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, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @02:08AM (6 children)
You go first. I'm gonna stay and turn the lights out after.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:23AM (5 children)
Seriously? You're one of those? Why does your brain instantly go to suicide? You already read my post saying that this isn't about suicide, yet you decided to post the same idiotic response that other small-brains post.
Look at all the talk of environmentalists about the extreme actions we need to take to save the planet. Penalizing reproduction is a very minor thing compared to other possibilities. It's already been used in China, and their society didn't collapse.
This is something that affects rich and poor alike. I'm talking about a penalty along the lines of losing half or more of your net worth if you violate the reproduction clause. In truth, wars WILL be fought over this, and we may not survive them anyway.
If the people born since 2010 want to have a future, then those born before 2010 need to forego children any more children.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 23 2019, @02:35AM (1 child)
I don't see any mention of suicide in what TMB said.
Relax. He only said he'd like you to be before him as the subject of those extreme actions.
In fact, he implied more than that: he would like to be the last so that he's the one to turn off the lights.
Are you more relaxed now? (considering what TMB could do to make sure all he wants happen)
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday September 23 2019, @02:38AM
You know exactly what he meant. He meant he's between posting cooldowns on Slashdot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @02:41AM
Violate the reproduction clause and get harpooned in the uterus. Oh man, this law enforcement is going to get bloody.
Hey small brained idiot, the one child policy didn't really work in China, because people are capable of a neat trick called lying about how many children they have.
Best of luck with your depopulation plans. Serial killers who target women like to start with prostitutes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @03:47AM
You're being made fun of because your 90% reduction will not happen without unprecedented violence. There is no evidence to suggest that we will get anything different than the slight downward growth trends, hence "you first".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth [wikipedia.org]
Maybe we will see population peak at 10-12 billion before declining after 2100. But you won't see anything close to a 90% reduction from current before the year 2200.
Technology will keep people alive longer and feed most of those people. It will prevent significant epidemic casualties since our sanitation and medical technology is way better than it was in 1918 at the time of the Spanish flu.
Anti-reproduction laws or voluntary reduction won't cut it. Only war will make a significant difference.
What might happen is Africa will be allowed to bleed, since much of the population growth will be concentrated there. But even that is incompatible with international norms, and Africa is becoming more prosperous and peaceful and has untapped resources that can sustain the growth.
You can get to 90% by launching nuclear bombs, killer robots, and grassroots support for mandatory sterilization on multiple continents (good luck with that).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 23 2019, @11:21AM
Most everyone is one of those. Anyone saying "there are too many humans on the planet, we need to get rid of 90% of them" has just said something enormously stupid and should be responded to in kind.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.