SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the better-go-find-me-some-more-worms dept.
Disappearance of meadows and prairies, expansion of farmlands, use of pesticide blamed for 29 percent drop since 1970.
The number of birds in the United States and Canada has dropped by an astonishing 29 percent, or almost three billion, since 1970, scientists said on Thursday, saying their findings signalled a widespread ecological crisis.
Grassland birds were the most affected, because of the disappearance of meadows and prairies and the extension of farmlands, as well as the growing use of pesticides that kill insects that affects the entire food chain.
"Birds are in crisis," Peter Marra, director of the Georgetown Environment Initiative at Georgetown University and a co-author of the study published in the journal Science, was quoted by Reuters as saying.
Forest birds and species that occur in a wider variety of habitats - known as habitat generalists - are also disappearing.
"We see the same thing happening the world over, the intensification of agriculture and land use changes are placing pressure on these bird populations," Ken Rosenberg, an ornithologist at Cornell University and principal co-author of the paper in Science told AFP news agency.
"Now, we see fields of corn and other crops right up to the horizon, everything is sanitised and mechanised, there's no room left for birds, fauna and nature."
More than 90 percent of the losses are from just 12 species including sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, and finches.
The figures mirror declines seen elsewhere, notably France, where the National Observatory of Biodiversity estimates there was a 30 percent decline in grassland birds between 1989 and 2017.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:04AM (26 children)
Why do small minds always go directly there? This isn't about suicide. Why do you immediately think about that? It's not something that will happen overnight. It's about not having kids the world can't support.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:09AM (1 child)
If it isn't about suicide, then it's about murdering women before they can squeeze out kids the world can't support. Why do you hate women, misogynist serial killer?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:15AM
Slashdot called and wants you back.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @02:11AM (13 children)
Sorry, evolution don't work that way. If you don't have a biological imperative telling you to reproduce, you don't get to keep existing. If you do have one, you're going to keep increasing in numbers until something external changes your ability to do so.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:18AM (3 children)
That's how Ebola kills its hosts, just like we're doing to Earth.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:23AM
Save the Earth. Kill the infection. Murder women today.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @02:32AM
Odd. I thought that it was the inflammatory substances it has your infected cells synthesize in large amounts to cause hemorrhaging and release of bodily fluids so as to spread itself to the next host more effectively. (Yes, there are diseases that so over replicate that they clog up the systems bringing on death. Ebola isn't one of them. It gets your own defense systems to destroy your organs)
But what do I know. I'm a small mind. I bow to your greater intellect and knowledge. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:39AM
Exactly. Humans can either be parasites or pathogens. At the moment, we are pathogens, driving our own extinction.
Don't worry, the
moronspeople here don't understand the difference.(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:20AM
It doesn't have to be an external factor that counteracts population growth. Overpopulation leads to an increase in whackjobs snapping, advocating forced sterilization, and going on killing sprees aimed against breeders.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:26AM (7 children)
Then US is heading towards extinction, with a 1.72 fertility rate in 2018, following a 1.76 in 2017 [vox.com].
Those "illegal aliens"? They are the only ones keeping America alive now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:36AM (1 child)
FUD. This is the same type of thinking that leads CEOs to crater their companies by looking only at growth as the measure of success. When you reach 100% market share, you can't grow anymore. I suppose from that point forward, you're a complete failure as a CEO.
We don't need to increase the number of people in the USA. We need to DEcrease the number of people until we're at a level that can be easily sustained by the environment without needing to use massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, which destroy our oceans and insects.
If the USA had only 1 million people, it would be trivial to feed everyone. There would be plenty of space. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power could sustain us all. There would be no shortage of freshwater to drink. Things would be so much better than they are now. Sure, it would be a bumpy road to get there, but everything worthwhile is difficult.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:49AM
The ones that actually use massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides are the population involved in agriculture. As of 2012, barely over 1% of US population was involved in agriculture [wikipedia.org] and, still, US is a net exporter of food.
The moment you start reducing the US domestic demand for food, the food will just be exported; the fertilizer and pesticides will be maintained at least at the same levels, if not even higher (if the American farmers want to drive the prices lower to compete internationally).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @02:36AM (4 children)
Exactly. It's why the anti-immigrant fervor of the Trump-istas is such an anathema to me. Immigrants are almost always a benefit unless there is an existing overpopulation problem in a country. Immigrants generally have to have a certain baseline level of health, intelligence and motivation or they wouldn't be making the trip no matter if they are legal or illegal (though someone will surely strike me down for using such prohibited words. ;)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @11:19AM (3 children)
You're dropping a very important adjective from the phrase "illegal immigrants" and massively changing its meaning. Was this intentional?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:51PM
You're an idiot, thanks for playing but youuuuu're ouuuuttaaa heeeeere.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @05:43PM (1 child)
Oh, just riffing on the current political correctness status of illegal immigrant (Hasn't "politically correct" itself become politically incorrect to use?) I work at a University so am exposed to more of this nonsense than some.
I was referring to both legal and illegal. My current boss is a legal alien (British subject). And I've met a lot of excellent legal immigrants.
I've also dealt a lot with the illegals when I did refrigeration repair at restaurants. (I guess "undocumented migrants" is the current term. It'll likely be another ten years before that becomes an epithet. We keep renaming things over time as one term gets tainted. Look at the history of idiot, moron retarded, special, etc. Each were introduced as a neutral word and quickly became unacceptable. Humans are funny critters).
The upshot is that I've met few "illegals" who were lazy etc. More often I've seen them taken advantage of because of them not having a legal status where they can go to the cops or authorities when their employer does something outrageous. I've seen it where someone brings over Asians to work in restaurants and promises he'll help them get a green card. Then when that never happens he'll threaten them with turning them in if they squawk about it. Same bastard was having them stay in what was basically an open barracks in his McMansion on the west side of town and only had pay laundry facilities for them. He himself was Asian.
Lather rinse repeat with several different cases. You never have clear proof where you can report them and you'd end up hurting the wrong people anyway.
The whole legal/illegal thing is a farce on both sides of the issue as the businesses want the cheap labor and often can get the authorities to look the other way. I'd a lot rather have a documented guest worker program so that they are identified and have a legal status and can bring charges when they get ripped off (we have thugs that specifically target the Hispanic illegal immigrants here as they know they're unlikely to go to the cops.). Some get upset about wanting identification, but how would they feel about a European neo-Nazi on the run getting into the country illegally. It's all about whether they are "the good guys" or the "bad guys"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 24 2019, @03:19AM
Ditto. It would completely destroy our economy to pay them minimum wage tomorrow but I'm sure we could get it squared away in a decade or two.
What I meant was you said Trump folks are anti-immigrant. The left out adjective makes the difference between that statement being dead on the money or an outright falsehood in the vast majority of cases. Hell, every legal Mexican I've talked politics with since 2016 voted for Trump. They also hate illegals more than anyone else I've ever met. Not by a little bit. By a shitload.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @02:21AM (9 children)
You immediately focused on the labeled joke in the first line and didn't answer the actual problem in the latter part. Was that a TL;DR, or did you not have a real answer to it?
90%? That's gonna take a lot of technology to do if you want to not go back to neolithic living. Without massive automation there are levels of population required for given levels of technology due to the subtasks of getting and fabricating the materials. (And yes, I've thought a good bit about how to reestablish society and what is needed for different levels of tech. It was a common topic on the transhumanist forums long before most even had heard of them.)
But, since I'm such a small mind I'll just wait for your answer, Wiley Coyote. Careful with that anvil. :)
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:31AM (8 children)
Please consider thinking logically about the situation before posting. This doesn't happen overnight. We have plenty of time to put together an appropriate plan for downsizing the population. There is no post-apocalyptic scenario here.
Towns die all the time. People move away. There is no reason we should need to ship food across continents. If there are few enough people, the supply-chain can be localized in an efficient manner. You just refuse to accept that anything other than "more is better" is a possibility.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:03AM (7 children)
This is hysterical.
"You just refuse to accept that anything other than "more is better" is a possibility."
Like some straw with that man? But hey. I'll just let you tell me what my beliefs are. It'll save both of us lots of time.
"Towns die all the time. People move away."
To other places, usually. Though some of them do move to the cemetery.
Your problem is this sticking to a %90 reduction number. If it were say, the population in 1900, of 1.6 B, with our improved technology we might be able to do it. But, you're wanting to go back to levels of the 17th century. That's fine if you want to have that lifestyle, but it's not what you saw in Europe in that time. Most of it was far more nasty brutish and short in the parts of the world that didn't have reasonably effective governments like, say, China.
I don't believe in AI and automation enough to think it will come all that soon to save us from the current realities of running a society. I've seen that rosy prediction several times going back to the 60s and it never worked out. And without it, the amount of labor needed to keep the computers and health care running just won't be there. (I work at a research institution that does a lot of health related research. There's a lot under the hood of making those medicines. A whole chemical industry and the steel, electronics, polymers and such that underpin it). Now maybe we can get so good with genetics that we can make microbes to turn a lot of them out, but we are a loooong way from it.
If you just want to wave a wand and mutter the incantation of "appropriate plan" with no specifics you're doing the same thing as our current climate and energy plans which are firmly based on the sand of carbon capture that doesn't exist.
You excoriate me for being illogical and small minded, but you don't seem to have done a lot of actual thinking about the methods of getting to where you want. You're just repeating mantras that you've likely heard from others who also don't have to worry about running societies.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:43AM (6 children)
Sorry for follow up posting to myself. But I have to correct something.
The way the comment about China is phrased it sounds like I'm saying it was nasty brutish and short due to bad government. I was actually saying that it had a pretty effective government even then when there were mass famines going on due to weather etc. They would have been far worse without the Chinese government of the time.
The Chinese had a level of bureaucratic sophistication far beyond Europe for much of history and much of the social hierarchy of their elites was based on an examination system of high sophistication.
For the nasty brutish and short, I was meaning much of the rest of the world.
The history of China has been one of my interests for some time and I apologize for phrasing this so poorly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @04:00AM
China is the population reduction success story. So successful that they are going to reverse course and offer incentives to have more children. Too bad those haven't worked for Japan [cnn.com] and South Korea [citylab.com].
We have one guy here calling for 90% population reduction, but we have several countries offering incentives to have more children, with China moving in that direction. How interesting.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday September 23 2019, @04:40AM (4 children)
I see no reason why reducing population to the levels in the 1700s means we have to go back to the technology and living standards of those times. That's a silly argument to suggest that we could not maintain our current level of technology with a world population of 800 million.
A lower population would help a great deal in preserving natural habitat, species, and reducing tensions. I don't know about any specific target, such as 90% lower. How on Earth do proponents of that much reduction think we can possibly get there without disaster?
One of the most powerful ways to keep population in check is empowering women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @06:04AM (3 children)
The 90% goal is completely unrealistic. We are at 7.7 billion and on track to hit at least 10 billion globally. Maybe 12 billion or more. These estimates could be conservative, and they don't factor in anti-aging at all.
While many Western countries will probably decline in population, U.S. will hit at least 400 million, maybe 500 million.
You use the word "target". There is nothing like climate change accords for population growth, and probably won't be in the coming decades. Several countries are trying to boost their birth rates instead. China doesn't want its population to decline below 1 billion.
We are looking at a 50% increase rather than a decrease. Maybe the trend will reverse and we will return to today's population around the year 2200. But we could continue towards 20 billion instead. The planet can support a lot more people if agriculture, distribution, and energy technologies improve. On this timescale, we will have very cheap renewable sources displacing fossil fuels, and practical nuclear fusion. Even subsistence farmers benefit from new technologies.
Africa is ground zero for the growth. Population of the continent is expected to quadruple. It was 820 million in 2000 and could be 2.5 billion by 2050. There is more prosperity and less war there, and women are becoming more empowered. Birth rates will go down, but per capita consumption of resources and energy will go up.
A lot of money and effort is being spent on improving fertility. Once artificial wombs and related technologies are developed, we may see some surprising trends in the West. In particular, women won't be necessary for childbirth or eggs, and for couples there will be no need to take time off work for the latter months of pregnancy. Reproduction will not depend as strongly on marriage rates or sexual activity rates, although the equipment could be too expensive for the lower/middle class to access.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:45AM (2 children)
What are you on?
By 2020 3billion people will be on the move due to global warming already. $100T will be underwater. Sorry, under plastic-filled water.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @09:04AM
Fuck what I'm on, I want that Noah's Bark you're smoking.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 23 2019, @02:57PM
From what? Water has to come from somewhere. It's not coming from Greenland and Antarctica because those aren't melting fast enough.
Will you learn from experience when your hysterical predictions don't happen?