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, @02:36AM (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