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

141–150 of 901 posts

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

#141

Post by jay_kyburz »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #126

"Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals."[0] [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 Studies show that outdoor cats kill billions of birds annually. Anecdotally, posting anti cat studies on social media leads to real world threats and cat lovi…

In the ACT here in Australia, all cats born after 1 July 2022 must be registered and kept indoors (or in a cage when outside). There are also 17 suburbs where cats of any age must be contained at all times.

If you elect green governments, progress can be made.

Here is a press release https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_gov...

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

#142

Post by jonathankoren »

wilg wrote: post #138
bmitc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals cannot solve this. I leave trees up, dead or alive. I plant native plants. I remove invasive species. I only keep invasive bushes if they house birds. I don't spray for insects except around the base of my house, I don't kill off chipmunks, voles, squirrels, rabbits, etc. How can this compete with the dozens of neighbors in a half-mile radius that have removed in excess of hundreds of trees, big ones like…

I'm a bit confused by this: > Unless governments take action and penalize corporations for the harm they've done and take measures to prevent further harm, we won't be able to stop what's coming. What corporations? It sounds like your neighbors are just individuals? And can you clarify "what's coming"?

It's pesticides. It's pollution. This isn't complicated.

What's coming? Ecological collapse. That's what happens when you kill all the pollinators, when you kill all base prey animals.

None of this is complicated, nor unforseen. We've known this about pollution and pesticides for decades, even longer when it comes to climate change.

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

#143

Post by wilg »

josho wrote: post #95
klipklop wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m so tired of these conservative freedom arguments. Somehow on one side it’s always the freedom to consume, like the freedom to own a 5,000sq ft home, or an oversized SUV. Conservative freedoms never seem to be about my freedom to enjoy listening to the birdsong of native birds because we saved their habitat.

It's probably not worth arguing about the definition of "freedom". To my eye, you're referring to two concepts that are so different that trying to use the same word for them just creates more confusion.

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

#144

Post by lotsofpulp »

d0mine wrote: post #80
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…

If individuals are responsible for just 1% of the issues then even if we eliminate them "bottom-up" completely, we are still left with 99% of issues that should be fixed at another level. For example, consider what would save more water: 10 million people stopping showering completely or one corporation stopping production of water-intensive crops in a desert.

What if politicians do not have the political support to stop the one corporation because 9.99 million people like to consume the water intensive crops grown in the desert?

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

#145

Post by OO000oo »

wilg wrote: post #138
bmitc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals cannot solve this. I leave trees up, dead or alive. I plant native plants. I remove invasive species. I only keep invasive bushes if they house birds. I don't spray for insects except around the base of my house, I don't kill off chipmunks, voles, squirrels, rabbits, etc. How can this compete with the dozens of neighbors in a half-mile radius that have removed in excess of hundreds of trees, big ones like…

I'm a bit confused by this: > Unless governments take action and penalize corporations for the harm they've done and take measures to prevent further harm, we won't be able to stop what's coming. What corporations? It sounds like your neighbors are just individuals? And can you clarify "what's coming"?

The owning/ruling class is directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of the pollution and environmental destruction on the planet. This is not complicated.

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

#146

Post by 23B1 »

bmitc wrote: post #114
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…

Individuals cannot solve this. I leave trees up, dead or alive. I plant native plants. I remove invasive species. I only keep invasive bushes if they house birds. I don't spray for insects except around the base of my house, I don't kill off chipmunks, voles, squirrels, rabbits, etc. How can this compete with the dozens of neighbors in a half-mile radius that have removed in excess of hundreds of trees, big ones like…

Okay so my original comment was maybe lacking on its own "solutioning" so let me try one out, based on your comment.

1. Set up a bird-friendly/enviro-friendly environment in your yard. You could do this by planting micro-clover instead of grass, building bird houses, adding safe sources of water for birds, planting pollinator-friendly flora.

2. Evangelize. Plan a block party or even a birdwatching 'club'. This doesn't have to be as formal as it sounds; you could just take pictures of birds and evangelize them on a local group, or maybe point out to a few of your neighbors that they have really interesting specimens on their property.

3. Connect with the local Audubon chapter (or equivalent) and give them encouragement or support; help them with their website or social media, invite them to a BBQ, show them that you care and will help out.

Obviously I don't know your situation and can't predict all the reasons this might not work – and I'm not suggesting that you have to do all this – I'm really just trying to get your juices flowing, show you that there's ways that you can at the local level that might even benefit you – like getting to know your neighbors, having a beautiful and unique home, or even just making friends!

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

#147

Post by 23B1 »

nemo wrote: post #123
bmitc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals cannot solve this. I leave trees up, dead or alive. I plant native plants. I remove invasive species. I only keep invasive bushes if they house birds. I don't spray for insects except around the base of my house, I don't kill off chipmunks, voles, squirrels, rabbits, etc. How can this compete with the dozens of neighbors in a half-mile radius that have removed in excess of hundreds of trees, big ones like…

Yeah, the systemic issues driving habitat loss are massive. I have made my yard a refuge for native plants to support insects, birds, and other wildlife, but I see exterminators on my street all the time killing off any insects that appear in neighbor's yards, and that kind of mass scale habitat destruction/loss is going on all around us in so many ways (lawns, roads, industrial farming, et al). I also really enjoy m…

Right, which is why you have the opportunity to evangelize what you're doing.

Like for example, a two dudes in my hood have swapped their lawns over to micro clover because I did it three years ago; the lawn is packed with wildlife, and it looks great. Wouldn't have happened had they not come over for BBQ one day and asked about it.

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

#148

Post by rblatz »

bmitc wrote: post #129
doublepg23 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you compete against that level of narcissisim and lack of empathy? I would assume the start is stop labelling your neighbours as narcissists and anti-social.

I didn't say anti-social. And what do you call displacing hundreds of birds, animals, plants, insects by planting literally wastelands made of grass just so that the grass can be looked at? How is that not narcissism, a lack of empathy, and vanity? It's the very definitions of those words. We must first come to terms with what we as humans do and how we interact with and perceive the world. Look up Benjamin Vogt and…

[flagged]

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

#149

Post by jonathankoren »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #51
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 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.

No we can solve these problems. We know the solutions. It's government regulation, complete with punative fines and imprisonment on not just corporations, but the executives of the corporations. We choose not to solve them, because it will make a multibillionare a mere single billionares and we believe this is bad, because the billionares tell us it's bad.

In the United States has been an intentional, systemic, and documented propaganda campaign (their term even!) from the 1900s, with an even larger emphasis since the 1930s, to today by the National Association of Manufacturers -- the funders of hayek and Friedman -- to delegitimize any attempt to put any regulation as not only antibuisness, but antifreedom, and it's bullshit. It's to trick people into thinking they aren't just powerless, but being powerless is actually good.

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

#150

Post by 23B1 »

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.…

WRT #2, I'd argue that many, MANY peoples – towns, families, cultures – have survived MUCH longer thanks to their bottom-up, localist thinking. I'm not saying top-down doesn't work, but it clearly isn't working for climate change. Too many adverse incentives, to much systemic ineffectiveness.
Post reply on HN