substantially over that time.

Or for another example, the Chinese culture is extremely mystical. And saying extremely, is an understatement. Just their beliefs around luck alone are as mystically out there as any hard-core Christian notions I've ever run across in the US.

And yet those mystical beliefs supposedly do not deter the Chinese from the pursuit of science.

A near majority of people in Western European nations believe in ghosts or the equivalent. In fact, less Americans (42%) believe in ghosts versus people in the UK (52%) [1]. How do you believe in ghosts without believing in some kind of convoluted afterlife theory? How can scientifically oriented people believe such things?

Canadian monthly church attendance rates were as high as recently as 1988, as the US is today. Did that mean Canadians were crippled scientifically until the last 10-15 years? I doubt it.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/why-do-pe...

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#66

Post by briandear »

adrianN wrote: post #56
bambax wrote: post #50

What's so infuriating in France is that farmers are basically sacred: nothing can be said, let alone done, to curb their behavior. They benefit from all kinds of advantages: they don't pay taxes on fuel and don't pay for water (water in France is very expensive for everyone else except farmers), have all kinds of special conditions and fiscal deductions, and that's in addition to the direct payments they get from the…

The alternative seems to be importing a lot of food that has been grown in countries that might care even less about the environment.

No, the alternative is importing food from countries who have a competitive advantage in agriculture, such as the United States — thus improving the economic condition of the 98% of French who aren’t farmers.

Also, your theory holds no water: France still manages to import vast numbers of cheap Chinese consumer goods which are often produced under extraordinary bad environmental conditions. So if the idea that France is saving the environment by farming more, then it would follow that they’d be making more consumer goods for similar reasons. But they aren’t.

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#67

Post by JetSetWilly »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #62
JetSetWilly wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GMO is illegal in france. If anything it is the lack of GMO causing the problem. No GMO crops means you must use incesticides in large quantities, with GMO crops you don’t need to use incesticides and therefore insects and the environment are less effected. A good way fir France to tackle this problem would be to allow GMO crops. Alas, hysteria and superstition are against sensible solutions.

Using GMO crops doesn't mean you don't need pesticides. The crops are engineered to withstand the pesticide, but you still have to use pesticide to protect the plants.

If you're using Bt GMO crops, you need to use way less incesticide. There's lots of sources on this, eg: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#68

Post by briandear »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #58
bambax wrote: post #50

What's so infuriating in France is that farmers are basically sacred: nothing can be said, let alone done, to curb their behavior. They benefit from all kinds of advantages: they don't pay taxes on fuel and don't pay for water (water in France is very expensive for everyone else except farmers), have all kinds of special conditions and fiscal deductions, and that's in addition to the direct payments they get from the…

>> Why is there no one to say, this has gone too far; why can't we hold those people accountable for what they have done and what they are doing, I don't understand. Probably because they're growing food, which most people consider necessary. Besides, before getting to the farmers and the destruction they have wrought on to the environment, there is plenty of scope to look at the behaviour of, oh, I don't know - the…

So you are essentially blaming peaticide companies for the pesticide use by farmers?

That’s like blaming a murder on the bullet factory.

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#69

Post by smt88 »

justboxing wrote: post #27
chx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't even convince everyone to do something about climate change. What are the chances we can get people worried about beetles?

This exactly. In fact we've ( the US) gone the other way, electing a President and Party that openly denies climate change.

He is the most hated candidate and least liked president in modern history.

He lost the popular vote.

Republican dominance is a product of voter suppression and gerrymandering.

I agree we're not doing a good job of protecting the environment, but Trump's election doesn't indicate that people's willingness to do so is waning.

I've only ever seen evidence that people care more about climate change as time goes on and the economy recovers.

Re: Bird populations in French countryside have fallen by a third in fifteen years

#70

Post by lumberjack »

briandear wrote: post #66
adrianN wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative seems to be importing a lot of food that has been grown in countries that might care even less about the environment.

No, the alternative is importing food from countries who have a competitive advantage in agriculture, such as the United States — thus improving the economic condition of the 98% of French who aren’t farmers. Also, your theory holds no water: France still manages to import vast numbers of cheap Chinese consumer goods which are often produced under extraordinary bad environmental conditions. So if the idea that France…

Go talk to Venezuela about competitive advantage. They purposefully neglected their native food production in favour of food imports from abroad. Now they cannot source enough USD to import enough food and they are fucked.

Food is a national security issue. You cannot become dependent on other countries.

Post reply on HN