Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 23 2019, @12:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the better-go-find-me-some-more-worms dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:03AM (7 children)

    by Hartree (195) on Monday September 23 2019, @03:03AM (#897387)

    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.

     

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday September 23 2019, @03:43AM (6 children)

    by Hartree (195) on Monday September 23 2019, @03:43AM (#897398)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @04:00AM (#897405)

      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)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday September 23 2019, @04:40AM (#897414) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @06:04AM (#897431)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:45AM (#897469)

          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.

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @09:04AM (#897472)

            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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 23 2019, @02:57PM (#897572) Journal

            By 2020 3billion people will be on the move due to global warming already. $100T will be underwater.

            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?