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

A third of North America’s birds have vanished

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 901 posts

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#101

Post by RGamma »

gerad wrote: post #85
kelseyfrog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate state of things is that we've run out of the problems that we can solve and are left with the problem we can't solve. Our society/species is pretty terrible with problems that involve diffuse responsibility. Part of the problem is that we don't have social technologies equipped to handle diffuse responsibility, and another is that we have social agents who exploit this social bug to make money.

I’ve been reading Harari’s “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” recently. The book makes the point that the history of Homo Sapiens coincides with mass extinction - humankind has been disrupting and destroying habitats since it rapidly expanded out of Africa 300k years ago. Even before the agricultural revolution. It happens time and again throughout various geographies and histories, Homo Sapiens arrive somewhere…

Culling luxury/non-essential consumption would already get us quite far. But we wanted dutiful consumers and boy do we have them now; plus we built a large part of our wealth on that behavior so it sticks.

And to add to that, virtually every externality of our consumption is invisible at the point of sale, and it requires abstract thinking to even get the idea that there might be something wrong with it. But even with an inquisitive mind finding out the concrete externalities is really difficult when the deed is done and hidden in complex supply chains.

Really our best bet I think is to define minimum untouchable habitat and have the effects of that ripple through the economy on its own (the effects of this will be really unpopular, I fear; wonder how 30 by 30 will turn out). Not sure (hard) technology or education could help us in a way or on a timespan that matters by now, but I guess one needs to do appropriate things on all fronts, fit-for-purpose for the various societies/target groups.

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#102

Post by HideousKojima »

da39a3ee wrote: post #52
HideousKojima wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I've literally had a half dozen juvenile sparrows sitting on my bedroom windowsills for the past several days chirping up a storm while their parents fly back and forth feeding them bugs. Plus countless robins, sparrows, sandpipers, and starlings all over the neighborhood.

Yes, those birds are basically human commensals -- thriving in urban environments. (Not sandpipers though! I wonder what you meant there?) But being serious -- are you familiar with some of the species that you only see if you go to genuine natural habitat? They are beautiful things, it is very rewarding to see them in their natural habitat, and if humans do not preserve natural habitat they will be lost forever.

>Not sandpipers though! I wonder what you meant there?

We've got a few blocks of open fields right next to our house and there are several families of sandpipers (or some other sort of curlew I guess?) that nest in the grass.

We actually have a huge wild migratory bird refuge about 10 miles away, so we've seen all sorts of bird life.

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#104

Post by prepend »

vhlhvjcov wrote: post #92
23B1 wrote: post #35

One thing I dislike the most about these problems – and the information/media/activism around them – is the "solutioning". Yes, we should recycle and reduce carbon emissions and learn to live in a more integrated fashion with earth. But the problem is so diffuse and requires substantive work against powerful forces (government, business, apathy). What I'd like to see more of, when presented with these sorts of proble…

I agree with the sentiment but a couple problems with this approach 1. When you put the onus on the individual, powerful organisations will jump at the opportunity to absolve themselves of blame. Look at recycling and how it was pushed by the plastics lobby or the idea of a “personal carbon footprint” that was pushed by oil companies. There is a fact that these are systemic problems, that require systemic solutions.…

> When you put the onus on the individual, powerful organisations will jump at the opportunity to absolve themselves of blame.

Powerful organizations already absolved themselves. Check out the headline.

Also, this doesn’t put the onus on individuals. Individuals aren’t responsible for the change, but they are powerful enough to do something.

Doing something doesn’t mean doing everything.

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#105

Post by dudeinjapan »

josho wrote: post #98
MattGaiser wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That gets dismissed as “virtue signalling” as “it won’t make a significant difference.” That is basically the Conservative rank and file line for why Canada shouldn’t reduce emissions. They say “we are only 1.5% of emissions, so it won’t matter.” I am not arguing that your way is bad, but that there will be stiff resistance either way. At least with government, you just need to win once and inertia means that it like…

Oh that argument from cons really gets me enraged. As a comparison to show their inconsistent reasons oh conservatives are proud of Canada’s contribution to the world wars, you never hear conservatives say “we only contributed 1.5% to the war effort, so it won’t matter”

It’s not clear that Canada’s self-sabotage of it's most profitable industry (oil and gas) will benefit its people or the environment in the long run.

On the other hand, when it comes to fighting actual Nazis in WW2, every bullet counts.

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#106

Post by jraines »

jeffbee wrote: post #83
23B1 wrote: post #35

One thing I dislike the most about these problems – and the information/media/activism around them – is the "solutioning". Yes, we should recycle and reduce carbon emissions and learn to live in a more integrated fashion with earth. But the problem is so diffuse and requires substantive work against powerful forces (government, business, apathy). What I'd like to see more of, when presented with these sorts of proble…

"Bird-friendly yard" is probably the most counterproductive of these. Habitat loss is far and away the biggest problem that birds face. Anyone having a yard is the problem. People must learn to congregate in compact development forms and leave the land for the animals, if they care about having animals. Probably the only easy life change individuals can do is not eat meat and not buy ethanol. That would return tons o…

This is exactly what GP is talking about.

Millions of people have a yard right now, today. Telling them to not do a little something for birds right now, and instead they should feel bad unless they uproot their life this instant to become one micron in what would be at best a generational reurbanization project is the kind of thing that gets people to just tune this stuff out.

The rational choice of an individual, if the “real answer” is disruptive to their life and will take massive state incentives and/or coercion, is to wait for the carrot & stick to actually be produced. So why not put some, idk, whatever is bird friendly in the yard in the meantime?

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#107

Post by jrflowers »

klipklop wrote: post #76
23B1 wrote: post #35

One thing I dislike the most about these problems – and the information/media/activism around them – is the "solutioning". Yes, we should recycle and reduce carbon emissions and learn to live in a more integrated fashion with earth. But the problem is so diffuse and requires substantive work against powerful forces (government, business, apathy). What I'd like to see more of, when presented with these sorts of proble…

The point isn’t to have you save the birds, it’s to get you to give up certain freedoms to a group that claims they can save the birds.

Are you saying that this conspiracy is masterminded by… Big Bird?

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#108

Post by formulathree »

23B1 wrote: post #35

One thing I dislike the most about these problems – and the information/media/activism around them – is the "solutioning". Yes, we should recycle and reduce carbon emissions and learn to live in a more integrated fashion with earth. But the problem is so diffuse and requires substantive work against powerful forces (government, business, apathy). What I'd like to see more of, when presented with these sorts of proble…

The problem is none of your solutions are viable either. Even if they were executed the results are usually negligible. In fact most of your solutions end up making us feel better about ourselves. But this is all illusion.

For these huge environmental problems humanity is facing, I'm sorry to say the only way it to do huge drastic unrealistic changes that will never occur because humanity doesn't have the will power to pull it off.

The real honest answer is that there no "solutioning" the worst case scenario will likely play out.

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#109

Post by vhlhvjcov »

prepend wrote: post #104
vhlhvjcov wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment but a couple problems with this approach 1. When you put the onus on the individual, powerful organisations will jump at the opportunity to absolve themselves of blame. Look at recycling and how it was pushed by the plastics lobby or the idea of a “personal carbon footprint” that was pushed by oil companies. There is a fact that these are systemic problems, that require systemic solutions.…

> When you put the onus on the individual, powerful organisations will jump at the opportunity to absolve themselves of blame. Powerful organizations already absolved themselves. Check out the headline. Also, this doesn’t put the onus on individuals. Individuals aren’t responsible for the change, but they are powerful enough to do something. Doing something doesn’t mean doing everything.

The question to me is: what is the thing I should do? Where should I invest my energy?

Time and energy are finite resources and taking political action to drive systemic change has proven results (see previous examples).

I don’t know of any transformative movement against mass threat to human life that hasn’t relied on some form of top-down implementation to achieve its aims. Maybe environmental vegetarianism in the west? But that’s hardly been an unqualified success…

Re: A third of North America’s birds have vanished

#110

Post by goatlover »

gerad wrote: post #85
kelseyfrog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate state of things is that we've run out of the problems that we can solve and are left with the problem we can't solve. Our society/species is pretty terrible with problems that involve diffuse responsibility. Part of the problem is that we don't have social technologies equipped to handle diffuse responsibility, and another is that we have social agents who exploit this social bug to make money.

I’ve been reading Harari’s “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” recently. The book makes the point that the history of Homo Sapiens coincides with mass extinction - humankind has been disrupting and destroying habitats since it rapidly expanded out of Africa 300k years ago. Even before the agricultural revolution. It happens time and again throughout various geographies and histories, Homo Sapiens arrive somewhere…

So much for the naive idea that humanity lived in harmony with nature until the rise of civilization a few thousand years ago. We and our extinct cousins were invasive species migrating out of Africa.

Agreed about driving down the cost of fixing these problems. They’re so complex and universal that there is no simple solution everyone can just vote on.

Post reply on HN