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 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?