Bird populations declining fast across North America(emagazine.com)
emagazine.com
Bird populations declining fast across North America
https://emagazine.com/bird-population-declines/
321 comments
There have been massive ecological disasters in command economies too, the most famous being the locust plagues that resulted from Mao's Four Pests Campaign.
Hell, before civilisation even existed you had humans wiping out megafauna right across the world.
Regardless of what economic system we have, a technologically advanced culture that values hamburgers and Doritos over biodiversity will trample on nature to get what they want.
(I'm not making the cynical argument that humans don't inherently care about the environment - in many Australian Aboriginal cultures, for example, environmental damage was considered as great a sin as murder - just that you can't blame capitalism for wider humanity's lack of care or respect for the environment.)
Hell, before civilisation even existed you had humans wiping out megafauna right across the world.
Regardless of what economic system we have, a technologically advanced culture that values hamburgers and Doritos over biodiversity will trample on nature to get what they want.
(I'm not making the cynical argument that humans don't inherently care about the environment - in many Australian Aboriginal cultures, for example, environmental damage was considered as great a sin as murder - just that you can't blame capitalism for wider humanity's lack of care or respect for the environment.)
A "command economy", or even "China", are still abstractions. Arguably, your points further prove mine.
Really?
The whole point of a command economy is to have a central planning authority that oversees production of x tons of potatoes, y tons of steel and z T-34 tanks. They explicitly ignore abstract financial metrics like GDP and stock prices. They still ruined the environment.
Unless you're arguing that the mere existence of abstract concepts somehow degrades the environment, I don't see how this proves your point.
The whole point of a command economy is to have a central planning authority that oversees production of x tons of potatoes, y tons of steel and z T-34 tanks. They explicitly ignore abstract financial metrics like GDP and stock prices. They still ruined the environment.
Unless you're arguing that the mere existence of abstract concepts somehow degrades the environment, I don't see how this proves your point.
My point is, what does it serve to build tanks? If the goal is to protect "our nation", then we are serving the abstractions.
If you take a "command economy" and tell it to feed the people of the world, restore natural areas, shelter people... Then the abstractions serves real things.
If you take a "command economy" and tell it to feed the people of the world, restore natural areas, shelter people... Then the abstractions serves real things.
If you tried to build a society that invested $0 into the military, you would be pummeled into the ground by an external aggressor.
Those tanks are serving the abstraction of survival.
Those tanks are serving the abstraction of survival.
But isn't the problem that these abstractions exist precisely to help coordinate real things? The economy (and by extension, to a limited degree, the stock market) directly influences a lot of real things and basic needs.
I think the problem is that there's lots of hidden costs or incorrect assumptions in much of the way society functions. We overestimate how rational people are, many costs get swept under the rug or ignored as "something for future people to deal with", certain costs are just hidden, we fail to account for corruption and fraud, and so forth and so on.
It's not really that we use abstractions or models, it's that many or all of them are incorrect, and we proceed as if they're correct, even when we seem to know they're not.
I don't think this is just limited to the environment. Sometimes I wonder if this is some defining feature of our age, rampant fraud or disingenuousness. Maybe it's always been this way, and maybe it doesn't matter.
It's not really that we use abstractions or models, it's that many or all of them are incorrect, and we proceed as if they're correct, even when we seem to know they're not.
I don't think this is just limited to the environment. Sometimes I wonder if this is some defining feature of our age, rampant fraud or disingenuousness. Maybe it's always been this way, and maybe it doesn't matter.
Abstractions and models tend to get more correct over time. Sure sometimes we get off track or even go backwards, but if you look back at all of recorded human history our abstractions and models are generally a better fit to objective reality than ever before. You have an opportunity to help improve them further, if you choose to take it.
The problem has to do with the order of values which is evinced by our economic activity. Ideally, money should be ordered towards facilitating the exchange of real things, which are in turn ordered towards a good life, and so on to higher meaning beyond that, but that is not what is transpiring. We can see this not only in the huge tranches of the economy devoted to trivial or deceptive things, but also in routine decisions: be they irresponsible, greedy personal choices, or larger organizational habits which have devastated human communities and the environment for the sake of making a number in a spreadsheet go up.
Further, this takes the form of a novel crisis in that the scale and speed at which the consequences keep coming are without precedent among societies with similar vices in the past.
These abstractions were once configured for specific purposes (e.g. help Caesar expand his empire by incentivising newly conquered villages to feed the soldiers that will soon be conquering their neighbors), and the people who configured them died long ago, and we're just still following the old program.
We need to figure out how to reconfigure them. For instance, instead of the gold standard, let's back our money on permanently sequestered carbon. And once that problem is solved, we'll reconfigure it for the next thing.
We need to figure out how to reconfigure them. For instance, instead of the gold standard, let's back our money on permanently sequestered carbon. And once that problem is solved, we'll reconfigure it for the next thing.
Yes. However, using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind". That is, most calculation could be done using the inputs and outputs of millions of processes. Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts.
> using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind".
No, it wouldn't. It's not a matter of the speed of the computing; it's a matter of the number of information channels available. The amount of information that would need to be processed to run a complex economy goes up exponentially with the size of the economy, but the number of information channels available only goes up linearly with the size of the economy. I think it was Hayek who first pointed this out more than a century ago.
The proper tool to "run" a complex economy is decentralized computing, otherwise known as a free market.
> Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts.
The way to avoid cyclical booms and busts is for the government to stop messing with markets. The government should not be subsidizing some products and services and penalizing others. It should let the market work out what products and services are produced and consumed.
No, it wouldn't. It's not a matter of the speed of the computing; it's a matter of the number of information channels available. The amount of information that would need to be processed to run a complex economy goes up exponentially with the size of the economy, but the number of information channels available only goes up linearly with the size of the economy. I think it was Hayek who first pointed this out more than a century ago.
The proper tool to "run" a complex economy is decentralized computing, otherwise known as a free market.
> Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts.
The way to avoid cyclical booms and busts is for the government to stop messing with markets. The government should not be subsidizing some products and services and penalizing others. It should let the market work out what products and services are produced and consumed.
You mean you should let decide to monopolies and oligopolies what products and services we need right? There is no such thing as an ideal free market. Free market is an human model and therefore just an abstraction. The gap between theory and reality makes all the difference in the world.
> There is no such thing as an ideal free market.
Sure there is. A free market is a market in which all transactions are voluntary. That's the natural state of a market. We see many markets that are not free only because governments either prevent people from engaging in transactions they would otherwise choose to make, or force people to engage in transactions they would otherwise not choose to make (the obvious example of this is coercive taxation).
Sure there is. A free market is a market in which all transactions are voluntary. That's the natural state of a market. We see many markets that are not free only because governments either prevent people from engaging in transactions they would otherwise choose to make, or force people to engage in transactions they would otherwise not choose to make (the obvious example of this is coercive taxation).
I'm not sure what you mean by "information channels". Wouldn't a factory mainly just need to communicate its inputs and outputs the computer or computer cluster doing the calculation? Similarly for distribution centers. In particular, would much more information need to be transmitted in a planned economy than in a market economy? Remember that, while there are millions of products in the economy, any given center of production or distribution is unlikely to use more than a few thousand.
I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy. Paul Cockshott claims to have found a planning algorithm with O(n log n) complexity, which is very manageable.
The main problem with free markets is that they lead to extreme inequality and subsequent conflict. A planned economy could distribute the surplus much better.
I disagree that the government should withdraw from the market economy. The government can help alleviate the failures of the market. For one thing, the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term. For example, it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation. You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis.
By the way, the following are some of what have informed my opinion here:
- https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2021/06/29/a-critique-of-economi...
- http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.p...
I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy. Paul Cockshott claims to have found a planning algorithm with O(n log n) complexity, which is very manageable.
The main problem with free markets is that they lead to extreme inequality and subsequent conflict. A planned economy could distribute the surplus much better.
I disagree that the government should withdraw from the market economy. The government can help alleviate the failures of the market. For one thing, the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term. For example, it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation. You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis.
By the way, the following are some of what have informed my opinion here:
- https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2021/06/29/a-critique-of-economi...
- http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.p...
> I'm not sure what you mean by "information channels".
I mean information channels to and from the central computer.
> Wouldn't a factory mainly just need to communicate its inputs and outputs the computer or computer cluster doing the calculation?
If that's all it's doing, a free market does that fine. There is no need for any additional computation. Similarly for any other economic actor.
If the central computation is going to improve anything over what the individual economic actors would do on their own, it can only be by computing what the inputs and outputs should be for all economic actors, better than those actors can do themselves, and then dictating those inputs and outputs to the actors. Otherwise there's no point to it. And that is what it can't do based on the information argument I gave.
> I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy.
Wrong. The decentralized free market computer's capacity scales exponentially, since each individual economic actor is computing their own actions. The centralized computer, however, has to compute everyone's actions. That's why it faces an insurmountable information problem that the individual actors doing their decentralized computing do not face.
> The government can help alleviate the failures of the market.
No, it can't. That is the lesson of history. Every time governments have done this, they have made things worse, not better. That is not to say that market failures do not exist, only that the failures of government are worse.
> the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term.
You have this backwards. Government time horizons are the next election. Individual market actors can have time horizons going out decades--for example, individuals saving for retirement. Governments can't even keep their social security trust funds safe from being raided by the legislature when it wants to fund some white elephant.
> it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation.
Quite possibly it has. That in no way means China might not be even better off if it were not centrally controlled by the government.
> You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis.
No, I wouldn't, because I don't think climate change is a crisis. And as far as I can tell, neither do the Chinese. They are investing in those technologies not because they believe they need them themselves, but because they believe they can sell them at a substantial profit to Western countries who are much more worried about climate change than the Chinese themselves are.
I mean information channels to and from the central computer.
> Wouldn't a factory mainly just need to communicate its inputs and outputs the computer or computer cluster doing the calculation?
If that's all it's doing, a free market does that fine. There is no need for any additional computation. Similarly for any other economic actor.
If the central computation is going to improve anything over what the individual economic actors would do on their own, it can only be by computing what the inputs and outputs should be for all economic actors, better than those actors can do themselves, and then dictating those inputs and outputs to the actors. Otherwise there's no point to it. And that is what it can't do based on the information argument I gave.
> I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy.
Wrong. The decentralized free market computer's capacity scales exponentially, since each individual economic actor is computing their own actions. The centralized computer, however, has to compute everyone's actions. That's why it faces an insurmountable information problem that the individual actors doing their decentralized computing do not face.
> The government can help alleviate the failures of the market.
No, it can't. That is the lesson of history. Every time governments have done this, they have made things worse, not better. That is not to say that market failures do not exist, only that the failures of government are worse.
> the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term.
You have this backwards. Government time horizons are the next election. Individual market actors can have time horizons going out decades--for example, individuals saving for retirement. Governments can't even keep their social security trust funds safe from being raided by the legislature when it wants to fund some white elephant.
> it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation.
Quite possibly it has. That in no way means China might not be even better off if it were not centrally controlled by the government.
> You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis.
No, I wouldn't, because I don't think climate change is a crisis. And as far as I can tell, neither do the Chinese. They are investing in those technologies not because they believe they need them themselves, but because they believe they can sell them at a substantial profit to Western countries who are much more worried about climate change than the Chinese themselves are.
> I mean information channels to and from the central computer.
This makes no sense to grow exponentially then. Information channels grow exponentially in a peer-to-peer network but only linearly in a centralised one. You can trivially see this in computer networks. One server with eight clients will have 8 connections. Eight peers will have 64 connections. Adding one more node will make the centralised solution add one more connection. Adding one more node to the peer-to-peer solution adds 17.
This makes no sense to grow exponentially then. Information channels grow exponentially in a peer-to-peer network but only linearly in a centralised one. You can trivially see this in computer networks. One server with eight clients will have 8 connections. Eight peers will have 64 connections. Adding one more node will make the centralised solution add one more connection. Adding one more node to the peer-to-peer solution adds 17.
You say "a free market does [calculation] fine," but it has obvious deficiencies that I have already remarked upon. As I have said before, the optimization problem can be solved on modern computers without the problems of the market. The inputs and outputs of individual processes are known in a market system, so logically this information can be centrally recorded for use by the planning process. If a production center doesn't produce output at exactly the expected rate, the expected rate can be adjusted.
About computing capacity: Maybe free market capacity scales exponentially (with the number of actors?) but I don't see how it could. If an economy of n actors has a "capacity" of e^n, the average capacity of an actor would be e^n/n, which is about the same as e^n. How could an individual actor have such capacity? Perhaps my analysis here is mistaken.
Regarding government intervention, let's look at an extreme example. Do you think that, during World War II, the U.S. should have structured its wartime economy around free market principles? Did it make things worse by not doing so?
About government planning for the future: First of all, social security gets gutted because the U.S. government is not a government of the people. Business interests have too much control (that is, more than no control at all.) You also say governments are shortsighted because of elections. Even if this is the case, this is not a necessary part of government. The governance model described in the book I linked is based on sortition rather than election. China's current system, while authoritarian, is also able to plan for the future.
It seems you agree that China investing in solar power is beneficial to it, even if you disagree on the reason. So you agree that, all else being equal, it is better for China to have invested in solar power than to not have done so. In this case, this is a clear example of a government acting in the market with a good outcome. This contradicts your previous point.
About computing capacity: Maybe free market capacity scales exponentially (with the number of actors?) but I don't see how it could. If an economy of n actors has a "capacity" of e^n, the average capacity of an actor would be e^n/n, which is about the same as e^n. How could an individual actor have such capacity? Perhaps my analysis here is mistaken.
Regarding government intervention, let's look at an extreme example. Do you think that, during World War II, the U.S. should have structured its wartime economy around free market principles? Did it make things worse by not doing so?
About government planning for the future: First of all, social security gets gutted because the U.S. government is not a government of the people. Business interests have too much control (that is, more than no control at all.) You also say governments are shortsighted because of elections. Even if this is the case, this is not a necessary part of government. The governance model described in the book I linked is based on sortition rather than election. China's current system, while authoritarian, is also able to plan for the future.
It seems you agree that China investing in solar power is beneficial to it, even if you disagree on the reason. So you agree that, all else being equal, it is better for China to have invested in solar power than to not have done so. In this case, this is a clear example of a government acting in the market with a good outcome. This contradicts your previous point.
> You say "a free market does [calculation] fine," but it has obvious deficiencies that I have already remarked upon.
And as I have already remarked, central planning does not fix those deficiencies, it makes them worse.
> the optimization problem can be solved on modern computers without the problems of the market.
I strongly disagree, for the reasons I've already stated, but it doesn't seem like we're going to resolve that here.
> Maybe free market capacity scales exponentially
Yes, because the computation consists of the individual actors deciding their actions and the communication of price signals between them. (Note that while I say "price signals", these are much more general than just money prices. Many positive sum trades are made that do not involve money.) That's a general feature of distributed computing: you have to count the communication between the nodes as part of the computation.
> Do you think that, during World War II, the U.S. should have structured its wartime economy around free market principles?
Yes.
> Did it make things worse by not doing so?
Yes.
> social security gets gutted because the U.S. government is not a government of the people.
Ah, the No True Scotsman argument. Every time socialism fails, socialist ideologues say it's because it wasn't true socialism.
> The governance model described in the book I linked is based on sortition rather than election.
I'll take a look. However, I am extremely skeptical that any governance model can fix the fundamental problems with centralized control.
> It seems you agree that China investing in solar power is beneficial to it
I said that China's government believes it will be beneficial to China. They could be wrong. But even if they're not, that is not at all the same as saying that it is the most beneficial thing that could be done with the same resources. I am not saying that governments never do beneficial things. I am saying that governments, on net, will do worse than a free market would do. That is also not the same as saying a free market would always achieve an optimal result; in many situations there may simply be no way of achieving an optimal result. But that does not mean all achievable results are equivalent.
And as I have already remarked, central planning does not fix those deficiencies, it makes them worse.
> the optimization problem can be solved on modern computers without the problems of the market.
I strongly disagree, for the reasons I've already stated, but it doesn't seem like we're going to resolve that here.
> Maybe free market capacity scales exponentially
Yes, because the computation consists of the individual actors deciding their actions and the communication of price signals between them. (Note that while I say "price signals", these are much more general than just money prices. Many positive sum trades are made that do not involve money.) That's a general feature of distributed computing: you have to count the communication between the nodes as part of the computation.
> Do you think that, during World War II, the U.S. should have structured its wartime economy around free market principles?
Yes.
> Did it make things worse by not doing so?
Yes.
> social security gets gutted because the U.S. government is not a government of the people.
Ah, the No True Scotsman argument. Every time socialism fails, socialist ideologues say it's because it wasn't true socialism.
> The governance model described in the book I linked is based on sortition rather than election.
I'll take a look. However, I am extremely skeptical that any governance model can fix the fundamental problems with centralized control.
> It seems you agree that China investing in solar power is beneficial to it
I said that China's government believes it will be beneficial to China. They could be wrong. But even if they're not, that is not at all the same as saying that it is the most beneficial thing that could be done with the same resources. I am not saying that governments never do beneficial things. I am saying that governments, on net, will do worse than a free market would do. That is also not the same as saying a free market would always achieve an optimal result; in many situations there may simply be no way of achieving an optimal result. But that does not mean all achievable results are equivalent.
> central planning does not fix those deficiencies, it makes them worse
How would the system I'm describing make inequality and the resulting conflict worse?
> you have to count the communication between the nodes as part of the computation.
But surely the nodes themselves must be the ones to perform the physical computation in the end? If the computing power of distributed systems scales exponentially with the number of nodes, why doesn't the computing power of a supercomputer scale exponentially with its number of cores?
> Every time socialism fails, socialist ideologues say it's because it wasn't true socialism.
Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of countries with much better safety nets than the U.S. The U.S. government is just especially dysfunctional.
> I am not saying that governments never do beneficial things. I am saying that governments, on net, will do worse than a free market would do.
I guess we just disagree about this.
> in many situations there may simply be no way of achieving an optimal result
If you take "optimal result" to mean "best possible result," then there is, by definition, always a way of achieving an optimal result.
How would the system I'm describing make inequality and the resulting conflict worse?
> you have to count the communication between the nodes as part of the computation.
But surely the nodes themselves must be the ones to perform the physical computation in the end? If the computing power of distributed systems scales exponentially with the number of nodes, why doesn't the computing power of a supercomputer scale exponentially with its number of cores?
> Every time socialism fails, socialist ideologues say it's because it wasn't true socialism.
Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of countries with much better safety nets than the U.S. The U.S. government is just especially dysfunctional.
> I am not saying that governments never do beneficial things. I am saying that governments, on net, will do worse than a free market would do.
I guess we just disagree about this.
> in many situations there may simply be no way of achieving an optimal result
If you take "optimal result" to mean "best possible result," then there is, by definition, always a way of achieving an optimal result.
> How would the system I'm describing make inequality and the resulting conflict worse?
Because your system has to be implemented with humans, and humans cannot be trusted with the power to tell other humans what to do. Your system requires that in order to work. (Existing governments also require this in order to work, which is why they're dysfunctional, but your system requires it much more.) A free market does not; in a free market, all transactions are voluntary and nobody is given the power to tell anyone else what to do.
I don't see the point of further discussion since we appear to have a fundamental disagreement about this vital point.
Because your system has to be implemented with humans, and humans cannot be trusted with the power to tell other humans what to do. Your system requires that in order to work. (Existing governments also require this in order to work, which is why they're dysfunctional, but your system requires it much more.) A free market does not; in a free market, all transactions are voluntary and nobody is given the power to tell anyone else what to do.
I don't see the point of further discussion since we appear to have a fundamental disagreement about this vital point.
Very well. Let me just say that any large company involves humans telling other humans what to do, even if the workers work there "voluntarily". Many people have no choice but to work for such companies.
>Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts.
From what I understand (not an economist, but quoting what I've heard from them), much of the boom-bust cycle can be dampened by limiting debt.
From what I understand (not an economist, but quoting what I've heard from them), much of the boom-bust cycle can be dampened by limiting debt.
I'm not an economist either. It just seems the business cycle has been a persistent feature of capitalist economies.
Perhaps look into Australia. We have much tighter regulations than the US or UK when it comes to lending, and we've largely avoided recessions, including in 2008.
COVID got us, but that did have a physical reason behind it.
COVID got us, but that did have a physical reason behind it.
The way we use money to coordinate activity is very selective: Money only solves problems when those with problems have money. This means that the environment and the poor are generally not served by capitalism.
Yes abstractions here are a distraction. People will consume whether they hunt, barter, trade or use fist money.
Disagree with this. According to this article, birds aren't dying off because people choose the almighty dollar, they're dying because they smash into windows or are hunted by cats. The solution isn't to examine our relationship to abstractions versus reality, it's to put a screen on the window so the bird will notice it in time.
That's not what the original paper says. This is why you want to read the actual scientific paper and not the article about it. The researchers, in the article's text, state:
> "Steep declines in North American birds parallel patterns of avian declines emerging globally (14, 15, 22, 24). In particular, depletion of native grassland bird populations in North America, driven by habitat loss and more toxic pesticide use in both breeding and wintering areas (25), mirrors loss of farmland birds throughout Europe and elsewhere (15). Even declines among introduced species match similar declines within these same species’ native ranges (26). Agricultural intensification and urbanization have been similarly linked to declines in insect diversity and biomass (27), with cascading impacts on birds and other consumers (24, 28, 29). Given that birds are one of the best monitored animal groups, birds may also represent the tip of the iceberg, indicating similar or greater losses in other taxonomic groups (28, 30)."
This points to agricultural pesticides having impacts on insect populations, and additionally this mirrors where losses have been most extreme, in grasslands most impacted by agricultural activity:
> "Across breeding biomes, grassland birds showed the largest magnitude of total population loss since 1970—more than 700 million breeding individuals across 31 species— and the largest proportional loss (53%); 74% of grassland species are declining. (Fig. 1 and Table 1)."
I've made it a habit to always seek out the original paper instead of just reading the 'science journalism' take on it, for reasons like this.
https://www.flatheadaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/R...
> "Steep declines in North American birds parallel patterns of avian declines emerging globally (14, 15, 22, 24). In particular, depletion of native grassland bird populations in North America, driven by habitat loss and more toxic pesticide use in both breeding and wintering areas (25), mirrors loss of farmland birds throughout Europe and elsewhere (15). Even declines among introduced species match similar declines within these same species’ native ranges (26). Agricultural intensification and urbanization have been similarly linked to declines in insect diversity and biomass (27), with cascading impacts on birds and other consumers (24, 28, 29). Given that birds are one of the best monitored animal groups, birds may also represent the tip of the iceberg, indicating similar or greater losses in other taxonomic groups (28, 30)."
This points to agricultural pesticides having impacts on insect populations, and additionally this mirrors where losses have been most extreme, in grasslands most impacted by agricultural activity:
> "Across breeding biomes, grassland birds showed the largest magnitude of total population loss since 1970—more than 700 million breeding individuals across 31 species— and the largest proportional loss (53%); 74% of grassland species are declining. (Fig. 1 and Table 1)."
I've made it a habit to always seek out the original paper instead of just reading the 'science journalism' take on it, for reasons like this.
https://www.flatheadaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/R...
This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmentalism.
I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 100 billion people! Or that countries should be looking to increase their populations, or that natural population stability and decline is a terrible thing.
As though we have not _already_ caused (and are continuing to cause) a great extinction event almost entirely before any significant effects from greenhouse gas emissions have made an impact.
Habitat destruction, chemical pollution, mining, mineral and fossil fuel depletion, water depletion and contamination, farming practices and monocultures, human interference, etc., are all just horrific, are responsible for massive destruction and extinction of the environment, and aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away the instant we somehow get the GHG pollution thing under control (if we ever do).
The funny thing about that is, if our population was a very healthy, say, 5% of its current level, greenhouse gas emissions would be practically a non-issue too. The problem would literally be solved. Gradually moving toward cleaner and more renewable sources of course should and would happen, but while that was responsibly and efficiently changing, there would be no imminent climate catastrophe occurring.
EDIT: It's happening again.
I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 100 billion people! Or that countries should be looking to increase their populations, or that natural population stability and decline is a terrible thing.
As though we have not _already_ caused (and are continuing to cause) a great extinction event almost entirely before any significant effects from greenhouse gas emissions have made an impact.
Habitat destruction, chemical pollution, mining, mineral and fossil fuel depletion, water depletion and contamination, farming practices and monocultures, human interference, etc., are all just horrific, are responsible for massive destruction and extinction of the environment, and aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away the instant we somehow get the GHG pollution thing under control (if we ever do).
The funny thing about that is, if our population was a very healthy, say, 5% of its current level, greenhouse gas emissions would be practically a non-issue too. The problem would literally be solved. Gradually moving toward cleaner and more renewable sources of course should and would happen, but while that was responsibly and efficiently changing, there would be no imminent climate catastrophe occurring.
EDIT: It's happening again.
2430 A.D. by Asimov.
"Earth has established a totally balanced and ecologically stable underground society (similar to that portrayed in Asimov's novel The Caves of Steel). But one man, Cranwitz, regarded as a deviant and eccentric because he keeps a few animals as pets, refuses to get rid of these animals, the last non-human inhabitants of the planet.
He is finally persuaded by his sector representatives to exterminate his pets, but also commits suicide. This leaves Earth in 'perfection', with its fifteen trillion inhabitants, twenty billion tons of human brain and the 'exquisite nothingness of uniformity'."
"Earth has established a totally balanced and ecologically stable underground society (similar to that portrayed in Asimov's novel The Caves of Steel). But one man, Cranwitz, regarded as a deviant and eccentric because he keeps a few animals as pets, refuses to get rid of these animals, the last non-human inhabitants of the planet.
He is finally persuaded by his sector representatives to exterminate his pets, but also commits suicide. This leaves Earth in 'perfection', with its fifteen trillion inhabitants, twenty billion tons of human brain and the 'exquisite nothingness of uniformity'."
Greenhouse (specifically carbon dioxide) specifically might be solved, because trees exist and are pretty good at what they do, but I absolutely do not believe that a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently-healthy world. I think you dramatically underestimate our ability to pollute in small populations. Consider how bad air pollution was in London during the 1700s and 1800s.
But in the 1700s and 1800s you could leave London and go to the countryside and have very little pollution. That would be wonderful today. Instead we are filling and polluting every space in the world.
Air goes around.
I didn't say a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently healthy world. I said if global population was 5% of what it is now, greenhouse gas emissions would practically be a non problem.
Fair enough, and for carbon dioxide I mostly agree. But it definitely seems like this:
>Habitat destruction, chemical pollution, mining, mineral and fossil fuel depletion, water depletion and contamination, farming practices and monocultures, human interference, etc., are all just horrific, are responsible for massive destruction and extinction of the environment, and aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away the instant we somehow get the GHG pollution thing under control (if we ever do).
is claiming broad relation to population being above some threshold, since the whole comment is about overpopulation.
>Habitat destruction, chemical pollution, mining, mineral and fossil fuel depletion, water depletion and contamination, farming practices and monocultures, human interference, etc., are all just horrific, are responsible for massive destruction and extinction of the environment, and aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away the instant we somehow get the GHG pollution thing under control (if we ever do).
is claiming broad relation to population being above some threshold, since the whole comment is about overpopulation.
The aggregate environmental impact of those things are all quite directly related to population, yes. I don't understand what you're getting at.
What do you think about our ability to raise qualified adults enough to manage the continuing industrial sectors of the planet, if we were 5% of our present number?
Subjectively and with zero rigor I think that possibly 150 to 100 years ago levels of population were capable of creating so much of the modern world. But from the Holocaust to Pol Pot, the Bangladesh civil war, mass exterminations of some of humanity's most capable gene pools is something that I very badly want to be convinced hasn't badly harmed the species potential.
Subjectively and with zero rigor I think that possibly 150 to 100 years ago levels of population were capable of creating so much of the modern world. But from the Holocaust to Pol Pot, the Bangladesh civil war, mass exterminations of some of humanity's most capable gene pools is something that I very badly want to be convinced hasn't badly harmed the species potential.
I'm not saying 5% is the correct population mind you, several hundred million people is quite a lot though. Certainly enough to carry on civilization in my opinion.
"the appointed time came to bring to ruin those ruining the earth" Rev 11:18
I find it interesting that ruining of the earth by humans was predicted approx 2,000 years ago.
Sadly we have lived up to the hype.
And, we show no signs of making the wholesale changes needed to turn this ship around.
But, if you're interested in an often pooh-poohed alternative, you may find some comfort reading this: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/peace-happiness/save-e...
I find it interesting that ruining of the earth by humans was predicted approx 2,000 years ago.
Sadly we have lived up to the hype.
And, we show no signs of making the wholesale changes needed to turn this ship around.
But, if you're interested in an often pooh-poohed alternative, you may find some comfort reading this: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/peace-happiness/save-e...
You are not the first "genius" realizing this. Look up Ted Kaczynski. But he was smarter than you because he considered what this reality entails for the ruling classes: Namely the decision whether they shouldn't give up on maintaining the masses once technologically feasible. It is for this reason that it is a taboo and has to remain one. Everything else is propaganda and chatter.
> You are not the first "genius" realizing this.
Found another one.
Found another one.
> and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably,
because you are wrong. 100 years ago people said we would all starve when the world population reaches 1 billion people. then we not only not starved but became wealthier as well. Doom predictions are mostly damn wrong.
because you are wrong. 100 years ago people said we would all starve when the world population reaches 1 billion people. then we not only not starved but became wealthier as well. Doom predictions are mostly damn wrong.
No it's not because I'm wrong, because you can argue with or debate with people who are wrong (or you believe are wrong) without becoming irrational and angry.
And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. This might come down to semantics on what exactly you suppose sustainable to mean or whether or not it is desirable, but causing an ongoing mass extinction event does not meet my definition of sustainable.
I'm talking about environmental sustainability to be clear (hopefully it was from the context but I may not have been explicit enough). I don't doubt we could physically feed billions more people at least as long as we have cheap energy and fertilizers from fossil fuels if we accepted ever increasing environmental destruction.
And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. This might come down to semantics on what exactly you suppose sustainable to mean or whether or not it is desirable, but causing an ongoing mass extinction event does not meet my definition of sustainable.
I'm talking about environmental sustainability to be clear (hopefully it was from the context but I may not have been explicit enough). I don't doubt we could physically feed billions more people at least as long as we have cheap energy and fertilizers from fossil fuels if we accepted ever increasing environmental destruction.
> And I'm not making any predictions, just observations.
Claiming we are in the middle of a mass extinction event is a prediction, not an observation. It will become an observation when you have actually seen billions of species disappear over time. You don't extrapolate an extinction based on trends over dozens of years (especially on mostly imperfect data).
Claiming we are in the middle of a mass extinction event is a prediction, not an observation. It will become an observation when you have actually seen billions of species disappear over time. You don't extrapolate an extinction based on trends over dozens of years (especially on mostly imperfect data).
No I'm talking about actual observations. I'm not going to nitpick about semantics with you no this. Extinction rates are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than normal, which is not sustainable.
Antinatalism is a thing, yes.
You're not alone and it doesn't matter if something is popular.
Apart from the adoption rate (no pun intended)
You're not alone and it doesn't matter if something is popular.
Apart from the adoption rate (no pun intended)
Please be aware there is also the "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement".
https://www.vhemt.org/
It is led by Les Knight.
Here is quick explanation, from their site:
''' VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It’s a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We’re not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.
We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.
Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth’s ecology.
As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us. '''
I certainly like the promotional video, "Thank You For Not Breeding".
http://vimeo.com/7652051
It is led by Les Knight.
Here is quick explanation, from their site:
''' VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It’s a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We’re not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.
We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.
Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth’s ecology.
As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us. '''
I certainly like the promotional video, "Thank You For Not Breeding".
http://vimeo.com/7652051
This group will go extinct just by following their own philosophy. Brilliant.
Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or you actually think what I wrote equates to antinatalism, but no that's not my believe. No more than someone who believes the earth's carrying capacity is 100 billion saying that 200 billion is too many people would be antinatalism.
> I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably
Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life.
> aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away
and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view, which is probably the part people get riled up about.
Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life.
> aren't all suddenly going to get magic'ed away
and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view, which is probably the part people get riled up about.
> Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life.
Not really, 10 billion "simpler way of life" people have huge catastrophic footprints as well. Farming being a major one. But the point was not to come to a precise figure and metrics, it's an unhinged kneejerk reaction to any suggestion that the population is not sustainable. Which it is not.
> and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view,
This false ad hominem suggests you are one of the people my original post refers to.
_My_ world view deems no person "excess". It acknowledges a simple reality that our population is not sustainable and reducing it or limiting growth is critically important for the environment and makes all other environmental efforts simpler or less severe.
> which is probably the part people get riled up about.
No, it's not. They get unhinged about the idea that population is a serious environmental problem at its current levels let alone increased levels. The (baseless and unfounded) claims they make being that it's not a problem "because earth's carrying capacity is 50 billion people" or other absurd statements along those lines.
Not really, 10 billion "simpler way of life" people have huge catastrophic footprints as well. Farming being a major one. But the point was not to come to a precise figure and metrics, it's an unhinged kneejerk reaction to any suggestion that the population is not sustainable. Which it is not.
> and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view,
This false ad hominem suggests you are one of the people my original post refers to.
_My_ world view deems no person "excess". It acknowledges a simple reality that our population is not sustainable and reducing it or limiting growth is critically important for the environment and makes all other environmental efforts simpler or less severe.
> which is probably the part people get riled up about.
No, it's not. They get unhinged about the idea that population is a serious environmental problem at its current levels let alone increased levels. The (baseless and unfounded) claims they make being that it's not a problem "because earth's carrying capacity is 50 billion people" or other absurd statements along those lines.
They probably get upset as they assume you are implying some moral judgment against having kids. Most people want kids, just like those before us for untold hundreds of thousands of years.
There’s a difference between one kid, two kids, three kids, and that guy who had 150 kids or somesuch.
There isn’t an infinite carrying capacity to any planet, nor is it reasonable to have excess of a singular species for it is at the expense of others.
Some may have hurt feelings if you explain that more than 2 kids increases the population, but then “go forth and multiply” is probably not currently sound guidance, given what we now know, vs what we knew, say, 5 thousand years ago. It was arguably bad judgment to completely finish the great grazing herds and the Mastodons but try telling that to a hungry lot of humans.
The more we come to grips with the human as another animal species, one of many on earth, the easier it is to see how our own hubris is the issue everytime.
To the person above who thought 7 billion humans above wasn’t pushing any planetary limits: while no individual human wants to feel like excess, and certainly homicide is never what is being suggested, the fact remains that a wise human race that wishes to have a healthy planet and lots of resources per capita will steer their population over generations to be healthy.
I’m rather convinced that the same way a rabbit population without predators will suffer disease if it blooms too much, that this is what we are starting to encounter as we brush with the limits of our host in terms of our reckless dominance and destruction on the only known home to life so far…
No one wants to hear about limits or rules but hey, reality called…
There isn’t an infinite carrying capacity to any planet, nor is it reasonable to have excess of a singular species for it is at the expense of others.
Some may have hurt feelings if you explain that more than 2 kids increases the population, but then “go forth and multiply” is probably not currently sound guidance, given what we now know, vs what we knew, say, 5 thousand years ago. It was arguably bad judgment to completely finish the great grazing herds and the Mastodons but try telling that to a hungry lot of humans.
The more we come to grips with the human as another animal species, one of many on earth, the easier it is to see how our own hubris is the issue everytime.
To the person above who thought 7 billion humans above wasn’t pushing any planetary limits: while no individual human wants to feel like excess, and certainly homicide is never what is being suggested, the fact remains that a wise human race that wishes to have a healthy planet and lots of resources per capita will steer their population over generations to be healthy.
I’m rather convinced that the same way a rabbit population without predators will suffer disease if it blooms too much, that this is what we are starting to encounter as we brush with the limits of our host in terms of our reckless dominance and destruction on the only known home to life so far…
No one wants to hear about limits or rules but hey, reality called…
No I don't think it's that either: for example many seem to get especially upset when I suggest that most developed countries have naturally slightly declining populations so they should more or less be left alone rather than implement policies to drive population growth.
They are not trying to promote population growth. Rather avoiding a too steep decline.
No they're trying to promote population growth.
No, they are not. Most countries would be happy to get back to population replacement. Countries like Korea, Germany or Japan CANNOT even dream of increasing their population at 1.2 fertility rate. Get your facts right.
Yes they are.
> This false ad hominem suggests you are one of the people my original post refers to.
It's not an ad hominem, and if you think that my reply is "wildly irrational and upset" then I question if you actually get that kind of reaction in general.
It's merely my interpretation of what you said, since you've given no concrete details and left nearly everything to the imagination of the reader. Given your 5% figure, you are arguing for reducing the population by ~7 billion people, but how? On what timeline? Just saying the world is overpopulated is uninteresting.
> The (baseless and unfounded) claims they make being that it's not a problem "because earth's carrying capacity is 50 billion people" or other absurd statements along those lines.
You've stated that the earth's carrying capacity is 5% of current population, which seems to be equally unfounded.
It's not an ad hominem, and if you think that my reply is "wildly irrational and upset" then I question if you actually get that kind of reaction in general.
It's merely my interpretation of what you said, since you've given no concrete details and left nearly everything to the imagination of the reader. Given your 5% figure, you are arguing for reducing the population by ~7 billion people, but how? On what timeline? Just saying the world is overpopulated is uninteresting.
> The (baseless and unfounded) claims they make being that it's not a problem "because earth's carrying capacity is 50 billion people" or other absurd statements along those lines.
You've stated that the earth's carrying capacity is 5% of current population, which seems to be equally unfounded.
> _My_ world view deems no person "excess".
So we don't have "too many" people? The world is not OVERpopulated? Because excess means "too many" or "more than needed," so if you're saying there's no excess, then you're saying there's not too many people.
I definitely agree with you, by the way: the world does not have an excess of humans!
So we don't have "too many" people? The world is not OVERpopulated? Because excess means "too many" or "more than needed," so if you're saying there's no excess, then you're saying there's not too many people.
I definitely agree with you, by the way: the world does not have an excess of humans!
We have many more people on earth than can sustainably be supported without continuing environmental damage and depletion.
[deleted]
Nope. That is catastrophism.
No, it's just what's happening. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29546714
Please explain to me how the survival of birds is linked to the survival of human life on Earth. We are already in a civilization where we don't depend anymore on foraging stuff that grows in nature anymore.
Strawman.
if we were kangaroos, rabbits, or deer, we would do a population cull on ourselves 'for our own good' (not that I think we should).
It's not so much the abstract idea of depopulation that has people upset at you, it's that every concrete proposal for getting there involves genocide and suffering.
First, no they don't. Look up successes in Thailand, Costa Rica, Iran, South Korea, and other nations that lowered their birth rates through noncoercive means that improved health, longevity, prosperity, equality, and stability.
Second, not lowering birth rates involved billions of people suffering and dying. There is no option where we keep living above sustainable levels without consequence.
Second, not lowering birth rates involved billions of people suffering and dying. There is no option where we keep living above sustainable levels without consequence.
No it's not that at all actually. It's a plain head-in-sand denial of reality that I'm talking about encountering.
Same kinds of thinking cause the exact same kinds of knee jerk reactions, denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. when you suggest green house gas emissions are not sustainable and should be reduced too.
And I should say that you're wrong about that genocide assertion too. In most of the countries with the highest consumption and environmental footprints, populations are naturally in slight decline on their own. No genocide or suffering needed to reduce populations in those places.
Same kinds of thinking cause the exact same kinds of knee jerk reactions, denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. when you suggest green house gas emissions are not sustainable and should be reduced too.
And I should say that you're wrong about that genocide assertion too. In most of the countries with the highest consumption and environmental footprints, populations are naturally in slight decline on their own. No genocide or suffering needed to reduce populations in those places.
You seem quite convinced that you have the carrying capacity argument correct. I can understand why: it's really easy to come up with doomsday arguments of this form. Extrapolate any rising trend against any perceived constraint and bingo bango you have your prophecy. Thing is, people have been doing this since the dawn of history, and they've been spectacularly wrong since the dawn of history. Doomer models just never seem to be nearly as clever as real human beings.
One day the doomers might actually get it right for once. I'm not holding my breath, but even if I were, proactive genocide would be a tough sell.
> populations are naturally in slight decline on their own
I am aware.
> No genocide or suffering needed
That depends entirely on why you think this trend is happening, but if you're willing to accept the trend as it stands then we can probably find common ground.
One day the doomers might actually get it right for once. I'm not holding my breath, but even if I were, proactive genocide would be a tough sell.
> populations are naturally in slight decline on their own
I am aware.
> No genocide or suffering needed
That depends entirely on why you think this trend is happening, but if you're willing to accept the trend as it stands then we can probably find common ground.
Complete rubbish.
We're past the sustainable carraying capacity because we have already brought about mass extinction events, irreversible destruction of habitat and environment with our existing population (and it even started when the population was far lower, it's just that it's been accelerating). I have the counter example. There is no "model".
Also it's strange you accuse me of being a spectacularly wrong doomer when you were just now spouting easily disproven doomsaying about genocides. Maybe tone down the ad hominems a little at least while you're sitting in your glass house.
We're past the sustainable carraying capacity because we have already brought about mass extinction events, irreversible destruction of habitat and environment with our existing population (and it even started when the population was far lower, it's just that it's been accelerating). I have the counter example. There is no "model".
Also it's strange you accuse me of being a spectacularly wrong doomer when you were just now spouting easily disproven doomsaying about genocides. Maybe tone down the ad hominems a little at least while you're sitting in your glass house.
> We're past the sustainable carraying capacity because we have already brought about mass extinction events, irreversible destruction of habitat and environment with our existing population
People drove megafauna extinct before they invented the wheel. Great Britain lost most of its forest, irreversibly (for at least next few millennia), before Romans arrived. Romans, in turn, demolished half of Europe worth of forests to support iron production. Taking that argument seriously it means that "the sustainable carrying capacity" is way below what we had in 300 BCE.
Alternatively, it just suggests that there is no inherent carrying capacity, it's always of function of technology. As technology changes, the carrying capacity increases. Thankfully, our technology improves faster than ever before in the last few centuries and continues to accelerate. This suggests your core assumption is likely to become obsolete in not too distant future, even if it isn't now.
People drove megafauna extinct before they invented the wheel. Great Britain lost most of its forest, irreversibly (for at least next few millennia), before Romans arrived. Romans, in turn, demolished half of Europe worth of forests to support iron production. Taking that argument seriously it means that "the sustainable carrying capacity" is way below what we had in 300 BCE.
Alternatively, it just suggests that there is no inherent carrying capacity, it's always of function of technology. As technology changes, the carrying capacity increases. Thankfully, our technology improves faster than ever before in the last few centuries and continues to accelerate. This suggests your core assumption is likely to become obsolete in not too distant future, even if it isn't now.
> Taking that argument seriously it means that "the sustainable carrying capacity" is way below what we had in 300 BCE.
No it doesn't, because I'm not saying there's one carrying capacity that's somehow inherent to earth.
Of course it's related to technology and lifestyles and our environmental impact. What made you think I was trying to say otherwise?
Clearly if we got all our energy from burning wood and food from hunting and gathering, we couldn't even support 1% of our population without massive unsustainable habitat destruction. And yes in the past there have been many unsustainable societies that we might like to have changed but that's done now we are dealing with what's in front of us.
And with our current environmental impact, the current population is not sustainable. Maybe technology and societies will change enough in future that it could sustainably support today's levels of population, but that's irrelevant. That doesn't help the 53% of grassland birds in North America being wiped out in the past 50 years.
No it doesn't, because I'm not saying there's one carrying capacity that's somehow inherent to earth.
Of course it's related to technology and lifestyles and our environmental impact. What made you think I was trying to say otherwise?
Clearly if we got all our energy from burning wood and food from hunting and gathering, we couldn't even support 1% of our population without massive unsustainable habitat destruction. And yes in the past there have been many unsustainable societies that we might like to have changed but that's done now we are dealing with what's in front of us.
And with our current environmental impact, the current population is not sustainable. Maybe technology and societies will change enough in future that it could sustainably support today's levels of population, but that's irrelevant. That doesn't help the 53% of grassland birds in North America being wiped out in the past 50 years.
populations are naturally in slight decline on their own
Yeah, by maybe 10-20% generation over generation. If your target population is 5% of today, and your strategy is to use the natural population decline of Western countries, you aren't getting to those levels for a good 15-25 generations. 400-700 years or so.
Yeah, by maybe 10-20% generation over generation. If your target population is 5% of today, and your strategy is to use the natural population decline of Western countries, you aren't getting to those levels for a good 15-25 generations. 400-700 years or so.
> Yeah, by maybe 10-20% generation over generation.
So my counter-example disproves the absurd claim that any population limitation or reduction requires or devolves into genocide.
> If your target population is 5% of today, and your strategy is to use the natural population decline of Western countries, you aren't getting to those levels for a good 15-25 generations. 400-700 years or so.
I'll assume that math works out for those stated assumptions. So what's the point?
So my counter-example disproves the absurd claim that any population limitation or reduction requires or devolves into genocide.
> If your target population is 5% of today, and your strategy is to use the natural population decline of Western countries, you aren't getting to those levels for a good 15-25 generations. 400-700 years or so.
I'll assume that math works out for those stated assumptions. So what's the point?
The point is probably that, if you believe the biosphere is in crisis NOW, then waiting hundreds of years for human populations to decline is not a solution.
There's an odd disconnect in the comments you've been making where you identify this problem of overpopulation, but seem extremely reticent to describe what you think should be done about this problem you've identified. Maybe I've missed it, and I plan to continue reading the thread to see if that's the case, but if I haven't, let me ask you directly: what, if anything, should be done about human overpopulation?
And if your answer is "nothing, I'm just pointing out it exists" then... well, thanks for contributing, I guess?
There's an odd disconnect in the comments you've been making where you identify this problem of overpopulation, but seem extremely reticent to describe what you think should be done about this problem you've identified. Maybe I've missed it, and I plan to continue reading the thread to see if that's the case, but if I haven't, let me ask you directly: what, if anything, should be done about human overpopulation?
And if your answer is "nothing, I'm just pointing out it exists" then... well, thanks for contributing, I guess?
> The point is probably that, if you believe the biosphere is in crisis NOW, then waiting hundreds of years for human populations to decline is not a solution.
I didn't say that waiting for western countries to decline to 5% of their populations was solution. Hope that cleared things up for you.
> There's an odd disconnect in the comments you've been making where you identify this problem of overpopulation, but seem extremely reticent to describe what you think should be done about this problem you've identified. Maybe I've missed it, and I plan to continue reading the thread to see if that's the case, but if I haven't, let me ask you directly: what, if anything, should be done about human overpopulation?
What's really odd is that you think an observation is verboten if it does not come with any solutions! Very strange. I don't think your question is the big gotcha you're hoping for though. In general, policies should be geared toward limiting population growth or reducing it, which as I said then makes all other environmental efforts proportionately less difficult.
Most of the highest consuming countries have naturally declining populations, so one thing would be to leave those alone rather than institute growth policies. Another would be to invest in education, healthcare, and other quality of life measures in other countries which are shown to reduce population growth over time. Another one would be to end global environmental and trade agreements which incentivize countries to boost population and limit quality of life with per-capita concessions. For a few examples.
I didn't say that waiting for western countries to decline to 5% of their populations was solution. Hope that cleared things up for you.
> There's an odd disconnect in the comments you've been making where you identify this problem of overpopulation, but seem extremely reticent to describe what you think should be done about this problem you've identified. Maybe I've missed it, and I plan to continue reading the thread to see if that's the case, but if I haven't, let me ask you directly: what, if anything, should be done about human overpopulation?
What's really odd is that you think an observation is verboten if it does not come with any solutions! Very strange. I don't think your question is the big gotcha you're hoping for though. In general, policies should be geared toward limiting population growth or reducing it, which as I said then makes all other environmental efforts proportionately less difficult.
Most of the highest consuming countries have naturally declining populations, so one thing would be to leave those alone rather than institute growth policies. Another would be to invest in education, healthcare, and other quality of life measures in other countries which are shown to reduce population growth over time. Another one would be to end global environmental and trade agreements which incentivize countries to boost population and limit quality of life with per-capita concessions. For a few examples.
Hey, i just want to say i really deeply agree with you, and appreciate the time you are taking to share your views.
Agreed, cheers!
"We should reduce population somewhat."
"Yet you are part of the population. Curious!"
"We should reduce population somewhat."
"Yet you are part of the population. Curious!"
> I didn't say that waiting for western countries to decline to 5% of their populations was solution.
I suppose not, though what you say later in this comment is remarkably close:
> Most of the highest consuming countries have naturally declining populations, so one thing would be to leave those alone rather than institute growth policies.
Moving on:
> What's really odd is that you think an observation is verboten if it does not come with any solutions!
Well, all right, you kinda got me there - I do, in fact, believe that observing a problem without suggesting solutions is not particularly helpful in most cases. "Verboten" is too strong a word, though - one should be as free to make pointless remarks as productive ones in a public forum such as this.
And, for what it's worth, I didn't intend my question as a "gotcha" - I appreciate that you actually answered it. Broadly, I agree with you: taking advantage of demographic transition through eg. better education seems like a good tactic, as does avoiding policies that tend to boost consumption.
Unfortunately, since anti-growth policies are antithetical to our current economic order (again, broadly speaking) I'm stuck on what combination of influences would actually synergize to make these changes possible and/or more rapid. Fortunately, I suspect at least one important transition is happening now, in the minds of the people of the world (the wealthy nations particularly) deciding they do not need as much as they are used to having access to.
To be as transparent as possible about why I care about this matter, the perspective on the destruction of the biosphere that I've internalized is that it has gone so far that mass human casualties are likely in my lifetime, and moreover that this will be how I personally die - either directly via environmental effects (heatstroke? fire? flood? famine?) or from the social breakdowns that will multiply as the foundation of our society crumbles away. I consider this outcome existentially bad and want to avoid it, to say the least.
Given this, I very urgently desire solutions that DON'T take 500 years to work, because if those are all we can come up with, then we might as well not bother: this civilization of ours is doomed sooner rather than later.
I suppose not, though what you say later in this comment is remarkably close:
> Most of the highest consuming countries have naturally declining populations, so one thing would be to leave those alone rather than institute growth policies.
Moving on:
> What's really odd is that you think an observation is verboten if it does not come with any solutions!
Well, all right, you kinda got me there - I do, in fact, believe that observing a problem without suggesting solutions is not particularly helpful in most cases. "Verboten" is too strong a word, though - one should be as free to make pointless remarks as productive ones in a public forum such as this.
And, for what it's worth, I didn't intend my question as a "gotcha" - I appreciate that you actually answered it. Broadly, I agree with you: taking advantage of demographic transition through eg. better education seems like a good tactic, as does avoiding policies that tend to boost consumption.
Unfortunately, since anti-growth policies are antithetical to our current economic order (again, broadly speaking) I'm stuck on what combination of influences would actually synergize to make these changes possible and/or more rapid. Fortunately, I suspect at least one important transition is happening now, in the minds of the people of the world (the wealthy nations particularly) deciding they do not need as much as they are used to having access to.
To be as transparent as possible about why I care about this matter, the perspective on the destruction of the biosphere that I've internalized is that it has gone so far that mass human casualties are likely in my lifetime, and moreover that this will be how I personally die - either directly via environmental effects (heatstroke? fire? flood? famine?) or from the social breakdowns that will multiply as the foundation of our society crumbles away. I consider this outcome existentially bad and want to avoid it, to say the least.
Given this, I very urgently desire solutions that DON'T take 500 years to work, because if those are all we can come up with, then we might as well not bother: this civilization of ours is doomed sooner rather than later.
> Given this, I very urgently desire solutions that DON'T take 500 years to work, because if those are all we can come up with, then we might as well not bother: this civilization of ours is doomed sooner rather than later.
You keep coming back to that, but it's a strawman. I did not say that is the solution. My hypothetical 5% was just to say that so many difficult problems would suddenly become easy ones.
There is no one solution, there won't be a mere handful of solutions. There will be (and are) many many efforts and they won't "solve" it, they will make some things better and make others less bad. So anything will help, anything is better than nothing. Reducing population growth from 20% to 10% by 2030 means we only have to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 45% per capita instead of 50% per capita to achieve the same result (to make up some numbers). That's a huge win. And not only does that benefit apply to greenhouse gas emissions, it applies to practically all environmental problems.
You keep coming back to that, but it's a strawman. I did not say that is the solution. My hypothetical 5% was just to say that so many difficult problems would suddenly become easy ones.
There is no one solution, there won't be a mere handful of solutions. There will be (and are) many many efforts and they won't "solve" it, they will make some things better and make others less bad. So anything will help, anything is better than nothing. Reducing population growth from 20% to 10% by 2030 means we only have to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 45% per capita instead of 50% per capita to achieve the same result (to make up some numbers). That's a huge win. And not only does that benefit apply to greenhouse gas emissions, it applies to practically all environmental problems.
With the Earth's being consumed at unsustainable levels, genocide and suffering are an inevitability. It's just a question of who is going to do it to who.
> I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably
Irrationality is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Irrationality is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Exhibit A
Well, people get wildly irrational at me when I suggest that the only viable option here is for people to migrate from Earth into orbit. Space constraints will go away, because in 3-dimensional space everyone can live in as large of a house as they want but remain in a fast commute to urban centers of space cities. There are plenty of materials available on the moon to build whatever we want with. This can, of course, leave the focus on Earth to shift to biosphere remediation.
After we take full intentional control of the planet's climate and shift 99% of human land use to the project, then I expect it will still be 100 years or more before we get back to pre-industrial natural productivity. This won't happen on its own, I'm assuming we put a large amount of artificial accelerators into to the process. It won't be the same as before humans, but we could quickly get back to the same megafauna numbers as before. Rough equivalents to pre-industrial ecosystems will eventually work out the missing niches.
After we take full intentional control of the planet's climate and shift 99% of human land use to the project, then I expect it will still be 100 years or more before we get back to pre-industrial natural productivity. This won't happen on its own, I'm assuming we put a large amount of artificial accelerators into to the process. It won't be the same as before humans, but we could quickly get back to the same megafauna numbers as before. Rough equivalents to pre-industrial ecosystems will eventually work out the missing niches.
I suspect part of the reason people have a strong response to your suggestion is that it's patently impractical, and thus easy to pick apart.
To offer one small critique: you suggest that we first need "people to migrate from Earth into orbit," THEN "take full intentional control of the planet's climate" - surely if we have the ability to fully control Earth's climate, we don't need everyone in orbit?
And, since we have to develop the technologies necessary to implement your plan anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just figure out how to remediate the biosphere directly, instead of figuring out how to get everyone into orbit, THEN figure out full planetary climate control, THEN artificially-accelerated natural productivity restoration?
To offer one small critique: you suggest that we first need "people to migrate from Earth into orbit," THEN "take full intentional control of the planet's climate" - surely if we have the ability to fully control Earth's climate, we don't need everyone in orbit?
And, since we have to develop the technologies necessary to implement your plan anyway, wouldn't it be easier to just figure out how to remediate the biosphere directly, instead of figuring out how to get everyone into orbit, THEN figure out full planetary climate control, THEN artificially-accelerated natural productivity restoration?
Your comment doesn't add up. I need to ask more questions to triage what your positions are. Let's start with the fairly basic premise that virtually all of us agree on:
1. Current human impact on the planet is unsustainable
Now add these premises:
2. As developing world changes, our impact gets worse 3. As our own standards of living increase, our impact gets worse
Your vision of the Earth doesn't have space migration as part of our path to sustainability. Because of this, you're fighting increasing demands while at the same time needing to reduce total impact dramatically. Say that the equation is:
Impact = (number of people) x (quality of life) x (efficiency)
You can reject either (2) or (3) or both at the cost of some human harm. Most pro-tech people tend to not reject either of these, but you might be an exception. Because of that, you have 2 increasing factors, because you don't have control over the number of people are we're locked into growth for 50 years or something demographically, even with birth rates quickly falling below replacement (which they haven't yet).
There's only 1 factor left in your toolbox - efficiency. We live better but at a lower impact to the planet. Agreed, that's great, but because of (1) and (2) we already have high expectations of this factor. On top of that, we need truly dramatic total reductions in total impact. So if we need 2x improvement (which is probably underestimating) to stay level, then we need maybe 8x or 16x to get where we need to be so that the Earth is moderately healthy. That would be great, but this is magical unicorn-ish thinking. Is this what you're counting on? I want to know.
We can control Earth's climate today by Sulfur geoengineering, which I'm worried that we will not start until it's too late, and even more worried that it may not be globally coordinated which would be disastrous. This is just a band aid, we still need to virtually eliminate Carbon emissions on a time scale we're not prepared for. As long as we are here, then climate intervention will be done for us (our own selfish needs), not for the health of the biosphere.
1. Current human impact on the planet is unsustainable
Now add these premises:
2. As developing world changes, our impact gets worse 3. As our own standards of living increase, our impact gets worse
Your vision of the Earth doesn't have space migration as part of our path to sustainability. Because of this, you're fighting increasing demands while at the same time needing to reduce total impact dramatically. Say that the equation is:
Impact = (number of people) x (quality of life) x (efficiency)
You can reject either (2) or (3) or both at the cost of some human harm. Most pro-tech people tend to not reject either of these, but you might be an exception. Because of that, you have 2 increasing factors, because you don't have control over the number of people are we're locked into growth for 50 years or something demographically, even with birth rates quickly falling below replacement (which they haven't yet).
There's only 1 factor left in your toolbox - efficiency. We live better but at a lower impact to the planet. Agreed, that's great, but because of (1) and (2) we already have high expectations of this factor. On top of that, we need truly dramatic total reductions in total impact. So if we need 2x improvement (which is probably underestimating) to stay level, then we need maybe 8x or 16x to get where we need to be so that the Earth is moderately healthy. That would be great, but this is magical unicorn-ish thinking. Is this what you're counting on? I want to know.
We can control Earth's climate today by Sulfur geoengineering, which I'm worried that we will not start until it's too late, and even more worried that it may not be globally coordinated which would be disastrous. This is just a band aid, we still need to virtually eliminate Carbon emissions on a time scale we're not prepared for. As long as we are here, then climate intervention will be done for us (our own selfish needs), not for the health of the biosphere.
It sounds like you agree that population levels on Earth are unsustainable and reducing them would help to preserve the environment.
Now certainly you can see why your ideas may be a little harder to accept as the scientific fact that human activity at even much smaller levels as today's population has caused terrible environmental destruction, extinction, etc., and with a lot more room to disagree, but so long as you approach the conversations humbly and with a willingness to consider differing opinions as you would have people consider your opinion I sympathize. Some people just react irrationally.
Now certainly you can see why your ideas may be a little harder to accept as the scientific fact that human activity at even much smaller levels as today's population has caused terrible environmental destruction, extinction, etc., and with a lot more room to disagree, but so long as you approach the conversations humbly and with a willingness to consider differing opinions as you would have people consider your opinion I sympathize. Some people just react irrationally.
I think because it's not practical yet. I'm not sure if it ever would be, but if SpaceX gets starship right it brings us one big step closer to that. Also I think most people would prefer to remain on Earth. But moving some kinds of industry to space could be useful. Asteroids contain an abundance of elements that are difficult to extract here on Earth. If much of the demand for them was also in space due to heavy industry there, that might make it viable. Having heavy industry in space like that could really open up orbit and the solar system to us.
It is also just general reading comprehension, as the post begins with what appears to be a fairly accurate summary of the study:
>Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor.
and then makes recommendations about tinting windows and cats. One does not imply the other.
All of which also mirrors stuff like plastic recycling and water pollution. Individual actions are so incredibly dwarfed by industrial actions that it's almost pointless. We need legislation, not feel-good individual ethics.
>Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor.
and then makes recommendations about tinting windows and cats. One does not imply the other.
All of which also mirrors stuff like plastic recycling and water pollution. Individual actions are so incredibly dwarfed by industrial actions that it's almost pointless. We need legislation, not feel-good individual ethics.
Seems more complicated - industrial actions, technology, and personal preferences have intertwined roles.
The most effective thing we could do would be to tax beef (and other meats on a sliding scale), because this would decrease the acreage needed per person. People would howl because they like meat, consumers would also just absorb a lot of the tax instead of actually changing behavior. They'll break out arguments about inequality and social justice (but in truth they like the taste).
Vertical factory-like farms seem very promising to me. These will only target certain groups of foods, which tend to be very leafy and healthy. Government policies can play a big role in advancing this tech because economics are challenging and it needs some more scale to drive the cycle to further cost reduction.
I'm sure that direct farm incentives to reduce pesticide use could help. But there's a reason they're used, and there needs to be a game-plan that doesn't assume the farmer will make massive capital investment into the alternatives.
The most effective thing we could do would be to tax beef (and other meats on a sliding scale), because this would decrease the acreage needed per person. People would howl because they like meat, consumers would also just absorb a lot of the tax instead of actually changing behavior. They'll break out arguments about inequality and social justice (but in truth they like the taste).
Vertical factory-like farms seem very promising to me. These will only target certain groups of foods, which tend to be very leafy and healthy. Government policies can play a big role in advancing this tech because economics are challenging and it needs some more scale to drive the cycle to further cost reduction.
I'm sure that direct farm incentives to reduce pesticide use could help. But there's a reason they're used, and there needs to be a game-plan that doesn't assume the farmer will make massive capital investment into the alternatives.
Brilliant, thank you for that effort, especially the direct link to the PDF. A third of the bird population gone in the 50 years since 1970. As he says in Blood Diamond, "Will god ever forgive us for what we've done to each other? ..." The future is here and the future bites.
Actually, is that really what the article said?
> Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor.
But I don't think the numbers in the article make sense together.
> wild bird populations in the continental U.S. and Canada have declined by 29 percent—or a total net loss of around three billion birds—since 1970.
> between 365 million and one billion birds die each year across the U.S. as a result of window strikes.)
> pet felines kill some 2.6 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.
So ... the total decline over 50 years (~3B) is approximately the same as the annual deaths from cats and windows at somewhere between a quarter and a third of all birds? I think this is one of those cases where uncritically accepting estimates from independent sources who used different methods produces an incoherent picture.
> Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor.
But I don't think the numbers in the article make sense together.
> wild bird populations in the continental U.S. and Canada have declined by 29 percent—or a total net loss of around three billion birds—since 1970.
> between 365 million and one billion birds die each year across the U.S. as a result of window strikes.)
> pet felines kill some 2.6 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.
So ... the total decline over 50 years (~3B) is approximately the same as the annual deaths from cats and windows at somewhere between a quarter and a third of all birds? I think this is one of those cases where uncritically accepting estimates from independent sources who used different methods produces an incoherent picture.
The article and numbers are right, it’s just not clearly worded.
I had this same question a couple years back when I read this stat, so I messaged the Cornell Lab Ornithology and one of their reps explained how these numbers make sense.
“We start with a population of breeding adult birds at the beginning of the year. They breed, and multiply, and then the population is "spent" throughout the year on deaths such as window strikes, pesticide poisoning, and cat kills. If the population could keep up with these deaths, we would see a net loss of zero. Unfortunately, instead, we are seeing less and less breeding adult birds at the beginning of each year.
So when we say "we've lost 2.9 Billion birds," what we really mean is, "We've seen a net loss of 2.9 billion breeding adult birds since the 1970's." Back in the 1970's, the breeding season started with about 13 billion adult birds. This year, we had about 10 billion. Throughout the year, they multiply to about 40 billion before they die back. Of that 40 billion, cats kill 2.5 billion.”
I had this same question a couple years back when I read this stat, so I messaged the Cornell Lab Ornithology and one of their reps explained how these numbers make sense.
“We start with a population of breeding adult birds at the beginning of the year. They breed, and multiply, and then the population is "spent" throughout the year on deaths such as window strikes, pesticide poisoning, and cat kills. If the population could keep up with these deaths, we would see a net loss of zero. Unfortunately, instead, we are seeing less and less breeding adult birds at the beginning of each year.
So when we say "we've lost 2.9 Billion birds," what we really mean is, "We've seen a net loss of 2.9 billion breeding adult birds since the 1970's." Back in the 1970's, the breeding season started with about 13 billion adult birds. This year, we had about 10 billion. Throughout the year, they multiply to about 40 billion before they die back. Of that 40 billion, cats kill 2.5 billion.”
I think the honest answer is that we just don't have nearly as much surety around these numbers as you might expect.
I went looking for data on actual bird populations, and I get wildly different estimates.
The 3 billion number comes from the following source (as far as I can tell):
" Critical data were contributed by citizen-science participants in the Audubon Christmas Bird Count, North American Breeding Bird Survey, and other bird-monitoring initiatives. The Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Assessment Database was a critical source for the data. " - https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/bring-birds-back/
Nat Geo quotes
" New research estimates there are between 50 billion and 430 billion birds on Earth. " - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-many-...
A lot of articles seem to quote the "at least 50 billion" line, probably based on the above numbers.
Basically - I'd say we have no idea how many birds there really are. Take ALL numbers involved as wild guesses.
I went looking for data on actual bird populations, and I get wildly different estimates.
The 3 billion number comes from the following source (as far as I can tell):
" Critical data were contributed by citizen-science participants in the Audubon Christmas Bird Count, North American Breeding Bird Survey, and other bird-monitoring initiatives. The Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Assessment Database was a critical source for the data. " - https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/bring-birds-back/
Nat Geo quotes
" New research estimates there are between 50 billion and 430 billion birds on Earth. " - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-many-...
A lot of articles seem to quote the "at least 50 billion" line, probably based on the above numbers.
Basically - I'd say we have no idea how many birds there really are. Take ALL numbers involved as wild guesses.
Counting population based on deaths alone isn't accurate
If the ecosystem is healthy, a dozen birds dying will make way for a dozen more to replace them
If the ecosystem is healthy, a dozen birds dying will make way for a dozen more to replace them
And make outdoor cats illegal. An unpopular opinion no doubt. But from nature photographers to veterinarians, the outdoor cat is not good for anyone, including the cat.
I blame online communities for this.
Cat ladies are insane and organized now. In my city, there’s a group distributing shelters and placing them in various outdoor areas to keep feral cats alive over the winter.
They are as nutty as the pigeon feeders, except the cats kill everything in sight.
Cat ladies are insane and organized now. In my city, there’s a group distributing shelters and placing them in various outdoor areas to keep feral cats alive over the winter.
They are as nutty as the pigeon feeders, except the cats kill everything in sight.
We have a group like this, which feeds a couple dozen feral cats on "Kitty Cat Lane." Of course there is science behind the insanity -- toxoplasmosis infections from the cats they love.
Our local Nextdoor exploded when some particularly nutty cat vigilante started stealing cats and spaying them.
I think as society sprawls out and folks have fewer kids, this stuff gets escalated.
I think as society sprawls out and folks have fewer kids, this stuff gets escalated.
These comments are disturbingly out of touch.
'Neuter and Release' programs are common, supported and sanctioned by animal shelters, usually local vets provide their services for free, and the point is to provide basic medical for the animals while at the same time trying to control excess populations.
Calling them 'Nutty cat lady vigilantes' would be like calling people 100 years ago providing shelter for abused women 'Marriage Wreckers'.
'Neuter and Release' programs are common, supported and sanctioned by animal shelters, usually local vets provide their services for free, and the point is to provide basic medical for the animals while at the same time trying to control excess populations.
Calling them 'Nutty cat lady vigilantes' would be like calling people 100 years ago providing shelter for abused women 'Marriage Wreckers'.
This particular group of self-described activists were running a squeegee guy scam with cats.
They were stealing pets and shaking down the owners for cash.
They were stealing pets and shaking down the owners for cash.
Enough with the petty, denigrating attacks people helping mostly harmless animals, which is a generally good thing. These rescuers/helpers run 'neuter and release' programs and are keen on having population control, not increasing the number of rogue cats.
Mostly harmless to you... What a strange thing to call what is effectively an apex suburban predator that is known to kill for fun with no intention of eating.
They are animals like any other, and this notion of 'apex suburban predator' is nonsense.
What's nonsense about it? These aren't raccoons digging through people's trash and scavenging, they hunt wildlife for food and are protected from everything that would hunt them in return, even getting food and water and potentially shelter in the worst months.
No way. Cats eviscerate bird population.
Feral cats should be euthanized from a distance. Ask any infectious disease doc about cat bites. And think twice about feral kittens being all innocent, their teeth are like hypodermic needles, and can inject shit into joints. You can lose life and limb from kitty cat bites. These are not cool animals.
Our door cats have existed for millennia. Pesticides have not. I don’t think outdoor cats are the problem. Pesticides have killed most of the bug biomass in the last several decades and now birds are being affected.
I cannot understand why DDT is forbidden, but 10000x more powerful insecticides are not forbidden. WTF? Birds are dropping from the sky in Spring, because they have nothing to eat, because bugs are gone while seeds are not ready yet.
Also, air pollution makes them weak. Birds are much more sensitive to air pollution and CO2 level, because they breathe at much higher rate while they have much lower mass than land animals.
Also, air pollution makes them weak. Birds are much more sensitive to air pollution and CO2 level, because they breathe at much higher rate while they have much lower mass than land animals.
Its a solid point. I'm not sure what the average ownership of cats are, but I would imagine every 3rd or 4th person in my friendship network to own one.
I would imagine at least over 100 million cats in north America to which most owners probably let them outside to hunt wild life.
Bob cats, mountain lions, etc used to have the entire US as their range. I suspect the bird population boomed after we got rid of the cats (100-150 years ago). Now that we have house cats they’re dropping again.
Boom-bust cycles for animals are common. I try to reflect what the natural order was 10,000 years ago and reflect. 20,000 years ago, there was an ice sheet over North America - ie no birds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet
Boom-bust cycles for animals are common. I try to reflect what the natural order was 10,000 years ago and reflect. 20,000 years ago, there was an ice sheet over North America - ie no birds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet
Unless you're talking about the lynx (which mainly eats hares), the historic ranges of American cats barely overlap with LGM ice cover. It's not very relevant to this discussion.
Would that even be beneficial? If the problem is that there are fewer insects and therefore the birds have less food, then cats suppressing the bird population might have a positive impact on insects, which the birds eat. That might be good for birds too in the long run.
Predators are part of a feedback loop. That the predators in question are housecats makes it a somewhat unnatural feedback loop, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad.
Housecats are part of the food chain as well; they can be killed by cayotes and raccoons, and hawks might sometimes go after a small cat.
Predators are part of a feedback loop. That the predators in question are housecats makes it a somewhat unnatural feedback loop, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad.
Housecats are part of the food chain as well; they can be killed by cayotes and raccoons, and hawks might sometimes go after a small cat.
Not sure what it is like in the US, but in the UK, the RSPB doesn't seem to think cats are a major cause of bird population decline
https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-...
That seems very silly. The concept of an indoor or outdoor cat didn't even exist until one hundred years ago.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=outdoor+cat%2C...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=outdoor+cat%2C...
>including the cat
But my cat likes going outside. He likes catching birds.
But my cat likes going outside. He likes catching birds.
I like birds, i like them alive. I would like your car to not go outside and catch birds.
He didn't say money, he said like money.
> "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
> YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
> "So we can believe the big ones?"
> YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
(Death about belief and humanity, from Hogfather by Terry Pratchett)
> Until human society stops serving abstractions […]
Without abstraction, there is no human society to speak of. No government to organize large scale actions, no incentive to share ideas, no way to exchange goods from places where there is overabundance to the places in need of those resources. Wanting to maintain a livable environment, too is nothing but an abstract thought.
I would dare to claim that human society exists first and foremost thanks to our brains being able to abstract away some processes. Of course, it creates blind spots and shortcoming in the process, but they are in the end an acceptable cost.
> As a believer in the concept of memetics, it is clear that standing in defense of the real is a battle that is being lost, but the consequences will not be escaped forever.
Is it? Seems to me that more and more people are starting to be more proactive in attempts at preserving the nature. Too late? Maybe. Time will show.
> YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
> "So we can believe the big ones?"
> YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
(Death about belief and humanity, from Hogfather by Terry Pratchett)
> Until human society stops serving abstractions […]
Without abstraction, there is no human society to speak of. No government to organize large scale actions, no incentive to share ideas, no way to exchange goods from places where there is overabundance to the places in need of those resources. Wanting to maintain a livable environment, too is nothing but an abstract thought.
I would dare to claim that human society exists first and foremost thanks to our brains being able to abstract away some processes. Of course, it creates blind spots and shortcoming in the process, but they are in the end an acceptable cost.
> As a believer in the concept of memetics, it is clear that standing in defense of the real is a battle that is being lost, but the consequences will not be escaped forever.
Is it? Seems to me that more and more people are starting to be more proactive in attempts at preserving the nature. Too late? Maybe. Time will show.
>Without abstraction, there is no human society to speak of
I'm appalled that such a quote could be used to support such an argument. Grandparent, and Pratchett's Death, agree that humans and human society are supposed to support humans. Grandparent maintains, quite correctly, that our current society is, in fact, tooled to support abstract concepts like "valuation" and "wealth creation" instead of things like clean nutritive food and safe affordable shelter and supportable realistic hope -- and the biosphere itself that serves as backdrop, stage, and audience all in one.
Whether unintentionally or otherwise, the parent is missing the point. The grandparent doesn't argue against abstraction itself, but the reification of corporations as people, the conflation of the stock market as barometer of the economy, and enablers of all this in ostensibly benevolent governments.
If one chose the read the rest of the fucking book, one would see that it's all about fighting against those who would use human frailties -- like greed, and desperation, and the smallness of our own perspective -- to trick humans into destroying that which makes life worth living. Of course, it's all couched in the supernatural trappings of the Discworld, but as Prachett points out in several Discworld book intros, the Disc is a "world and mirror of worlds". On Earth, the antagonistic Auditors have names and addresses...
I'm appalled that such a quote could be used to support such an argument. Grandparent, and Pratchett's Death, agree that humans and human society are supposed to support humans. Grandparent maintains, quite correctly, that our current society is, in fact, tooled to support abstract concepts like "valuation" and "wealth creation" instead of things like clean nutritive food and safe affordable shelter and supportable realistic hope -- and the biosphere itself that serves as backdrop, stage, and audience all in one.
Whether unintentionally or otherwise, the parent is missing the point. The grandparent doesn't argue against abstraction itself, but the reification of corporations as people, the conflation of the stock market as barometer of the economy, and enablers of all this in ostensibly benevolent governments.
If one chose the read the rest of the fucking book, one would see that it's all about fighting against those who would use human frailties -- like greed, and desperation, and the smallness of our own perspective -- to trick humans into destroying that which makes life worth living. Of course, it's all couched in the supernatural trappings of the Discworld, but as Prachett points out in several Discworld book intros, the Disc is a "world and mirror of worlds". On Earth, the antagonistic Auditors have names and addresses...
> humans and human society are supposed to support humans
And it is the same thing I am talking about. Abstraction is humans’ way to streamline the process of maintaining the society. Money was created as an abstraction of a reward for one’s labor. Then atop of it more abstractions were built. Existence of stocks and markets is orthogonal to how to maintain a livable environment. In other case communism would do a better job at not starving people to death.
> Grandparent maintains, quite correctly, that our current society is, in fact, tooled to support abstract concepts like "valuation" and "wealth creation" instead of things like clean nutritive food and safe affordable shelter and supportable realistic hope
Give me an example of a society/culture, that cared more about the environment than the ones currently existing. Former societies/cultures were much smaller in scope and headcount to care about such things. Deforestation was a thing during the time of ancient Romans[0], the idea that a species can go extinct (at lest in European-centric culture) started to take roots during 19th century[1]. According to the Wikipedia, Thomas Jefferson was against a notion that species can go extinct (my point is: it wasn’t simply some fringe group’s dogma). Compare this with The South Sea Bubble[2], which was in 18th century.
In short, my argument is: the abstract ideas like “valuation” and “wealth creation” were there well before any coherent idea about taking care of the environment as a finite and common resource was widely accepted.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#History_of_scientif... [2]: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/South...
And it is the same thing I am talking about. Abstraction is humans’ way to streamline the process of maintaining the society. Money was created as an abstraction of a reward for one’s labor. Then atop of it more abstractions were built. Existence of stocks and markets is orthogonal to how to maintain a livable environment. In other case communism would do a better job at not starving people to death.
> Grandparent maintains, quite correctly, that our current society is, in fact, tooled to support abstract concepts like "valuation" and "wealth creation" instead of things like clean nutritive food and safe affordable shelter and supportable realistic hope
Give me an example of a society/culture, that cared more about the environment than the ones currently existing. Former societies/cultures were much smaller in scope and headcount to care about such things. Deforestation was a thing during the time of ancient Romans[0], the idea that a species can go extinct (at lest in European-centric culture) started to take roots during 19th century[1]. According to the Wikipedia, Thomas Jefferson was against a notion that species can go extinct (my point is: it wasn’t simply some fringe group’s dogma). Compare this with The South Sea Bubble[2], which was in 18th century.
In short, my argument is: the abstract ideas like “valuation” and “wealth creation” were there well before any coherent idea about taking care of the environment as a finite and common resource was widely accepted.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#History_of_scientif... [2]: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/South...
That seems a bit of a dichotomous view on a complex web of interconnected "realities" and "abstractions", and I'm not sure if "real" is a great term for an opposite of an abstraction, which is also real in a lot of ways.
Otherwise you are getting _very_ close to the N/S dichotomy in Jungian psychology and the Myers-Briggs type model :D and the growth idea there is transcendence of the dichotomy, bringing strengths of both ends forward, rather than regressing to the one-sided way.
Otherwise you are getting _very_ close to the N/S dichotomy in Jungian psychology and the Myers-Briggs type model :D and the growth idea there is transcendence of the dichotomy, bringing strengths of both ends forward, rather than regressing to the one-sided way.
The difference between abstraction and reality is all the little details that get excluded from abstractions. Consider, people cooking at home are creating real value that doesn’t get captured in GDP, which means maximizing GDP may is not maximizing the actual economy.
The difference is not so critical when people are starving, but the difference continues to grow until maximizing GDP starts harming the economy.
The difference is not so critical when people are starving, but the difference continues to grow until maximizing GDP starts harming the economy.
GDP is a useful abstraction that can help guide policies. Do you have concrete examples of its unjust use that were supported by economists?
I don’t know any government that considers maximizing GDP as its primary goal.
I don’t know any government that considers maximizing GDP as its primary goal.
Maximizing GDP doesn’t need to be the primary goal to as you say guide policies. There are plenty of policies aimed to increase economic growth as measured by GDP.
Economists however are on all sides of this issue, it isn’t some monolithic field where everyone agrees on even basic ideas.
Economists however are on all sides of this issue, it isn’t some monolithic field where everyone agrees on even basic ideas.
What economists are on the side that GDP is a perfect measure that precisely captures the increase in well-being? I have never heard of one. If you look at the IMF website you will find a nuanced explanation of what GDP is and is not. For example, it states that
> It is also important to understand what GDP cannot tell us. GDP is not a measure of the overall standard of living or well-being of a country. Although changes in the output of goods and services per person (GDP per capita) are often used as a measure of whether the average citizen in a country is better or worse off, it does not capture things that may be deemed important to general well-being.
Tirades that when economists calculate GDP the human society is serving "abstractions" or the devil over the "real" and God is just fearmongering.
> It is also important to understand what GDP cannot tell us. GDP is not a measure of the overall standard of living or well-being of a country. Although changes in the output of goods and services per person (GDP per capita) are often used as a measure of whether the average citizen in a country is better or worse off, it does not capture things that may be deemed important to general well-being.
Tirades that when economists calculate GDP the human society is serving "abstractions" or the devil over the "real" and God is just fearmongering.
Again your taking things to unreasonable extremes, plenty of economists think GDP is good enough to be useful. Which means it’s informing their decisions or it wouldn’t be useful.
You can’t say measure X is useful, and it’s flaws are well known therefore it’s flaws are irrelevant. If it’s useful then it’s flaws are part of any decision made using it.
You can’t say measure X is useful, and it’s flaws are well known therefore it’s flaws are irrelevant. If it’s useful then it’s flaws are part of any decision made using it.
>plenty of economists think GDP is good enough to be useful. Which means it’s informing their decisions or it wouldn’t be useful
Yeah, that's precisely my point. It's informing their decisions.
>You can’t say measure X is useful, and it’s flaws are well known therefore it’s flaws are irrelevant. If it’s useful then it’s flaws are part of any decision made using it.
Measure X is useful, its flaws are well known therefore people who use it account for its flaws during the decision making process.
Yeah, that's precisely my point. It's informing their decisions.
>You can’t say measure X is useful, and it’s flaws are well known therefore it’s flaws are irrelevant. If it’s useful then it’s flaws are part of any decision made using it.
Measure X is useful, its flaws are well known therefore people who use it account for its flaws during the decision making process.
There are a lot more differences than that. You are communicating a subjective model of reality, one model of many, many models.
Within the context of a Model. Models that don’t capture the very large scale effects are useless and therefore not worth talking about. What’s left is models that used to capture large scale effects and all the smaller effects that where never captured by the model.
This sounds more like an argument for systems design. You can easily build models and meta-models that help navigate various scopes. For example the concept of the long tail is by definition a widely-scoped way of gaining leverage in a situation where smaller details are important.
Traffic control systems, computer hardware design...these all incorporate the same combinations of depth and breadth of thinking. I think it's wise to keep an open mind and ask whether it's really necessary to exclude a given model or entire set of them.
Traffic control systems, computer hardware design...these all incorporate the same combinations of depth and breadth of thinking. I think it's wise to keep an open mind and ask whether it's really necessary to exclude a given model or entire set of them.
It’s not a question of excluding the model, it’s a question of the feedback loop where the model is used to both inform your decisions and validate they where correct.
Goodhart's law is an adage often stated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
Goodhart's law is an adage often stated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
> it’s a question of the feedback loop where the model is used to both inform your decisions and validate they where correct.
Who exactly are we criticizing for doing this? Seems a bit like a straw man argument tbh. I'm not even sure how that relates to the more general concept raised above, of a single model of reality being reliable.
Who exactly are we criticizing for doing this? Seems a bit like a straw man argument tbh. I'm not even sure how that relates to the more general concept raised above, of a single model of reality being reliable.
If you want just one example, the IMF uses GDP data for critical decisions and to measure the results of those decisions.
At any granularity, knowledge consists of models in the consciousness of the thinker.
Direct observation exists alongside models. You may not be able to correctly interpret that observation, but it is still a form of knowledge.
This is true even if what’s being observed is by a simulated entity, the observation exists outside of it’s internal models and is indirectly related to things in the underlying reality. Ie, physical states of various bits of physical RAM.
This is true even if what’s being observed is by a simulated entity, the observation exists outside of it’s internal models and is indirectly related to things in the underlying reality. Ie, physical states of various bits of physical RAM.
[deleted]
You’re flogging the abstraction known as English.
None of these philosophers old works need to be given any weight and working with you to decipher your personal beliefs is not my problem.
The abstractions of physics and biology provide the evidence necessary given the context.
Perhaps sit and ruminate as you wish. Those dead men have no capture of my perception. Paulo Freire said we have no obligation to import the jargon and implied behavior of our captors; I won’t submit to Christian rule; why rich mens dollars? The political capture of our economic behavior is a cudgel I’m tired of being bashed with, and the measurable effects are where I’ll put my effort.
If you prefer to equivocate them away with deference to endless semantic recitation, that’s fine, because I know that means you won’t be in the “real” way. You’ll be here proselytizing others just how none of the effort is going how it should.
None of these philosophers old works need to be given any weight and working with you to decipher your personal beliefs is not my problem.
The abstractions of physics and biology provide the evidence necessary given the context.
Perhaps sit and ruminate as you wish. Those dead men have no capture of my perception. Paulo Freire said we have no obligation to import the jargon and implied behavior of our captors; I won’t submit to Christian rule; why rich mens dollars? The political capture of our economic behavior is a cudgel I’m tired of being bashed with, and the measurable effects are where I’ll put my effort.
If you prefer to equivocate them away with deference to endless semantic recitation, that’s fine, because I know that means you won’t be in the “real” way. You’ll be here proselytizing others just how none of the effort is going how it should.
This comment is really hard to parse.
"homelessness", "pollution" and "healthy" are abstractions that try to capture in single concept a myriad of different realities, and most of us won't have similar concrete representation of what's behind them. This of course becomes an issue real fast because because solving "homelessness" for instance requires separating all these different cases in their own buckets and coming with appropriate solutions to all of them.
Also money is as real as the food you buy with it, the electricity that comes if you keep paying your bills and the factories you buy with them.
"homelessness", "pollution" and "healthy" are abstractions that try to capture in single concept a myriad of different realities, and most of us won't have similar concrete representation of what's behind them. This of course becomes an issue real fast because because solving "homelessness" for instance requires separating all these different cases in their own buckets and coming with appropriate solutions to all of them.
Also money is as real as the food you buy with it, the electricity that comes if you keep paying your bills and the factories you buy with them.
> it is clear that standing in defense of the real is a battle that is being lost
Unfortunately so. As far as I am aware, there are no political movements in any Western country focused entirely on reality and the consequences of reality. We have become enamored, as a society, with abstract ideas and are sacrificing reality on an altar to our delusions.
Unfortunately so. As far as I am aware, there are no political movements in any Western country focused entirely on reality and the consequences of reality. We have become enamored, as a society, with abstract ideas and are sacrificing reality on an altar to our delusions.
Tax/price the negative externalities.
We have to start by acknowledging that externalities exist and tell the free-market-is-magic people to shut-up and acknowledge that the market doesn't automatically take care of everything.
I don't know if the "population of birds in north America" is a more or less abstract concept than money, but I'd bet they're similar.
Though population of birds in theory is a measurable real thing -- and money really is an abstraction. Without humans it wouldn't exist. On the other hand, birds would probably exist much better without us.
[deleted]
Money is real, it’s how we pay for medical care, welfare, etc.
Pretty much the premise of the movie Interstellar.
> the pandemic and my society's inability to deal with it
To put the doom and gloom in context, we had a novel virus go from virtually zero to pandemic in the course of a few months. Within weeks we had working treatments. Within a year, effective vaccines. Less than two years from first publication, and over 4 billion people have been inoculated. All within the systems of abstractions you decry.
We're messing up a lot. And we can do much better. But let's not lose the forest for the trees. When we focus on something, we get it done, massively better so than at any prior point in human history.
To put the doom and gloom in context, we had a novel virus go from virtually zero to pandemic in the course of a few months. Within weeks we had working treatments. Within a year, effective vaccines. Less than two years from first publication, and over 4 billion people have been inoculated. All within the systems of abstractions you decry.
We're messing up a lot. And we can do much better. But let's not lose the forest for the trees. When we focus on something, we get it done, massively better so than at any prior point in human history.
> When we focus on something, we get it done
That's true.
What's also true is that some things simply can't be done. If a species goes extinct, it's over (Jurassic Park fantasies nonwithstanding). It's not like they will respawn if we fix the ecosystem, the damage is permanent.
If we get too far into climate change, it won't get undone in time, no matter what crazy geoengineering efforts we undertake.
In between there's a window where we can act. That is closing.
That's true.
What's also true is that some things simply can't be done. If a species goes extinct, it's over (Jurassic Park fantasies nonwithstanding). It's not like they will respawn if we fix the ecosystem, the damage is permanent.
If we get too far into climate change, it won't get undone in time, no matter what crazy geoengineering efforts we undertake.
In between there's a window where we can act. That is closing.
> In between there's a window where we can act. That is closing.
If we is taken as individuals, then sure we can do tiny bits and pieces. But it will take global systematic changes that start with the elite individuals to invoke such changes. And those that try will acquire many enemies and challenges that fight for the status quo.
If we is taken as individuals, then sure we can do tiny bits and pieces. But it will take global systematic changes that start with the elite individuals to invoke such changes. And those that try will acquire many enemies and challenges that fight for the status quo.
Well, there's a lot to quibble about in this rosy portrayal of the COVID clusterfuck, particularly anti-rationality's rearing of anti-Science conspiracy theories and "hesitancy"--but I won't.
> When we focus on something, we get it done
Yeah, great. Can we focus on not ruining this planet for the stock market? Climate change, deforestation and plastic pollution are seriously damaging the one planet in the known universe that can sustain human life.
> When we focus on something, we get it done
Yeah, great. Can we focus on not ruining this planet for the stock market? Climate change, deforestation and plastic pollution are seriously damaging the one planet in the known universe that can sustain human life.
We are focusing on it plenty enough. The timeframes for serious climate change are measured in half-a-centuries, remember how much changed in the last decade? Solar got massively cheaper, it became possible to convince countries to reduce their carbon emissions purely through political pressure, billions get spent on energy and sustainability R&D. Hell, even nuclear is quickly losing it stigma after Europe haven't had much wind for a few weeks! We are getting there, regardless of alarmist "we have two years to fix everything or the planet is uninhabitable" nonsense.
I do remember how much changed in the last decade. A very nice decline in solar power cost. But you know what? That didn't solve any problems. Emissions kept rising at an exponential rate, meaning the problem not only kept getting worse, it got worse at a faster rate. Adding solar capacity replaced no fossil fuel capacity. We're using more fossil fuels than ever. We are still on exponential growth. So the next decades look bad. And those half-century bad predictions? They wouldn't be nearly as bad if we didn't continue exponential growth--that literally means no GDP growth, something no politician or public policy advocate will even talk about. Growth is making the problem worse, yet it is literally the only strategy that any one can think of to make life better in any way. Exponential growth of something. We've lost our collective minds, TBH. Like trying to grow a watermelon in a lightbulb. Exponential growth busts this planet's capacity, every time.
Whose emissions? Western emissions (yes, including carbon embodied in imported goods) are falling for a decade both in Europe and in the US [1], both per capita and total. Sure, there are six more billion people on the planet that can't afford cutting edge grids and loads of renewables and nuclear just yet, but that's a temporary issue, the efficiencies of scale will take care of that.
That "exponential growth" is mostly about taking people out of poverty. Not nearly enough people in the West realise just how dire the average level of wealth is on this planet, which means any "degrowth" rhetoric is just outright misanthropical, and what's worse self-defeating. We still need to produce loads of stuff, and it will be produced regardless of what "enlightened" Westerners imagine about acceptable quality of life, unless you want to literally bomb India or Bangladesh for burning fossils.
Besides, I just don't see why do you imagine some sort of fundamental cutoff existing and being roughly at where we are. Humanity managed to grow from several tens thousands of nomads to soon ten billion people, most probably stabilising somewhere close to that number; why the cutoff was not overshot earlier? If it increased over time, what stops it from increasing any further?
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 , see "Production vs. consumption-based CO₂ emissions, Europe" and the one below for the same but per-capita
That "exponential growth" is mostly about taking people out of poverty. Not nearly enough people in the West realise just how dire the average level of wealth is on this planet, which means any "degrowth" rhetoric is just outright misanthropical, and what's worse self-defeating. We still need to produce loads of stuff, and it will be produced regardless of what "enlightened" Westerners imagine about acceptable quality of life, unless you want to literally bomb India or Bangladesh for burning fossils.
Besides, I just don't see why do you imagine some sort of fundamental cutoff existing and being roughly at where we are. Humanity managed to grow from several tens thousands of nomads to soon ten billion people, most probably stabilising somewhere close to that number; why the cutoff was not overshot earlier? If it increased over time, what stops it from increasing any further?
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 , see "Production vs. consumption-based CO₂ emissions, Europe" and the one below for the same but per-capita
> which means any "degrowth" rhetoric is just outright misanthropical
Sorry, I will absolutely challenge "misanthropic" being used here. To suggest that we modern humans could not live as our ancestors did--that is, fulfilling, local, simpler lives with less technology and vastly less energy usage is a subtle assertion that the modern way of living is the only moral one. Which is just, anthropologically, vapid elitism and completely ignorant of human existence over millenia. (I challenge you to live a decade as an ancient philosopher in ancient Greece's height and come back to your 9-to-5 job). This "misanthropic" word comes laden with an implicit accusation that we'd force disease and poverty on people when in fact the only thing that forces disease and poverty on people is exactly overpopulation and broken political and economic systems which are ironically exactly the thing supposedly producing this great wealth.
Oh, we moderns have figured out exactly the right way to hold the world, alright. Rampant consumerism and overconsumption. Yep, the most moral system.
To argue that we need degrowth is not to argue that we need be sick and poor. Hell, the richest person 200 years ago was neither sick nor poor, but was incapable of living a high-carbon lifestyle despite utter luxury. Our entire modern system runs on unsustainable levels of energy consumption and is inextricably wedded to fossil fuels. We live like little kings because we burn the Earth's hidden energy reserves to do it.
So yeah, de-grow it.
Sorry, I will absolutely challenge "misanthropic" being used here. To suggest that we modern humans could not live as our ancestors did--that is, fulfilling, local, simpler lives with less technology and vastly less energy usage is a subtle assertion that the modern way of living is the only moral one. Which is just, anthropologically, vapid elitism and completely ignorant of human existence over millenia. (I challenge you to live a decade as an ancient philosopher in ancient Greece's height and come back to your 9-to-5 job). This "misanthropic" word comes laden with an implicit accusation that we'd force disease and poverty on people when in fact the only thing that forces disease and poverty on people is exactly overpopulation and broken political and economic systems which are ironically exactly the thing supposedly producing this great wealth.
Oh, we moderns have figured out exactly the right way to hold the world, alright. Rampant consumerism and overconsumption. Yep, the most moral system.
To argue that we need degrowth is not to argue that we need be sick and poor. Hell, the richest person 200 years ago was neither sick nor poor, but was incapable of living a high-carbon lifestyle despite utter luxury. Our entire modern system runs on unsustainable levels of energy consumption and is inextricably wedded to fossil fuels. We live like little kings because we burn the Earth's hidden energy reserves to do it.
So yeah, de-grow it.
> could not live as our ancestors did--that is, fulfilling, local, simpler lives
That's a fallacy. What's more, you personally can have it right now (bar slaves, which I'll come back to in a sec), yet you somehow choose to have hot and/or potable water, electricity, AC, heating, Internet, vaccines, mass produced food and so on. There is nothing stopping you from emigrating to Albania and moving to a small village there, cutting your electricity supply.
> completely ignorant of human existence over millenia
> an ancient philosopher in ancient Greece's height
I can't believe you chose an example of 1% elite in a society built on slavery in the most hospitable place on this planet as an example of "how our ancestors lived". A tiny society that was constantly threatened by wars, diseases, and starvation, is morally repugnant for modern people, and had stable periods shorter than modern states'. If anything, you are making an argument for me with that comparison.
> the only thing that forces disease and poverty on people is exactly overpopulation and broken political and economic systems
Here, the real misanthropy of your views rears its head where you mention "overpopulation". There will be 10 billion people on this planet unless you kill literally billions of people and sterilise billions more. The natural barriers for population growth back in BC times were famine, war, and disease; why do you think there is "overpopulation" now if not for the lack of those three? And it seems that you'd prefer for those three to return, which is definitely misanthropical.
> Rampant consumerism and overconsumption
Again, you're focusing on your own little bubble of 1 person in 7. Go to Bangladesh or rural India and talk about "overconsumption" and "fulfilling simpler life" there. There are lots of reasons why people run into crowded cities and sweatshops from their "simple" rural lives. I imagine it can be quite hard to understand those reasons when you only see life in the US.
> Our entire modern system runs on unsustainable levels of energy consumption
And this is the main premise of this entire worldview. It's also objectively false, we already have countries on this planet taking most of their electricity from non-fossil sources, i.e. France or Norway. Besides, you seem to forget that those "simple" societies deforested most of Europe to burn the wood as an energy source, and we transitioned from that to fossils which is arguably an improvement. I don't see any fundamental, unsurmountable reason why we can't transition again, now from fossils to nuclear and renewables.
That's a fallacy. What's more, you personally can have it right now (bar slaves, which I'll come back to in a sec), yet you somehow choose to have hot and/or potable water, electricity, AC, heating, Internet, vaccines, mass produced food and so on. There is nothing stopping you from emigrating to Albania and moving to a small village there, cutting your electricity supply.
> completely ignorant of human existence over millenia
> an ancient philosopher in ancient Greece's height
I can't believe you chose an example of 1% elite in a society built on slavery in the most hospitable place on this planet as an example of "how our ancestors lived". A tiny society that was constantly threatened by wars, diseases, and starvation, is morally repugnant for modern people, and had stable periods shorter than modern states'. If anything, you are making an argument for me with that comparison.
> the only thing that forces disease and poverty on people is exactly overpopulation and broken political and economic systems
Here, the real misanthropy of your views rears its head where you mention "overpopulation". There will be 10 billion people on this planet unless you kill literally billions of people and sterilise billions more. The natural barriers for population growth back in BC times were famine, war, and disease; why do you think there is "overpopulation" now if not for the lack of those three? And it seems that you'd prefer for those three to return, which is definitely misanthropical.
> Rampant consumerism and overconsumption
Again, you're focusing on your own little bubble of 1 person in 7. Go to Bangladesh or rural India and talk about "overconsumption" and "fulfilling simpler life" there. There are lots of reasons why people run into crowded cities and sweatshops from their "simple" rural lives. I imagine it can be quite hard to understand those reasons when you only see life in the US.
> Our entire modern system runs on unsustainable levels of energy consumption
And this is the main premise of this entire worldview. It's also objectively false, we already have countries on this planet taking most of their electricity from non-fossil sources, i.e. France or Norway. Besides, you seem to forget that those "simple" societies deforested most of Europe to burn the wood as an energy source, and we transitioned from that to fossils which is arguably an improvement. I don't see any fundamental, unsurmountable reason why we can't transition again, now from fossils to nuclear and renewables.
Indeed. It's also just that people don't remember the issues of the yesterday, they just disappear without much reflection.
Remember ozone layer hole? Acid rains? Leaded petrol? Asbestos causing lung cancers? All sorted out when we realised they are problematic. Not immediately, not without some foot dragging and screaming, but sorted.
We are great at solving problems. We just take a bit of time and convincing to get going.
Remember ozone layer hole? Acid rains? Leaded petrol? Asbestos causing lung cancers? All sorted out when we realised they are problematic. Not immediately, not without some foot dragging and screaming, but sorted.
We are great at solving problems. We just take a bit of time and convincing to get going.
Just a reminder, but we solved, err, almost none of those things. The ozone layer hole has just barely stabilized, and might recover by 2075, acid rain was never a scientific concept, but a media scare, but leaded petrol did absolutely contaminate the air and water and that lead is still out there, so is most of the asbestos, we just let it be for the most part, as it is really expensive to deal with--I know, I have some in my house.
It's a matter of perspective. Do we solve large problems? Not really. Do we forget about large problems and/or declare victory? A lot. We only have so much attention span.
It's a matter of perspective. Do we solve large problems? Not really. Do we forget about large problems and/or declare victory? A lot. We only have so much attention span.
The ozone hole stabilising and recovering while we don't emit PFCs anymore is solving the issue. Acid rain is so real it has its own big Wiki article [0] and was solved through sulfur emission controls. Leaded petrol use stopped, asbestos is either phased out or has strict protocols for working with it rendering it harmless. Being "really expensive to deal with" is solving the problem, because the expense if the expense of making it safe.
You just moved the goalposts in every example. I'm not sure why would you do that, what's the underlying narrative you have in mind.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
You just moved the goalposts in every example. I'm not sure why would you do that, what's the underlying narrative you have in mind.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
Thanks for the link, I didn't realize acid rain was as widespread a problem as it appears to be....which actually reinforces my point, in that the emissions that give rise to acid rain haven't stopped, they've just been reduced.
I haven't moved any goalposts on anything, it's just different standards. When someone says "I've solved problem X" one would assume that X is no longer a problem. That's the common assumption. All of the problems you mentioned and I commented on are still problems. The ozone hole is still a major problem that kills people and is affecting our planet. We project it will be closed, but it ain't closed. (And there have been flare-ups of CFC emissions). It's also a problem then once solved (when both of us are dead probably), will require constant vigilance against.
Your post came off as very rosy, like all these problems are solved and are in the past. Not the case.
I haven't moved any goalposts on anything, it's just different standards. When someone says "I've solved problem X" one would assume that X is no longer a problem. That's the common assumption. All of the problems you mentioned and I commented on are still problems. The ozone hole is still a major problem that kills people and is affecting our planet. We project it will be closed, but it ain't closed. (And there have been flare-ups of CFC emissions). It's also a problem then once solved (when both of us are dead probably), will require constant vigilance against.
Your post came off as very rosy, like all these problems are solved and are in the past. Not the case.
I wouldn't be that optimistic. A lot of these problems the developed world "solved" by offshoring production to countries with looser environmental regulations.
And it's not like our new technologies don't bring about new problems. E.g. pesticide use and microplastics everywhere.
And it's not like our new technologies don't bring about new problems. E.g. pesticide use and microplastics everywhere.
Interesting. I frame it as a problem of radical materialism’s ignorance of intangible importances: [love, beauty, god, consciousness, ...]
>Until human society stops serving abstractions (like money) over things that are real, then real things will continually face consequence.
But birds aren't real![0]
[0] https://birdsarentreal.com/
But birds aren't real![0]
[0] https://birdsarentreal.com/
I’ve always imagined that we’re in this situation of creeping ecological and environmental collapse because of a long buildup over hundreds of years of bad priorities.
But it isn’t. Most of the damage has taken place during our lives. Over half the carbon humans have emitted is after 1990.
This isn’t an inherited problem. We’re doing this to ourselves. Right now.
But it isn’t. Most of the damage has taken place during our lives. Over half the carbon humans have emitted is after 1990.
This isn’t an inherited problem. We’re doing this to ourselves. Right now.
I suspect, totally off the cuff, that this is more related to destruction of insect habitat, overuse of pesticides, cats, night time lighting, and a whole slough of other anti-insect man-made problems. Global warming plays a part, no doubt, but my guess would be that it’s not the primary problem. Almost all of the yards around me are insect deserts, and these yards are common across the US urban and suburban regions.
For many decades now, we’ve effectively been waging war on a key part of bird diets.
Edit: also, as mentioned elsewhere, we’ve reforested, but have subsequently lost critical meadowland. And our new forests tend to be more monocrop than the woodlands of old.
For many decades now, we’ve effectively been waging war on a key part of bird diets.
Edit: also, as mentioned elsewhere, we’ve reforested, but have subsequently lost critical meadowland. And our new forests tend to be more monocrop than the woodlands of old.
> And our new forests tend to be more monocrop than the woodlands of old.
This is a huge problem.
When "reforesting", all too often the effort is just planting rows of evenly spaced out pine trees. Pine needles are decidedly less edible than soft leaves, and the piles of needles on the ground don't exactly provide a good environment for smaller plants to grow and certainly aren't a good home for insects. People are essentially planting green deserts.
This is a huge problem.
When "reforesting", all too often the effort is just planting rows of evenly spaced out pine trees. Pine needles are decidedly less edible than soft leaves, and the piles of needles on the ground don't exactly provide a good environment for smaller plants to grow and certainly aren't a good home for insects. People are essentially planting green deserts.
So, I prefer a dark house at night. There are even studies that indicate crime is actually lower in the dark(1).
What other studies are there that indicate turning off the lights and reducing light pollution is a good idea?
1: The Chicago Alley Lighting Project (1998-2000)
What other studies are there that indicate turning off the lights and reducing light pollution is a good idea?
1: The Chicago Alley Lighting Project (1998-2000)
If you are interested in light pollution there is a fantastic documentary I would recommend called "Saving the Dark" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fHxNn-FEnc
Light pollution seems to be the easiest type of pollution to fix
Light pollution seems to be the easiest type of pollution to fix
There are simply too many of us and 'growth' will ultimately doom us unless we act fast.
It won't matter if the percentage of clean energy is 50% if we are still emitting greenhouse gasses at 1990 levels. We need carbon zero yesterday to be honest, but the world is only just now waking up to this fact...
The world going Carbon neutral by 2050-2060? The damage we are going to do between now and then will be phenomenal. ( if we ever get there...)
It won't matter if the percentage of clean energy is 50% if we are still emitting greenhouse gasses at 1990 levels. We need carbon zero yesterday to be honest, but the world is only just now waking up to this fact...
The world going Carbon neutral by 2050-2060? The damage we are going to do between now and then will be phenomenal. ( if we ever get there...)
I doubt we will be Carbon Neutral by then. It means that CO2 levels MUST at least become constant. Looking at the current graph I see CO2 levels not only always increasing, but the rate of increase is also accelerating.
I strongly suspect we will blow all targets and will move along the most pessimistic scenario.
I strongly suspect we will blow all targets and will move along the most pessimistic scenario.
We need fusion yesterday
Going carbon zero "right now" will just trade one disaster for another. And some argue an even bigger diaster.
Energy is required for human life to live now. We cant go back with out massive famine and death. Just cutting boff energy production not get to Carbon zero NOW like many are demanding is not feesable, realistic, or moral
Energy is required for human life to live now. We cant go back with out massive famine and death. Just cutting boff energy production not get to Carbon zero NOW like many are demanding is not feesable, realistic, or moral
I'm advocating switching energy sources very rapidly and shrinking the population gradually.
The alternative is literally the death and famine that you are afraid of.
The alternative is literally the death and famine that you are afraid of.
I think that implies that carbon emitting methods are the only way we can produce energy. Sure, constructing hydroelectric plants emits carbon right now but ideally it wouldn't in the future. We shouldn't be spending money and energy constructing new gas pipelines in 2021, for example. That effort would be better spent on emission free energy sources or on electric vehicle manufacturing capabilities.
Rome wasn’t built in a day.
>> Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and
intensification is most likely the driving factor.
Yet the article suggests a number of things for individuals to do, such as installing window screens or keeping cats at home. Why? If "the driving factor" of the decline of bird numbers is habitat loss because of agricultural development, shouldn't concerned individuals be encouraged to take more productive action, such as lobbying their governments or protesting, maybe, to stop the intensification of agriculture?
But, instead of doing something that counts, the article suggests doing things that have the only effect of giving people excuses that they "did what they could", so that they go on living as before, with a calm conscience, leaving someone else to figure out how to solve the real problem.
I see this a lot in environmental issues but I don't want to start yet another flamewar by pointing out obvious examples. It's probably the biggest reason why most people, who are now convinced that we are destroying the environment, are sitting on their hands and feeling good with themselves while the world is burning. Easy solutions that achieve nothing are constantly suggested as "what you can do", when all "you can do" as an individual amounts to a drop in the ocean compared to what our entire civilisation must do, collectively.
Yet the article suggests a number of things for individuals to do, such as installing window screens or keeping cats at home. Why? If "the driving factor" of the decline of bird numbers is habitat loss because of agricultural development, shouldn't concerned individuals be encouraged to take more productive action, such as lobbying their governments or protesting, maybe, to stop the intensification of agriculture?
But, instead of doing something that counts, the article suggests doing things that have the only effect of giving people excuses that they "did what they could", so that they go on living as before, with a calm conscience, leaving someone else to figure out how to solve the real problem.
I see this a lot in environmental issues but I don't want to start yet another flamewar by pointing out obvious examples. It's probably the biggest reason why most people, who are now convinced that we are destroying the environment, are sitting on their hands and feeling good with themselves while the world is burning. Easy solutions that achieve nothing are constantly suggested as "what you can do", when all "you can do" as an individual amounts to a drop in the ocean compared to what our entire civilisation must do, collectively.
cf. British Petroleum inventing the concept of a "carbon footprint", downloading responsibility for emissions onto comparatively powerless individuals. BP itself continues its polluting business model, including oopsies that dwarf any imaginable individual human contribution (eg, dumping 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico [0]).
[0] https://nitter.1d4.us/andrwfhenderson/status/118738610196045...
[0] https://nitter.1d4.us/andrwfhenderson/status/118738610196045...
I've noticed an even more disturbing trend of learned helplessness and misanthropic Malthusianism in these threads over the years. Not a single comment, at time of writing, has had a positive tone, and there are very few actionable suggestions. No consideration is given to the many positives in modern life, nor to realistic, productive tradeoffs. Everyone wants to wail in dismay at the perceived impending doom and do nothing, or they want to actively destroy modern society.
Where is the hacker spirit? Where are the builders? If HN is no longer the place where people do things, then what is?
Where is the hacker spirit? Where are the builders? If HN is no longer the place where people do things, then what is?
There are plenty of folks on HN who are trying to solve climate change, myself included. But if you spend enough time in the industry, it becomes apparent that it is incredibly difficult to move the needle without significant government level intervention.
For example, no matter how hard you try, there will be no profitable carbon capture venture under our current regulatory regime. Every scheme to sell some sort of carbon capture derived chemical product will fail to compete against traditional fossil fuel produced equivalents. It is a matter of physics, not hacker spirit. The government either needs to support the carbon capture market, or regulate against the fossil fuel industry. There is no "free market" approach that works here.
For example, no matter how hard you try, there will be no profitable carbon capture venture under our current regulatory regime. Every scheme to sell some sort of carbon capture derived chemical product will fail to compete against traditional fossil fuel produced equivalents. It is a matter of physics, not hacker spirit. The government either needs to support the carbon capture market, or regulate against the fossil fuel industry. There is no "free market" approach that works here.
Sadly, the most profitable use for the CO2 might be piping it to an aging oil field and using it for a [CO2 flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_flooding) to recover more oil. So even when you're doing good you're still doing bad. :\
The free market approach is to tax carbon emissions. Capture the externality of carbon in the economic and pricing system, and you'll unleash innovation and competition to reduce that cost.
This gets repeated so often I've come to believe it's not the right call. We need to think both bigger and smaller, and put the innovation first. We should also be looking at mitigations and adaptations, not just prevention. Is anyone researching ultra-rapid construction techniques to repair infrastructure damaged by flooding? Rapid assembly temporary bridges to evacuate people over swollen rivers? New techniques to raise entire cities like Portland was ages ago? Personal inflatable rafts with built-in emergency kits for navigation in flooded cities? Better and faster sea walls? Directing rising sea levels into below-sea-level basins through canals (Salton Sea beachfront property!)?
> Where is the hacker spirit? Where are the builders?
The builders? Of technology, you mean? Why, you can see their hand in all the technological advances that have caused the loss of habitat that the article flags up as the most likely driving factor for the decline of bird populations. The article mentions "intensification" of agriculture. That's the abuse of technology to increase production yields. That's the culprit, right there.
Your builders and your hackers are the ones chiefly responsible for the mess we're in, because of course that famous hacker mentality makes no space for any considerations of long-term safety and sustainability of economies or the environment. It's just a blind, magical belief in technology as something that can never go wrong, that can never destroy and harm, anyone.
The damage to the environment that was caused by abuse of technology in the first place is not going to be addressed by creating even more technology.
You want a solution? Less technology, fewer machines, less burning of fossil fuels, less use of pesticides, less deforestation, less soil depletion by ever intensifying agriculture. That is the solution. And it is blindingly obvious.
The builders? Of technology, you mean? Why, you can see their hand in all the technological advances that have caused the loss of habitat that the article flags up as the most likely driving factor for the decline of bird populations. The article mentions "intensification" of agriculture. That's the abuse of technology to increase production yields. That's the culprit, right there.
Your builders and your hackers are the ones chiefly responsible for the mess we're in, because of course that famous hacker mentality makes no space for any considerations of long-term safety and sustainability of economies or the environment. It's just a blind, magical belief in technology as something that can never go wrong, that can never destroy and harm, anyone.
The damage to the environment that was caused by abuse of technology in the first place is not going to be addressed by creating even more technology.
You want a solution? Less technology, fewer machines, less burning of fossil fuels, less use of pesticides, less deforestation, less soil depletion by ever intensifying agriculture. That is the solution. And it is blindingly obvious.
What birds really need is an ad-supported video social network and dating site with feed delivery.
Exactly, fatalism achieves nothing. Worse, it actually makes people feel powerless and powerless people tend to just ignore their issues rather than solving them.
There's every reason to be optimistic and interested in this topic for investors and hackers. There are smart people all over the world doing some real problem solving and a lot of the solutions are a combination of highly profitable and disruptive.
Bird populations declining is a complex problem that has a few root causes of which intensive farming is the obvious number 1 to address. Intensive farming needs to be disrupted in a profitable way so we can replace it with something less likely to destroy what remains of our planet (much of it has already been transformed into desert) and actually turn around that process. Plenty of interesting companies in this space. Also plenty of money being invested. Here. More of that and less of the dooms day thinking.
In the US one form of intensive, large scale farming that is worth addressing is corn production. Corn syrup is not a thing that you need in a balanced diet. It's bad for you. There's no reason to keep on subsidizing corn production the way the US currently does that results in industries emerging to find uses for all the subsidized corn. Corn syrup, bio fuels, animal food, etc. are all things that are made with corn that are probably doing more harm than good. Simply putting a stop to that would improve people's health and free up a lot of land for more productive and less destructive purposes. Whether it is forestry, organic farming, or even having sheep/cows graze on the land, it's all better than over fertilizing and eroding the soil in order to produce corn.
There's every reason to be optimistic and interested in this topic for investors and hackers. There are smart people all over the world doing some real problem solving and a lot of the solutions are a combination of highly profitable and disruptive.
Bird populations declining is a complex problem that has a few root causes of which intensive farming is the obvious number 1 to address. Intensive farming needs to be disrupted in a profitable way so we can replace it with something less likely to destroy what remains of our planet (much of it has already been transformed into desert) and actually turn around that process. Plenty of interesting companies in this space. Also plenty of money being invested. Here. More of that and less of the dooms day thinking.
In the US one form of intensive, large scale farming that is worth addressing is corn production. Corn syrup is not a thing that you need in a balanced diet. It's bad for you. There's no reason to keep on subsidizing corn production the way the US currently does that results in industries emerging to find uses for all the subsidized corn. Corn syrup, bio fuels, animal food, etc. are all things that are made with corn that are probably doing more harm than good. Simply putting a stop to that would improve people's health and free up a lot of land for more productive and less destructive purposes. Whether it is forestry, organic farming, or even having sheep/cows graze on the land, it's all better than over fertilizing and eroding the soil in order to produce corn.
> trend of learned helplessness
I call your 'learned helplessness' and raise you 'rational acceptance'.
> No consideration is given to the many positives in modern life
One can see the many positives in life while also pointing out the hopeless state of affairs we've created.
> Everyone wants to wail in dismay at the perceived impending doom and do nothing, or they want to actively destroy modern society.
Everyone deals with grief differently. There's no shame in being a nothing-doer, a wailer, or a destructive rebuilder. There is room for all options. I think that if you look, you will find plenty of people who are attempting to build and do, if that's what you prefer to see. You might even be able to contribute, if that is your wish.
Here is a writeup[1] about one project you might be interested in, and that site will have other projects reviewed as well, I'm sure.
[1]: https://www.thecarbonic.com/post/harvard-researcher-leads-gr...
I call your 'learned helplessness' and raise you 'rational acceptance'.
> No consideration is given to the many positives in modern life
One can see the many positives in life while also pointing out the hopeless state of affairs we've created.
> Everyone wants to wail in dismay at the perceived impending doom and do nothing, or they want to actively destroy modern society.
Everyone deals with grief differently. There's no shame in being a nothing-doer, a wailer, or a destructive rebuilder. There is room for all options. I think that if you look, you will find plenty of people who are attempting to build and do, if that's what you prefer to see. You might even be able to contribute, if that is your wish.
Here is a writeup[1] about one project you might be interested in, and that site will have other projects reviewed as well, I'm sure.
[1]: https://www.thecarbonic.com/post/harvard-researcher-leads-gr...
I agree, and chimed in with a few comments to a similar effect.
What's especially frustrating is how shortsighted the Malthusian "degrowth" response is. It honestly feels like people don't realise that "the West" is just one billion people out of eight and its carbon impact is shrinking both in relative and absolute numbers. Therefore any measure that might work have to be acceptable to the developing world. In fact, I'd say we need to introduce the MAP test: can you convince Modi, Assad, and Putin to implement your proposed measure? If you can't, bin it, we don't have time for it.
The only general approach I can see working under that test is tech. We "just" need to make low carbon options more economically attractive, and then it'll happen automatically. No amount of Western self-sacrifice in the name of degrowth, no amount of high minded rhetoric about "overconsumption" will do that. US becoming an eco fascist state and going to net zero overnight will barely move the needle.
But it's so easy to forget about that in the tiny bubble of Western eco activists.
What's especially frustrating is how shortsighted the Malthusian "degrowth" response is. It honestly feels like people don't realise that "the West" is just one billion people out of eight and its carbon impact is shrinking both in relative and absolute numbers. Therefore any measure that might work have to be acceptable to the developing world. In fact, I'd say we need to introduce the MAP test: can you convince Modi, Assad, and Putin to implement your proposed measure? If you can't, bin it, we don't have time for it.
The only general approach I can see working under that test is tech. We "just" need to make low carbon options more economically attractive, and then it'll happen automatically. No amount of Western self-sacrifice in the name of degrowth, no amount of high minded rhetoric about "overconsumption" will do that. US becoming an eco fascist state and going to net zero overnight will barely move the needle.
But it's so easy to forget about that in the tiny bubble of Western eco activists.
The emissions of the top 10% richest people globally where 17.60 tCO2 while the bottom poorest 50% globally emitted 1.57 tCO2 (2015).
Or in absolute numbers, the top 10% emitted 3x the amount of the whole bottom 50%.
And that is without taking historic emmisions into consideration.
What we don't have time for is doing nothing (ie continuing the destruction of our habitat). The 1.5° C goal is already getting out of reach.
Or in absolute numbers, the top 10% emitted 3x the amount of the whole bottom 50%.
And that is without taking historic emmisions into consideration.
What we don't have time for is doing nothing (ie continuing the destruction of our habitat). The 1.5° C goal is already getting out of reach.
>there are very few actionable suggestions.
The actionable suggestions of a carbon tax and land-value tax have been proposed to deal with our largest environmental problems since decades ago and the progress has been agonizingly small. It's not surprising people are frustrated [1].
You can't preserve the atmosphere, oceans [2] and wilderness -- which by their nature are not owned -- within the legal-economic framework of ownership and exchange. Even if something happens to be both profitable and climate-friendly (like electric cars), the benefit to emissions is accidental, and this kind of coincidence does not provide a path to a general solution to the problem, because we cannot simply hope that happy accidents will occur whenever we want them to. It's a textbook tragedy of the commons, but there's no practical way to "de-commonize" and sell shares of ownership in the atmosphere, and anyway exercising control over those shares would just turn into a second government, because practically nobody does anything that doesn't involve the atmosphere.
There are all sorts of interesting innovations that might replace contemporary technologies in a more sustainable future, but since the market price of those technologies does not reflect the environmental benefits they offer, there is no guarantee they will be successful in the present economic system.
I think one misleading historical phenomenon was that around the '70s a bunch of left-wing activists started to raise alarms about running out of various resources: hazards which would fail to materialize. But capitalism is pretty good at managing resources when the availability of those resources follows a smooth price-supply curve, which is true of almost all natural resources which are not byproducts of other resources. However, the same was not true with ozone, it wasn't true with sulfur dioxide, and it won't be true with carbon dioxide either. Even Hayek admitted air pollution was a problem.
[1] These are the wonkish eco-capitalist approaches, which earn the ire of populists because they can sometimes put pressure on people who are sympathetic, or seem to be unfair when contrasting a few anecdotal experiences. But if you are going to talk about "hacker spirit" and "realistic, productive tradeoffs", these are precisely the kind of ideas you asked for, and you are precisely the kind of person who should be advocating for them. Obviously the crunchy crowd wants green jobs or whatever.
[2] The absence of a corresponding tax (cf. carbon, land-value) suggests a new Pigouvian tax: some kind of liquid efflux tax. But this is extraordinarily hard to quantify.
The actionable suggestions of a carbon tax and land-value tax have been proposed to deal with our largest environmental problems since decades ago and the progress has been agonizingly small. It's not surprising people are frustrated [1].
You can't preserve the atmosphere, oceans [2] and wilderness -- which by their nature are not owned -- within the legal-economic framework of ownership and exchange. Even if something happens to be both profitable and climate-friendly (like electric cars), the benefit to emissions is accidental, and this kind of coincidence does not provide a path to a general solution to the problem, because we cannot simply hope that happy accidents will occur whenever we want them to. It's a textbook tragedy of the commons, but there's no practical way to "de-commonize" and sell shares of ownership in the atmosphere, and anyway exercising control over those shares would just turn into a second government, because practically nobody does anything that doesn't involve the atmosphere.
There are all sorts of interesting innovations that might replace contemporary technologies in a more sustainable future, but since the market price of those technologies does not reflect the environmental benefits they offer, there is no guarantee they will be successful in the present economic system.
I think one misleading historical phenomenon was that around the '70s a bunch of left-wing activists started to raise alarms about running out of various resources: hazards which would fail to materialize. But capitalism is pretty good at managing resources when the availability of those resources follows a smooth price-supply curve, which is true of almost all natural resources which are not byproducts of other resources. However, the same was not true with ozone, it wasn't true with sulfur dioxide, and it won't be true with carbon dioxide either. Even Hayek admitted air pollution was a problem.
[1] These are the wonkish eco-capitalist approaches, which earn the ire of populists because they can sometimes put pressure on people who are sympathetic, or seem to be unfair when contrasting a few anecdotal experiences. But if you are going to talk about "hacker spirit" and "realistic, productive tradeoffs", these are precisely the kind of ideas you asked for, and you are precisely the kind of person who should be advocating for them. Obviously the crunchy crowd wants green jobs or whatever.
[2] The absence of a corresponding tax (cf. carbon, land-value) suggests a new Pigouvian tax: some kind of liquid efflux tax. But this is extraordinarily hard to quantify.
Because this isn’t about Malthus or about hacking. It’s about the fact people trumpeting the many positives tend to ignore the people capitalism explicitly does not take care of who see none of it and are ground down to an early death. I’ve been making twenty hot meals a week for our local warming center because I have plenty of free time because I am wildly overcompensated for being able to code and every time I walk in people hold doors and thank me for the small act of bringing them meals we should all have access to regardless of how capitalism values us.
> The U.S North American Bird Conservation Initiative estimates that our pet felines kill some 2.6 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.
The 100M pet cats in US on average kill 26 birds/yr? Doesn't seem right. When I track the source[1] of research, the estimates include both "own" and "unowned" cats and rely on some assumptions like "a correction factor to account for owned cats not returning all prey to owners", amongst others.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380.pdf
The 100M pet cats in US on average kill 26 birds/yr? Doesn't seem right. When I track the source[1] of research, the estimates include both "own" and "unowned" cats and rely on some assumptions like "a correction factor to account for owned cats not returning all prey to owners", amongst others.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380.pdf
26 a year for an outdoor cat honestly seems low to me… that’s 1 every other week. I had one cat that I started keeping inside because it was approaching one per day.
Without us they’d be doing this for sustenance, so in theory multiple kills a day.
Without us they’d be doing this for sustenance, so in theory multiple kills a day.
Worse than for sustenance: I've read that about 2/3 of animals cats kill aren't eaten. They're doing it for sport...
Yes, but cats and birds have existed together for, I don't know, millions of years? Without cats causing a mass extinction of birds. And why is that?
the increase of cats as pets seems like a possible factor, one rough estimate says the US has 3X more housecats than it did in 1970... so it certainly seems possible that we've thrown off a more natural equilibrium
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Growth-of-the-house-cat-...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Growth-of-the-house-cat-...
Agree, we have an indoor/outdoor cat, he's fixed and usually has a bell collar on, and he still kills more than 26 birds and mice a year.
It’s an estimate based on fairly thorough research, which includes attaching collar cameras to outdoor cats. The carnage they wreak is impressive.
Cats belong indoors, period.
Cats belong indoors, period.
It seems like this is just narrative based judgment. Everyone is all about how reintroduced wolves are so great for XYZ because predators do so many good things for environments and prey dynamics but cats in the environment are bad for ABC and they kill all the birds, etc.
Most of the places which aren’t islands had predators in roughly the housecat niche before human civilization and many of those are lost.
I think it’s just the opposition by agriculture for wolves and the fact that people aren’t as affectionate for their prey which makes the “wolves good” narrative and people like birds and feel good about blaming humans so there’s “cats bad” narrative.
It probably doesn’t matter, your suburban cats are killing birds in a habitat that humans already destroyed by putting a suburb there.
If you want to make a difference to offset some cat activity plant native pollinator friendly plants and trees and shrubs that bear fruit for birds. You’ll make much more difference building habitat than complaining into the void.
Most of the places which aren’t islands had predators in roughly the housecat niche before human civilization and many of those are lost.
I think it’s just the opposition by agriculture for wolves and the fact that people aren’t as affectionate for their prey which makes the “wolves good” narrative and people like birds and feel good about blaming humans so there’s “cats bad” narrative.
It probably doesn’t matter, your suburban cats are killing birds in a habitat that humans already destroyed by putting a suburb there.
If you want to make a difference to offset some cat activity plant native pollinator friendly plants and trees and shrubs that bear fruit for birds. You’ll make much more difference building habitat than complaining into the void.
There's a lot going on here to try and avoid the statement that introducing predators to a given area's biome changes the balance of things.
This is especially true when you prop up that predator's existence by feeding it (and not letting its population remain harmonious with available food supply/prey).
This is especially true when you prop up that predator's existence by feeding it (and not letting its population remain harmonious with available food supply/prey).
> This is especially true when you prop up that predator's existence by feeding it (and not letting its population remain harmonious with available food supply/prey).
Yeeeeeeah but that’s true of all human cultivation of animals, including bees, cows, and tilapia. I mean I’m also not sure what you’re getting at with the feeding of cats thing. I don’t know anybody that’s like hardcore pro-feral cat. Most people just have an indoor cat which kills 0-1 birds/year and feed it cat food.
But anyway to my interpretation of the Op’s point. Who cares how many birds die when (if you’re like me - Canadian Geese) they’re getting run over by cars and starving to death and can’t replenish their numbers because their nesting grounds were turned into a parking lot? This problem, like sooooo many others stem from our terrible relationship with nature and inability to admit we already know how to build towns and cities in harmony with nature and we don’t need to invent crap like highways or suburbs.
Yeeeeeeah but that’s true of all human cultivation of animals, including bees, cows, and tilapia. I mean I’m also not sure what you’re getting at with the feeding of cats thing. I don’t know anybody that’s like hardcore pro-feral cat. Most people just have an indoor cat which kills 0-1 birds/year and feed it cat food.
But anyway to my interpretation of the Op’s point. Who cares how many birds die when (if you’re like me - Canadian Geese) they’re getting run over by cars and starving to death and can’t replenish their numbers because their nesting grounds were turned into a parking lot? This problem, like sooooo many others stem from our terrible relationship with nature and inability to admit we already know how to build towns and cities in harmony with nature and we don’t need to invent crap like highways or suburbs.
>you prop up that predator's existence by feeding it
... and constrain its population by neutering it, and reduce its hunting behavior by keeping it inside most of the time.
Cats are native to North America. Animals in North America have evolved to avoid cats. This is not some island in the Pacific Ocean which forms the only habitat for a rare flightless bird with no natural fear of felines.
I live in a dense suburb of Providence which is surrounded by roads and buildings for miles in every direction. There are cats running all over the neighborhood, which is very cute and fun to watch. I do not own a cat and never have.
You know what else this place is full of? Squirrels, rabbits, and several colors of loud-ass birds. Apparently the cats aren't quite the slaughter machines they're made out to be.
Now, I would absolutely agree that if you live in a "wild" rural area, especially in or near a wetland/high altitude/island ecosystem, you need to keep the cats inside. But in a city, full of animals that have co-evolved with humans and their pets for centuries and in some cases millenia? Give me a break.
... and constrain its population by neutering it, and reduce its hunting behavior by keeping it inside most of the time.
Cats are native to North America. Animals in North America have evolved to avoid cats. This is not some island in the Pacific Ocean which forms the only habitat for a rare flightless bird with no natural fear of felines.
I live in a dense suburb of Providence which is surrounded by roads and buildings for miles in every direction. There are cats running all over the neighborhood, which is very cute and fun to watch. I do not own a cat and never have.
You know what else this place is full of? Squirrels, rabbits, and several colors of loud-ass birds. Apparently the cats aren't quite the slaughter machines they're made out to be.
Now, I would absolutely agree that if you live in a "wild" rural area, especially in or near a wetland/high altitude/island ecosystem, you need to keep the cats inside. But in a city, full of animals that have co-evolved with humans and their pets for centuries and in some cases millenia? Give me a break.
He most likely is a cat owner. They get very defensive when this issue comes up. Probably too much toxoplasmosis.
This seems quite plausible, it's consistent with e.g. 90% of cats killing nothing and 10% of cats killing less than a bird/egg per day - and an outdoors cat can do much more than that.
> When I track the source[1] of research
Ah, the famous anti-cat "study" (giving its huge glaring deficiencies it is more like propaganda pamphlet) by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center where a postdoc got convicted several years ago for animal cruelty committed toward cats! That is really objective people without agenda... Would you take seriously for example a study by child molesters on societal benefits of child molestation?
Ah, the famous anti-cat "study" (giving its huge glaring deficiencies it is more like propaganda pamphlet) by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center where a postdoc got convicted several years ago for animal cruelty committed toward cats! That is really objective people without agenda... Would you take seriously for example a study by child molesters on societal benefits of child molestation?
That sounds plausible. Cats can be very effective predators.
Maybe this is related to declines in insect populations? I mean, if birds eat insects and there aren't as many insects, you'd expect there to be less birds as well.
Have read that the decline in insects in rippling across the ecosystem. Here's an article in this issue in birds:
https://abcbirds.org/blog/insect-freefall/
This was my immediate thought as well. Last year and the year before the reports were about insect populations at historic lows. Now, we hear about the next level in the food chain.
> "declined by 29 percent—or a total net loss of around three billion birds—since 1970."
> "estimates that our pet felines kill some 2.6 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone"
So is the net loss of 3B birds since 1970 a lot or not a lot? If 2.6B birds each year are killed just by house cats, then wouldn't the decline of 3B over 50 years be not that big of a difference? It sounds like banning outdoor cats would single handedly solve the decline and result in a bird population boom.
> "estimates that our pet felines kill some 2.6 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone"
So is the net loss of 3B birds since 1970 a lot or not a lot? If 2.6B birds each year are killed just by house cats, then wouldn't the decline of 3B over 50 years be not that big of a difference? It sounds like banning outdoor cats would single handedly solve the decline and result in a bird population boom.
it means cats and other factors are outpacing replacement, for a total of 3 billion lost… that’s a lot. Total population was somewhere in the area of 10 billion in north america, now around 7 billion
So I guess my next question is: what is the replacement rate? Because 2.6B dead a year from a single source when there is only about 10B alive at any one time, AND that 26% annual death not being the highest cause of bird mortality (e.g. >>26% of all birds die a year), then that means there are a lot of bird babies and a lot of bird corpses out there. The stats are a bit mind boggling for me.
Most birds get into reproductive age between 1 and 3 years, and for most species a couple usually has 1 or 2 viable offspring per year.
Some birds grow slower than that, but cats are usually not a problem for them.
Some birds grow slower than that, but cats are usually not a problem for them.
the single most terrifying experience of my life has been to read biology conservation articles these last two years, coupled with my increasing understanding of climate change (literature). we often forget that ecosystems (that we barely understand) provide us with crucial benefits and should be considered as (like many planetary scientists say) Life Support Systems.
if there remain historians a century from now, i'd be not surprised they collectively call decisions taken now as "The Mistake".
if there remain historians a century from now, i'd be not surprised they collectively call decisions taken now as "The Mistake".
Fear sells. It also convinces people to get into science and biases their work and conclusions (not all of it, but definitely some of it that gets headlines).
We aren’t preserving the animals for themselves, in a geological time scale the animals will be fine, extinction and population contraction are just part of the dynamics. We are preserving animals because we like them and it seems a high quality thing to do.
The doom narrative gets attention but doesn’t fairly reflect a reasonable prediction for the future and attracts much opposition to the more reasonable and practical things we should do.
Turning things into fear and moralizing lightning rods polarizes but doesn’t necessarily actually move the mean.
We aren’t preserving the animals for themselves, in a geological time scale the animals will be fine, extinction and population contraction are just part of the dynamics. We are preserving animals because we like them and it seems a high quality thing to do.
The doom narrative gets attention but doesn’t fairly reflect a reasonable prediction for the future and attracts much opposition to the more reasonable and practical things we should do.
Turning things into fear and moralizing lightning rods polarizes but doesn’t necessarily actually move the mean.
In a geological time scale, human extinction due to ecological fallouts is also a blip.
I agree that the ecological crisis is not existential on a geological scale, but that's an irrelevant scale for questions of human civilization, where we are indeed facing some very bad problems.
I agree that the ecological crisis is not existential on a geological scale, but that's an irrelevant scale for questions of human civilization, where we are indeed facing some very bad problems.
the doom narrative indeed sells, i has even been coined "doomism" by scientists like Michael Mann et al.
i am however talking here of a personal literature review of several thousand papers over several years. not headlines.
as a physicist i do not like neither the dynamics, nor the cinematic (in the physical sense of it) of all this.
so yes, but that's not my point.
i am however talking here of a personal literature review of several thousand papers over several years. not headlines.
as a physicist i do not like neither the dynamics, nor the cinematic (in the physical sense of it) of all this.
so yes, but that's not my point.
I suspect you might be experiencing the classic freshman medical student syndrome. The papers (or medical studies) need to be contextualised, and that contextualisation takes lots more of knowledge than just reading some papers casually.
Instead, I suggest reading IPCC reports. While quite stark and damning, they provide context for the predictions and balance speculation out, so you don't get "we're all going to die in a decade", "our kids are going to starve to death" kind of nonsense that gets into public attention (thus incentivising lousy papers coming to similar conclusions).
Instead, I suggest reading IPCC reports. While quite stark and damning, they provide context for the predictions and balance speculation out, so you don't get "we're all going to die in a decade", "our kids are going to starve to death" kind of nonsense that gets into public attention (thus incentivising lousy papers coming to similar conclusions).
I suspect you might be suffering from "the hubris". We're quite well into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction -- and it's only accelerating.
I really fail to see how suggesting to read IPCC reports instead of random out-of-context papers is "hubris".
> I suspect you might be experiencing the classic freshman medical student syndrome.
That is hubris.
I have skimmed the action reports for policy makers from the IPCC.
A humanist approach to the nihilism and fatalism around climate change might be that the urgency presented is what is required to make progress in a time frame where we don't meet horrific consequences. In other words, bias and exaggerate so that we take the action necessary, and not get complacent or have a "balanced" point of view - which may be sufficiently as bad as ignoring the problem altogether.
That is hubris.
I have skimmed the action reports for policy makers from the IPCC.
A humanist approach to the nihilism and fatalism around climate change might be that the urgency presented is what is required to make progress in a time frame where we don't meet horrific consequences. In other words, bias and exaggerate so that we take the action necessary, and not get complacent or have a "balanced" point of view - which may be sufficiently as bad as ignoring the problem altogether.
You call it "humanist", I call it "lying to the public to convince them that the end is nigh and to force the behaviour you want". This is not just morally repugnant, but also can backfire spectacularly as truth tends to come out in the end. In fact, arguably that's what makes people tune out already, you can listen to "Arctic will be completely ice free next year" and believe it only so many times.
i have a PhD in theoretical physics (done in the same building where one of the core IPCC group is located) and been doing three postdocs in computational engineering and computer science. i am working my weekends to change career in order to tackle these issues. i did read (and summarised for my colleagues) the IPCC report (AR6 WG1) during my holidays.
i am however grateful of your comments on how to improve my approach of the literature!
i am however grateful of your comments on how to improve my approach of the literature!
The terrifying aspect for me is that some of the more vocal climate activists seem willing to accept catastrophic, effectively permanent, biodiversity loss as long as short term human suffering is mitigated.
I support non-zero-sum efforts in these areas, with perhaps a greater emphasis on protecting biodiversity.
I support non-zero-sum efforts in these areas, with perhaps a greater emphasis on protecting biodiversity.
This quote is eerily similar to net result of one of the Four Pests Campaigns during the Great Leap Forward, where sparrows were targeted for extinction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
“Researchers also found that common birds from just 12 families, such as blackbirds, sparrows and finches, account for over 90 percent—or over 2.5 billion birds—of total population decline. Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor.”
The result was a calamitous famine, and it seems big Ag is on a similar path, but in a wildly different context.
“Researchers also found that common birds from just 12 families, such as blackbirds, sparrows and finches, account for over 90 percent—or over 2.5 billion birds—of total population decline. Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor.”
The result was a calamitous famine, and it seems big Ag is on a similar path, but in a wildly different context.
> it seems big Ag is on a similar path, but in a wildly different context.
Big Ag is indeed on a worse path, as they are literally depleting soils and biodiversity, engineering a monoculture propped up by fertilizers synthesized from fossil fuels. It's a completely unsustainable system that is sucking the Earth dry and carpeting it over with astro turf.
Big Ag is indeed on a worse path, as they are literally depleting soils and biodiversity, engineering a monoculture propped up by fertilizers synthesized from fossil fuels. It's a completely unsustainable system that is sucking the Earth dry and carpeting it over with astro turf.
The eagerness shown by some commenters to emphasize the damage done by cats, and preferably have it codified immediately in law that they are to stay inside, is typical.
It's not that cats don't do that damage, it's the hypocrisy.
Cats don't wreck the planet, we do. We destroy natural habitats at planetary scale, and not just to have a place to live. We cut forests for cheap palm oil. We spill our garbage everywhere. We always go for the short term thoughtless approach.
And in those places that we do live, we ensure it's as hostile to life as possible. Lifeless lawns with useless exotic plants, useless lights that for some reason have to be on all night.
We've know this for decades and rather than to try and find a more balanced way, we doubled down. More cars and bigger cars. Bigger houses. A house stuffed with electronics. Eating more meat. AC. Cheap air travel. Throw away consumer goods. Excessive packaging.
The cat thing is performative, like most of our "morals". An easy win to show that we care, but we don't. Not at all.
It's not that cats don't do that damage, it's the hypocrisy.
Cats don't wreck the planet, we do. We destroy natural habitats at planetary scale, and not just to have a place to live. We cut forests for cheap palm oil. We spill our garbage everywhere. We always go for the short term thoughtless approach.
And in those places that we do live, we ensure it's as hostile to life as possible. Lifeless lawns with useless exotic plants, useless lights that for some reason have to be on all night.
We've know this for decades and rather than to try and find a more balanced way, we doubled down. More cars and bigger cars. Bigger houses. A house stuffed with electronics. Eating more meat. AC. Cheap air travel. Throw away consumer goods. Excessive packaging.
The cat thing is performative, like most of our "morals". An easy win to show that we care, but we don't. Not at all.
I learned from Stewart Brand recently that we are not in a 6th mass extinction event
Rethinking extinction
https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinc...
I was happy to hear this, because I took it as gospel that we were in one. I was told to worry about the population explosion and the coming ice age back in the 70's. So I take things with a grain of salt. (however, I am not a climate change denier)
So I doubt that birds a really dying off across N America. How is this determined? I've road tripped extensively around N America in all 50 states and all Canadian provinces and the most amazing thing is how empty most of the continent is. House cats are not roaming the wilderness killing birds.
If you told me birds are disappearing from urban areas I could find it more beleivable.
Rethinking extinction
https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinc...
I was happy to hear this, because I took it as gospel that we were in one. I was told to worry about the population explosion and the coming ice age back in the 70's. So I take things with a grain of salt. (however, I am not a climate change denier)
So I doubt that birds a really dying off across N America. How is this determined? I've road tripped extensively around N America in all 50 states and all Canadian provinces and the most amazing thing is how empty most of the continent is. House cats are not roaming the wilderness killing birds.
If you told me birds are disappearing from urban areas I could find it more beleivable.
I've started going to Corpus Christi more recently for the spring migration and have been amazed by it. While birding elsewhere I met older folks who used to visit Corpus or Houston every year for the migrations but have stopped going, since to them it's depressing to see the scale of the decline of the migration and witness that loss.
>pet felines kill some 2.6 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.
How many of those birds are old/ill? I find it strange to say the least that all those studies lack such an important information. May be because providing such information would mean completely different conclusion - there are billions of birds getting old/ill yearly that predators normally would take of. There are only cats left around humans, so they perform that highly necessary job.
There are another human companions - rats - who raid bird nests for eggs. Outdoor cats help control the rat population.
There is a reason that for example a farm with a bunch of outdoor cats would have a bustling bird population. The same about several areas with large feral cat colonies that i know of - the birds are thriving there, in particular because various egg raiders don't get to walk there freely.
How many of those birds are old/ill? I find it strange to say the least that all those studies lack such an important information. May be because providing such information would mean completely different conclusion - there are billions of birds getting old/ill yearly that predators normally would take of. There are only cats left around humans, so they perform that highly necessary job.
There are another human companions - rats - who raid bird nests for eggs. Outdoor cats help control the rat population.
There is a reason that for example a farm with a bunch of outdoor cats would have a bustling bird population. The same about several areas with large feral cat colonies that i know of - the birds are thriving there, in particular because various egg raiders don't get to walk there freely.
>Readers can also help protect birds by taking a few simple actions. An easy one is to install window screens or eliminate window reflections with film or paint.
The blame is on reflective windows?
>(A 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Smithsonian study found that between 365 million and one billion birds die each year across the U.S. as a result of window strikes.)
That seems unreal. So I want to read said study.
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/lossetal20...
Oh wait... its cars hitting birds? Why did they seem to exclude this important detail? And the study clearly puts it that around 339 million is max? So the billion birds number is made up?
This article also seems to dance around the actual problem?
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph240/scherr1/
The massive increase in windmills is the source of death. Every single typical windmill will kill dozens of bird and bats every year.
The gymnastics that OP is doing is to cover up the mass death by windmills.
The blame is on reflective windows?
>(A 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Smithsonian study found that between 365 million and one billion birds die each year across the U.S. as a result of window strikes.)
That seems unreal. So I want to read said study.
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/lossetal20...
Oh wait... its cars hitting birds? Why did they seem to exclude this important detail? And the study clearly puts it that around 339 million is max? So the billion birds number is made up?
This article also seems to dance around the actual problem?
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph240/scherr1/
The massive increase in windmills is the source of death. Every single typical windmill will kill dozens of bird and bats every year.
The gymnastics that OP is doing is to cover up the mass death by windmills.
As of January 2021, the Wind Turbine Database listed 67,000 wind turbines in the US. If we take "dozens" as meaning ~60, that's about 4 million birds+bats/year, which is small compared to the other numbers being tossed around here.
There's the concept of cultural landscape. It's not wild nature, but it's not industrialized farming either.
There is agriculture, but wild animals can live alongside and even within it. For example there are hedges alongside fields where birds can make nests. There is no toxin accumulation in predators because pesticides or herbicides are not used.
Farm animals can graze outside. There is a whole ecosystem around that with birds eating flies etc. There is no massive eutrophication because synthetic fertilizers are not used. It's kind of a steady state. Everything is designed so it can be run for centuries.
It's of course way more expensive and laborious to farm like this than industrial farming. But maybe technology like robotics could advance sufficiently that we could go back towards more like this. Of course not exactly the same, but taking some ideas.
Weeds could be zapped with lasers. Smaller tractors can be autonomous. Synthetic fertilizers could be used but injected underground so they don't run off or evaporate / create N2O. Etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_landscape
There is agriculture, but wild animals can live alongside and even within it. For example there are hedges alongside fields where birds can make nests. There is no toxin accumulation in predators because pesticides or herbicides are not used.
Farm animals can graze outside. There is a whole ecosystem around that with birds eating flies etc. There is no massive eutrophication because synthetic fertilizers are not used. It's kind of a steady state. Everything is designed so it can be run for centuries.
It's of course way more expensive and laborious to farm like this than industrial farming. But maybe technology like robotics could advance sufficiently that we could go back towards more like this. Of course not exactly the same, but taking some ideas.
Weeds could be zapped with lasers. Smaller tractors can be autonomous. Synthetic fertilizers could be used but injected underground so they don't run off or evaporate / create N2O. Etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_landscape
I feed a massive colony of Icterids (blackbirds, grackles and cowbirds) that live in my backyard. They are so fun to watch. I fully believe they are close to apes in terms of intelligence.
Hopefully something can be done to save the declining bird population. America was able to almost totally reverse the impending extinction of Bald Eagles and Falcons through banning DDT, I can only pray similar action is taken in the future.
Hopefully something can be done to save the declining bird population. America was able to almost totally reverse the impending extinction of Bald Eagles and Falcons through banning DDT, I can only pray similar action is taken in the future.
[deleted]
A literal canary in a coalmine situation, writ large.
What is doubly distressing is that we collectively could be addressing issues such as these if we wanted to.
What is doubly distressing is that we collectively could be addressing issues such as these if we wanted to.
"if we wanted to."
It's unfortunate, but people are too obsessed with their short term comfort and prosperity to consider making sacrifices for saving the environment, nature and future generations.
It's unfortunate, but people are too obsessed with their short term comfort and prosperity to consider making sacrifices for saving the environment, nature and future generations.
do we have to be? are we unable to overcome this trait?
I become more and more pessimistic by the day that we can overcome these aspects of human nature. Sure, we can probably get some subset of the population to overcome these traits, but we need the vast majority of people to sacrifice their current comfort for the good of the planet and future generations. I just don't see that happening, unfortunately. Our response to covid, especially in the west has been abysmal and that was a relatively easy testcase which we've failed (Asian countries have generally done much better, though).
I think that in order for us to save nature we need to get away from our western utilitarian view of nature - the idea that nature is here for us to exploit and exists only to the extent that it furthers our goals. But these are deep-seated beliefs that are very difficult to change on a mass scale in a relatively short period of time - it would take generations and we don't have that kind of time.
I think that in order for us to save nature we need to get away from our western utilitarian view of nature - the idea that nature is here for us to exploit and exists only to the extent that it furthers our goals. But these are deep-seated beliefs that are very difficult to change on a mass scale in a relatively short period of time - it would take generations and we don't have that kind of time.
its kind of mind boggling to start thinking about all the stuff we do that's detrimental to birds habitat (and basically every other animal). Even down to the tiny factors like yard maintenance: do you blow/rake/bag every little thing in your yard and send it to a land fill? you just stole food/housing-material from birds, squirrels, etc...
Every time I see someone filling plastic bags with clippings, and later fertilizing their yard, I just… yeah. I honestly don’t get that behavior.
How can we better communicate the urgency with people who do not find it an issue?
Outspend dozens of large deep-pocketed industries in lobbying and misinformation.
I'm not sure we can match those many $Billions year after year. How about some kind of campaign finance reform? (a longshot, I know in the current political climate, but something that needs to be considered)
Ask HN: anyone know how to buy bird seed not full of weed seeds: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200320132239.h... ?
> blackbirds, sparrows and finches, account for over 90 percent
Among other factors which contribute to this, one thing not mentioned is that bird feeders and bird houses used to be a very common sight in American backyards, but do not seem to be anymore. I've only seen one house that has them now.
Among other factors which contribute to this, one thing not mentioned is that bird feeders and bird houses used to be a very common sight in American backyards, but do not seem to be anymore. I've only seen one house that has them now.
Bird feeders killed them. Also, neurological issues in birds may be due to pesticide poisoning, including indirect consumption through insects. US agriculture relies heavily on large scale use of pesticides, and the big chemical companies lobby globally to keep them in use despite known dangers.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wildlife-officials-dont-fe...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wildlife-officials-dont-fe...
If you trace stories from that article it only references feeders causing an issue from a disease since May 2020, not overall since the 70s.
Implementing this material currently and advise everyone to do the same. It is abhorrent that building developers do not include this on new developments by default.
https://www.featherfriendly.com/
https://www.featherfriendly.com/
I am not discounting the premise of this post however in upstate new york I am seeing flocks of turkeys which I have never seen until recent years ... also bald eagles have reappeared in numbers again not seen until past 5 years or so ... this is partly due to the drop in game hunters as well as a fall off of farming with many abandoned farms and fallow acreages going to scrubs ... also due to the ban on DDT decades ago ... so certainly some type of birds are seeing a resurgence
I have been visiting Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge for about 5 years, once every winter.
It is depressing to experience this decline in such a short span.
Can we also analyze these multilaterals ,like the behavioral level, birth rate, natural environment threat, human impact, geography and climate impact of birds from a more systematic perspective?
moreover, the emergence of a phenomenon may be the occurrence of another pain point, or even irrelevant fields, which is a bit like neurons. The pain of a leg may be caused by some brain organization.
Plant dense, heterogeneous local species in your garden, don't use herbicides or pesticides, and avoid prolonged or regular use of outdoor artificial lighting. Don't feed wild birds. Don't let cats out. If you have neighbours with cats, spray them with a hose until they learn to stay away. If that fails, trap them then spray them with a hose. That'll learn 'em.
So follow climate change model then? Wait until it's too late then start setting targets for today+(election cycle length) years?
At first I thought it was the new conspiracy of the federal government replacing birds with drones:
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environm...
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environm...
A good a post as any to share the data surrounding the leading causing of habitat loss. I'll leave everyone to make their own opinions based on said research: https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation
In population dynamics, you often see periods of decline and gain. How do we know that this is a genuine long-term decline as opposed to a temporary downswing? I’ve always wondered.
After all, not every population can grow forever. So which pieces of news should we be alarmed about, vs which are expected?
After all, not every population can grow forever. So which pieces of news should we be alarmed about, vs which are expected?
From the article:
> The study found that population decline was not limited to a few species but a wide range of species across every biome
In contrast, population dynamics is usually concerning either a single or a number of linked species. But on the greater scale, the planet as a whole will probably rebound after humans have destroyed everything including what has made their life possible and will hence have gone extinct.
> The study found that population decline was not limited to a few species but a wide range of species across every biome
In contrast, population dynamics is usually concerning either a single or a number of linked species. But on the greater scale, the planet as a whole will probably rebound after humans have destroyed everything including what has made their life possible and will hence have gone extinct.
I've been counting the flocks of Canadian Geese sizes that stop by our local ponds. Last head count was 8 individuals together. I thought I recall seeing 20 years ago dozens of head counts, maybe 24?
I live in a major migration path. A month ago, they were still paired up in couples. A couple weeks ago, they started flying in small groups. This past week, I've seen large flocks of geese in the dozens, and a flock of 80 sandhill cranes. The flocks are definitely gathering, but they seem to be running late this year, so you may see larger groups in a couple weeks.
We've been slowly turning our urban backyard into a pleasant place for birds, but we still have 70% grass. It's not clear to me how to introduce native grasses without upsetting my neighbors.
Doesn't seem very surprising, less bugs = less birds.
And the human population grew more than 50% in the usa in that time frame, so no wonder. (and doubled globally)
We've killed the insects with pesticides. We've drained the wetlands. What do people expect?
Weed killers and insecticides. Birds die when you poison and kill their food.
We’re fucked, everyone debating the value of abstractions and other bullshit in this thread are just adding kindling
Pigeons seem to be doing well.
Especially passenger pigeons, not a single decline in 107 years.
Ouch. (they're exinct already).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon
Feral pigeons are doing well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_pigeon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_pigeon
An invasive species that human civilization brought with it is doing well? Hold the phone, call off the emergency alert. Next we'll be hearing the insect decline is no problem because there are more mosquitoes than ever (which we also brought with us around the world).
I never said nor implied the latter. I’m literally just taking about how pigeons are doing surprisingly well despite bird populations decreasing.
Which was worse for the dinosaurs, the asteroid impact or us?
lawns need to go out of fashion...
We can and should call this a holocaust and we are the good Germans.
Because they've been outed: https://birdsarentreal.com
This was funny at the start, but I guarantee people with mental illnesses will start hopping on this bandwagon and you'll see people unironically protesting it.
Meh, the actual marginal harm is nil. Someone genuinely believing in "Birds Aren't Real" was going to latch on to something.
It's Poe's Law running wild. Can't tell who is actually crazy, stupid, or gullible enough to believe it, versus those that just like to play along with it for the laughs.
Sounds like a useful filter then.
While the joke's entertaining, there's an important related truth: birds are far more real than many things we imagine are real.
I figured it was more because some of the drones are out-dated. Current models capture more detail and can fly longer on a single charge, so older ones are being taken out of service as they fail, rather than being repaired and returned to the sky.
this made my day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2wir9wRp8w
thank you.
This is sad to watch in real time our planet dying.
The one bird I noticed doing very well this year is black crows. I keep a bag of nuts and throw some out my car window when ever I see a crow. This year it seems as if there are many more around eating from me. But they are a very resilient bird and can use tools and scavenge for food in places other birds can not.
I think this and many of the similar problems plaguing the earth will only be solved with a drastic reduction of people on the planet. Get the population down to 1 or 2 billion of us and a lot of these issues go away.
Deforesting, not an issue if the demand for lumber is cut down by 80%. Same for coal, oil, paving, lithium... It all gets solved with just less people.
8 billion people is just too much, even if we all recycle and take the bus.
Deforesting, not an issue if the demand for lumber is cut down by 80%. Same for coal, oil, paving, lithium... It all gets solved with just less people.
8 billion people is just too much, even if we all recycle and take the bus.
2 billion people consuming as much as the average American does right now gets you in a much worse situation than the current one.
The only solution is strong government action to reduce emissions and environmental consequences of consumption. It's not completely un precedented: the hole in the ozone layer was the unavoidable apocalypse in the late 90s and is an almost solved problem right now.
The only solution is strong government action to reduce emissions and environmental consequences of consumption. It's not completely un precedented: the hole in the ozone layer was the unavoidable apocalypse in the late 90s and is an almost solved problem right now.
> is an almost solved problem right now.
I wish. We only halted its growth and it is only barely healed. From Wikipedia [1]:
> A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.[107]
> The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to continue for decades. Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5–10 percent by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_o...
I wish. We only halted its growth and it is only barely healed. From Wikipedia [1]:
> A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.[107]
> The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to continue for decades. Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5–10 percent by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_o...
Sure, we did mount a concerted effort to solve the ozone problem. But that was a lot easier to do than what we need to do now. We needed to change the types of propellants used in aerosol spays and we needed to change the types of refrigerants we used - it was lucky that we had pretty equivalent and readily available replacements. But now to solve the myriad of challenges we face we need to reduce consumption of many different resources at once - sacrifices will need to be made. Big sacrifices in some cases. And given our current political climate, sacrifices aren't popular (not that they have ever been, but especially not now).
How many birds make it through the winter because humans help to feed them.
Surely if humans are the cause, they can be the solution too. Planting more forests is possible. Breeding Elephants, Giraffes, Hippos, and other large mammals we displaced is possible and is bing done now. Making land more hospitable to wild animals is also possible. Perhaps we need more people to be born not less to fill these roles.
Even large ultra modern cities like Dubai, are not all bad. They terraformed the desert. All kinds of plants, birds and animals live in Dubai that never could before. New York is home to billions of rats.
I'm not even sure that human activity has in anyway reduced the biomass of the earth. Cities provide ideal habitat to all kinds of birds, plants and animals. And Carbon emissions are good for plants, CO2 is needed for photosynthesis.
Forests have been converted to farms, and we grow way too much corn, that is used for fuel. A terribly inefficient and wasteful process. So I'm a big proponent of Nuclear Energy technology, which would greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels.
I also think Farms should be surrounded by treed buffers, and we should build green forested corridors that span the continent.
All of that might require more people not less to accomplish. That rare genius that will bring us break through energy technology might be someone in the next billion people not yet born.
Surely if humans are the cause, they can be the solution too. Planting more forests is possible. Breeding Elephants, Giraffes, Hippos, and other large mammals we displaced is possible and is bing done now. Making land more hospitable to wild animals is also possible. Perhaps we need more people to be born not less to fill these roles.
Even large ultra modern cities like Dubai, are not all bad. They terraformed the desert. All kinds of plants, birds and animals live in Dubai that never could before. New York is home to billions of rats.
I'm not even sure that human activity has in anyway reduced the biomass of the earth. Cities provide ideal habitat to all kinds of birds, plants and animals. And Carbon emissions are good for plants, CO2 is needed for photosynthesis.
Forests have been converted to farms, and we grow way too much corn, that is used for fuel. A terribly inefficient and wasteful process. So I'm a big proponent of Nuclear Energy technology, which would greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels.
I also think Farms should be surrounded by treed buffers, and we should build green forested corridors that span the continent.
All of that might require more people not less to accomplish. That rare genius that will bring us break through energy technology might be someone in the next billion people not yet born.
[deleted]
"To be fair, the others just aren't as important as me. Therefore, we should find a way to...shall we say, flush the excess."
Read in this voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19B7lTgwCE
Read in this voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19B7lTgwCE
I'd say we should educate people about the value of family planning to steer the world to a better place. Don't know why so many people here think getting the population down requires atrocities.
I think if the world really got behind this, we could get the population down in 3 or 4 generations.
I think if the world really got behind this, we could get the population down in 3 or 4 generations.
I don't think that eco-fascism is the answer. The cause of this problem isn't people, it is capitalism and imperialism.
1/3rd of all emissions are produced by 20 companies
The US Military alone puts out more carbon than the top 60 carbon emitters.
“The Earth is not dying-it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses.” — Utah Phillips
1/3rd of all emissions are produced by 20 companies
The US Military alone puts out more carbon than the top 60 carbon emitters.
“The Earth is not dying-it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses.” — Utah Phillips
> 1/3rd of all emissions are produced by 20 companies
Sure, but mostly they're producing goods and services that millions/billions of people consume. Getting rid of those 20 companies won't change anything.
Sure, but mostly they're producing goods and services that millions/billions of people consume. Getting rid of those 20 companies won't change anything.
It will get rid of 20 massive power centers that move politics for their own benefit. Turning those 20 companies into 500 companies would allow for political change that is impossible now.
No it wouldn't. You are understimating the number of westerners who quite prefer their standard of living and either don't care or have theological beliefs that allow them to not care about the consequences of their lifestyles. There is a cultural change that has to preceed the political one
[deleted]
It would be great if you could fix politics by breaking up a few villainous corporations but it's much more difficult than that. In America, Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump have (in different ways) shown us the limits of the power of money in politics.
I'm pro-anti-trust and I believe that breaking up certain big corporations would a good thing. But that's a long way from "the problem is capitalism and imperialism" and the implication that eliminating those things is possible or would fix environmental problems. The Soviets were even worse for the environment.
I'm pro-anti-trust and I believe that breaking up certain big corporations would a good thing. But that's a long way from "the problem is capitalism and imperialism" and the implication that eliminating those things is possible or would fix environmental problems. The Soviets were even worse for the environment.
Who said eco-fascism? I say eco-family planning. Get everyone on board and in 3 or 4 generation things are better. Sure, its a pie in the sky idea, but since we're throwing ideas around....
Soooo, lemme get this straight. Your solution to keeping the earth habitable for animals is genocide and forced sterilization?
Wow - you went to a dark place real fast... You ever hear about this thing called family planning?
Windmills
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
edit: yes cats do too, let's try to talk about it all, cat genocide if you want, windmill improvements too.
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
edit: yes cats do too, let's try to talk about it all, cat genocide if you want, windmill improvements too.
The ranked list of human-associated stuff that kills birds goes something like windows >> cats >> pollution >> cars >> windmills.
Alright, can we get numbers going then, let's work through this.
That's the most substantive response yet, let's source it and drill down solutions for each.
Windmills are the most recent change I can think of to explain this trend.
Cats, cars, and pollution have been killing birds, but maybe it's ramped up.
That's the most substantive response yet, let's source it and drill down solutions for each.
Windmills are the most recent change I can think of to explain this trend.
Cats, cars, and pollution have been killing birds, but maybe it's ramped up.
…it’s a 50 year trend
Pollution, windows, and cats appeared in 1971?
1975 is when the first commercial wind farm went up, maybe you got something :p
If it was all pollution we'd see improvements as we decrease emissions. (we have been since 2005)
1975 is when the first commercial wind farm went up, maybe you got something :p
If it was all pollution we'd see improvements as we decrease emissions. (we have been since 2005)
Rough estimate is that there were ~30 million housecats in 1970 versus ~90 million today
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Growth-of-the-house-cat-...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Growth-of-the-house-cat-...
[deleted]
Bird mortality from cats is 10,000 times windmills. 10,000 times. It's really hard to state just how much bigger that is.
An even bigger cause of decline is birds that are never born due to habitat loss and pesticide use that fundamentally disrupts their food chain because no insects = no birds.
Windmill bird mortality is some extreme, irrelevant outlier that does not matter at all. It's a manufactured issue that follows a formula discussed by Albert Hirschman in his 1991, "The rhetoric of reaction". Specifically it uses the framework of the perversity thesis: “any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.”
This is used as a scripted template to smuggle agendas through "think tanks" (which is a polite term for "propaganda factories") and then onto some theatrical "they aren't telling you this on mainstream media" sphere where they are peddled as "talking points" and "facts".
In this case, as in most, they load it up with common logical and rhetorical fallacies. The go-to here is to represent the extreme statistically insignificant outlier as if it's the normal and then advocate for policy focusing around the outlier.
It's not about the outlier, in this case birds. Instead, it's about whoever paid the think-tanks to use the classic Hirschman tools and push the narrative through the channels. Most of the think tanks are funded by oil and gas so ...
If we focus on the other 99.99% of the deaths and the other 100% of the non-death declines then the problems will actually be addressed instead of say, firing up coal fire power plants, drilling for oil, decommissioning wind farms and having it have zero effect on the downward trend.
It might be hard to figure out why publicly traded oil and gas companies would feel fiscally obligated to invest in campaigns to increase their market share, but I'm sure we can connect the dots.
Unless you honestly think they are abandoning their fiduciary duty, are squandering company money because they're all a bunch of rabid birders, and just happened to read the numbers wrong. I mean sure, ok.
An even bigger cause of decline is birds that are never born due to habitat loss and pesticide use that fundamentally disrupts their food chain because no insects = no birds.
Windmill bird mortality is some extreme, irrelevant outlier that does not matter at all. It's a manufactured issue that follows a formula discussed by Albert Hirschman in his 1991, "The rhetoric of reaction". Specifically it uses the framework of the perversity thesis: “any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.”
This is used as a scripted template to smuggle agendas through "think tanks" (which is a polite term for "propaganda factories") and then onto some theatrical "they aren't telling you this on mainstream media" sphere where they are peddled as "talking points" and "facts".
In this case, as in most, they load it up with common logical and rhetorical fallacies. The go-to here is to represent the extreme statistically insignificant outlier as if it's the normal and then advocate for policy focusing around the outlier.
It's not about the outlier, in this case birds. Instead, it's about whoever paid the think-tanks to use the classic Hirschman tools and push the narrative through the channels. Most of the think tanks are funded by oil and gas so ...
If we focus on the other 99.99% of the deaths and the other 100% of the non-death declines then the problems will actually be addressed instead of say, firing up coal fire power plants, drilling for oil, decommissioning wind farms and having it have zero effect on the downward trend.
It might be hard to figure out why publicly traded oil and gas companies would feel fiscally obligated to invest in campaigns to increase their market share, but I'm sure we can connect the dots.
Unless you honestly think they are abandoning their fiduciary duty, are squandering company money because they're all a bunch of rabid birders, and just happened to read the numbers wrong. I mean sure, ok.
Loss of natural life is such a failure. Today we speak of stock markets, governments, businesses. Someday, our main concern will not be these shared dreams, but meeting basic needs. This can already be seen in homelessness. How long before things like this means our planet can no longer manage pollution, or produce soil healthy enough to feed us?
As a believer in the concept of memetics, it is clear that standing in defense of the real is a battle that is being lost, but the consequences will not be escaped forever. One such consequence is the pandemic and my society's inability to deal with it due to serving things that aren't real. I think that a million dead will be remembered with whimsy in the coming decades as not being so bad.