
Birds Are Vanishing from North America - wiggles_md
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/science/bird-populations-america-canada.html
======
hackbinary
Bird populations are declining in the France:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/catastrophe-
as...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/catastrophe-as-frances-
bird-population-collapses-due-to-pesticides)

Britain: [https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-bird-numbers-
sp...](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-bird-numbers-species-
declines-british-wildlife-turtle-dove-corn-bunting-willow-tits-
farmland-a7744666.html)

And also seabirds in Britain:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/20/seabird-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/20/seabird-
colonies-face-catatstrophe-gannets-puffins-food-supply)

------
bsmitty5000
This article doesn't mention the declining insect population at all but I
would think it's clear that a quickly declining food source would be a major
cause of population decline. I wonder if there's a similar decline in other
animals that rely on insects, eg bats. Although, interestingly, the article
does mention neonicotinoids as a direct reason for the decline in population.

It's hard to imagine humans taking the corrective solution here. My gut says
we either continue on this road and completely destroy the natural world a la
Trantor in Foundation, just one huge mega-city that fabricates all of its
needs, or we die out and the planet recovers on its own.

~~~
technothrasher
> or we die out and the planet recovers on its own.

That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the
planet to recover to. Without us, the planet would just go on changing,
without anything to judge the current environment at any point as good or bad
to any particular standard.

Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

~~~
commandlinefan
> Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves

I wonder, though... we know, for example, that bees pollinate plants, and that
we need plants to be pollinated for our survival. But if the bees die out, we
can figure out another technical way to pollinate plants - it might be a pain
to carry out, and we might be kicking ourselves for not saving the bees before
it got to that point, but it can be done. If it comes down to a matter of
survival, humans a a species will figure out a way to get what needs to be
done, done. You might say that saving the birds and the insects now is the
"simpler" route than replacing them, but it's starting to look like you'd be
wrong, and we're not going to have any choice but figure out how to keep the
human race going without them.

~~~
jacobolus
> _If it comes down to a matter of survival, humans as a species will figure
> out a way to get what needs to be done, done._

Don’t count on it. Human civilization depends heavily on trust and
cooperation, and a large number of complex systems functioning which nobody
completely understands and most people barely notice. The whole endeavor is
quite fragile.

Once basic systems start breaking down, people start starving and dying, and
societies start to collapse, it can get real bad in a hurry.

There have been plenty of past examples of large-scale societies collapsing
into ruin, with the survivors fleeing or dying out.

~~~
richardknop
In case of major disaster such as meteorite hitting a metropolitan area, just
in time logistics systems mean most major cities such as New York or London
have enough food to survive for 2-3 days. If something happens that disrupts
the supply chain 10 of millions of people will be starving in couple days.
Imagine if something serious happened. In a week there would be anarchy and
total collapse of law and order.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Which is why the most important constraint in dealing with climate change is
ensuring that scenario never happens.

------
Yhippa
This is one of the saddest things I've read in a long time. Birds are amazing.
It's amazing to me that they are the descendants of dinosaurs and they're all
around us. Their songs and plumage are beautiful to me.

> Grassland species have suffered the biggest declines by far, having lost 717
> million birds. These birds have probably been decimated by modern
> agriculture and development.

This one I'm not totally sure is even related to climate change. I don't want
to tell the person next to me to "stop trying to make a better life for
yourself" so I'm not sure what the solution to this is right now.

~~~
m463
They are basically the only higher form of wildlife everyone experiences on a
daily basis, even in very urban environments.

It's not until the suburbs with trees that you start seeing squirrels and
larger animals.

~~~
weberc2
Chicago has squirrels everywhere except for the loop. And there are rats
absolutely everywhere too! I imagine it’s similar in most US cities.

------
hyperion2010
Since I almost never see it mentioned in any threads related to this subject,
am I thrilled that the main article actually references Silent Spring. I
remember growing up that people thought that we had somehow managed to avoid
the future it portrayed, but no, we have not. Another generation and the
purveyors of death are back selling the cure for other species some people
haven't learned to live in balance with.

~~~
bt848
People also think we avoided the future predicted by “The Population Bomb” but
we didn’t.

~~~
leftyted
We've explicitly avoided the predictions that Paul Ehrlich made in The
Population Bomb:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager)

Predictions without deadlines are not useful because you can keep kicking the
can down the road forever. That's exactly what Paul Ehrlich has done since all
of his predictions didn't happen.

~~~
bt848
Ehrlich's timing was not great and his book is almost unreadable but the
things predicted therein have come to pass. It really is more crowded in
Yosemite than in downtown LA, and the air quality is worse. There really
aren't any non-toxic fish left to catch.

------
root_axis
The article mentions it briefly, but outdoor cats are also a considerable
contributor to bird deaths. Feral cat colonies obliterate bird populations.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/outdo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/outdoor-cats-kill-between-14-billion-and-37-billion-birds-a-year-
study-says/2013/01/31/2504f744-6bbe-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story.html)

~~~
weberc2
TIL feral cat colonies exist...

------
shealutton2
When the news broke that bugs were disappearing, this was the expected
followup. Right?

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/02/why-
insec...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/02/why-insect-
populations-are-plummeting-and-why-it-matters/)

------
kaybe
Everyone, join in the protests tomorrow!

[https://fridaysforfuture.org/events/map?c=+All+countries&d=F...](https://fridaysforfuture.org/events/map?c=+All+countries&d=Future&o=all)

------
elliottkember
I'm from New Zealand, which has a lot of birds, and I live in California. The
forests here are eerily quiet, I hate it. Back home the birdsong in forests is
deafening.

~~~
tmp190914pn2
I'm from California but I live in New Zealand. The birds here are very noisy
in the morning. It's almost plague levels of birds on my farm, of many many
varieties (Aussie Magpie, spurwing plover, thrush, morepork, tui, kingfisher,
swamp harrier, wood pidgeon, ducks, and others that I haven't identified yet
or forgot about. There are even a few exotics that escaped the conservatory in
town and decided to live here and breed. Not to mention the bees everywhere,
both honey and bumble.

------
blaser-waffle
People are quick to point out the lack of bugs and habitat, but are leaving
out a big killer -- your damn cat.

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-
of-...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-
cats-180960505/)

(mostly feral cats... but your lil furball ain't helping)

~~~
nicwolff
Wait a minute. That article says "outdoor cats killed somewhere in the
ballpark of 2.4 billion birds in the U.S. per year". The NY Times article
linked here says that the bird population decreased by "nearly 3 billion
birds" over 50 years. So in 50 years about 120 billion birds were killed by
cats, and only 117 billion replacement birds were born? Seems like if we
killed the cats, we'd be overrun by birds!

------
habosa
I went to Australia and spent a day hiking in the blue mountains. I remember
thinking that the bird noises were _so loud_. Not just "huh listen to all the
birds" but "it sounds like someone is pumping this in through speakers". Never
heard anything like it in America.

Maybe that noise level is just normal? I've only been doing meaningful hiking
for the past ~10 years. Does anyone older than I am remember birds being much
louder in the past?

------
fjabre
Anytime someone brings up Monsanto they are downvoted because without
pesticides humans cannot feed themselves apparently. And herbicides are for
plants only so of course they have no effect on insects. /s

~~~
imglorp
Bought by Bayer, that name will be gone soon because of the well earned
negative perceptions.

~~~
Isinlor
Well, not sure if Bayer is such a good name either. Bayer was part of
conglomerate producing Zyklon B used by Germans to kill millions of people.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
I mean they also were the first to market Heroine, that hasn't really stopped
sales of asprin.

~~~
saagarjha
(Heroin.)

~~~
DFHippie
Yes, the marketing of heroines preceded them and is generally harmless
(protests against "Wonder Woman" notwithstanding).

------
rblion
This hurts to know. I know we are living through an extinction event but
having numbers like these really make it sink in.

I feed the birds in my backyard every day, it's a joy to observe the variety
that live in just a small grove of trees.

I have a tendency to always look up in the sky and take note of soaring birds
of prey, they are awe-spiring to say the least.

------
tylerpachal
(serious) Is there any hope? Its just one problem after another (probably
because everything is linked).

What are the chances that we will get our act together or be able to engineer
ourselves out of all of these problems?

~~~
ip26
The fact that wetland bird populations are actually growing is a strong sign
that we _can_ fix this, if we try.

Bird conservation efforts in the last few decades mainly focused on wetlands.
See DDT, national wildlife refuges, and the duck stamp.

So, it's not like the decline is inexorable. But it's not going to fix itself.

~~~
hanniabu
All those wetlands are filled with water, which we are polluting. Trump
removing the Clean Water Act last week also doesn't help the situation.
Eventually this water will get contaminated, insects and species will die.
There's no doubt in my mind of that if we keep putting money first.

~~~
tzs
The Trump administration's reinterpretation of the Migratory Bird Treat Act of
1918, which protects migratory birds, also doesn't help.

They interpret it to only prohibit intentionally killing protected birds. So,
if you wanted to, say, drain a wetland that migratory birds depended on to
build a parking lot, which would wipe out nesting grounds and lead to a lot of
bird deaths--that would be fine under the Trump interpretation as long as you
aren't building the parking lot to intentionally kill the birds.

This has already started having an effect. The US Fish and Wildlife Service,
for instance, no longer stops loggers from cutting down trees with nests of
protected birds in them, killing eggs or chicks.

~~~
hanniabu
Wow, that's unbelievably fucked up....

------
corndoge
Stop putting your cat outside

------
dpflan
"Bird" is the word today: also on the front page now:

> "The Crisis for Birds Is a Crisis for Us All":
> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018850](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018850)

------
christophilus
> Grassland species have suffered the biggest declines by far, having lost 717
> million birds. These birds have probably been decimated by modern
> agriculture and development.

This has been known for a while. I remember hearing a piece on NPR about this
maybe a decade ago. The problem is actually that we have been working hard to
reforest, and haven't left grassland. Everything is either forest, or
developed, with very little in-between. One of the proposed solutions was to
simply not mow 100% of your yard. Leave some bit of it unkempt. There's a
local monastery that does this, and there are birds there that I haven't seen
anywhere else in the area, so I think there's something to the strategy.

------
monktastic1
This apparently isn't a popular opinion, but: this world is precious. I would
even go so far as to say _miraculous_. Until we wake up to this fact, we will
continue to ennui ourselves and this world into oblivion. It's hard to prove
(or even study), but I believe this is the root cause of all the other
tragedies. It is not something we will merely engineer our way out of.

We don't like religion (or in many cases, even spirituality), and the modern
scientific metaphysics has no space for "miracles," so we don't have a
coherent framework in which to talk about or even remind ourselves of this
profound truth. Each of us is left to cobble something together for ourselves
(and for the few people around us that we trust not to think we're crazy).

I do think that psychedelics seem like one promising avenue. Perhaps they will
help give us the inspiration to fill in this tragic blindspot.

Edit: If the votes are any indication, then I was too hasty in calling this
opinion unpopular. Perhaps more of us suspect this than are willing to say it
out loud.

Edit 2: On that note, I've been scared to share my own crazy take on this, but
I'll just leave this here:
[https://www.lifeismiraculous.org](https://www.lifeismiraculous.org)

~~~
vpmpaul
>psychedelics

Every "epiphany" that someone has told me they had while on psychedelics has
been something that easily could have been come up with a bit of quite time
and thought.

I have never heard a single story that blew me away or offered anything but
mundane "insights" that easily could be gotten other ways.

Its time for the "psychedelics" people to come clean and just admit they are
simply getting high.

~~~
monktastic1
Have you seen any of the studies where psychedelics are able to resolve
conditions like anxiety and depression that are resistant to other treatments?
When a person goes through that kind of epiphany, it may sound insipid in
words -- and thus not blow you away or sound like mundane "insights" \-- but
insights don't always have to be verbalizable. "Life is miraculous" _sounds_
pretty obvious, but there are certainly times where it's more "in your face"
than others.

~~~
vpmpaul
I was talking about these "grand revelations" people claim to get. Medical use
is an entirely different thing.

Your second half just reinforces my original point. Its an "experience" ie
just getting high.

------
hbarka
Depressing. Plastics killing sea life. Pesticides killing bees. Now this?
Canary in a coal mine.

------
mhroth
If anyone is interested in a fanciful take on reducing the world's population
in order to save it, I can happily recommend Channel 4's two-season Utopia
series [0]

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnN3WMwDsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnN3WMwDsk)

~~~
guerrilla
Or watch Hans Rosling on how it's not a problem.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdJgEwMinM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdJgEwMinM)

------
wildermuthn
Some day our robotic overlords will thank us for preparing the world for them.

------
tayo42
reading things like this are so depressing, wish i knew how to help instead of
like making your timeline a little more faster.

------
spodek
We're swimming in environmental problems.

We can come up with makeshift solutions to many, but for solving them all, and
not to suggest it's the only solution, but a part of anything comprehensive,
is there any environmental problem that a smaller human population doesn't
alleviate?

~~~
jandrese
I prefer to keep "kill all humans" lower down on the list of possible
solutions to environmental problems. Lets try some alternatives first.

~~~
everdrive
No is suggesting this. Population control via less breeding is always an
alternative.

~~~
conanbatt
Good lord, are really americans from the Land of the Free having thoughts like
this one.

~~~
chadcmulligan
I feel the whole "land of the free" thing has gone out the window, land of the
indentured servants is more like it, with their health care and higher
education costs

------
tehjoker
Bird up

------
ping_pong
Trying to estimate the population of birds in North America between now and 50
years ago seems like it would have an error rate of at least 29%. Are the
counting and estimation mechanism even anywhere close to similar?

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
You don't believe the number, so they could possibly be wrong, so it's not a
cause for concern? That's a lot of jumps to make to get to the case where we
don't have to worry.

What techniques are they using to count and estimate the birds, and what
objections do you take to their methods? Sadly I can't find out as the site is
behind a paywall for me.

~~~
ping_pong
There's only one jump: I don't trust the data, so I'm not yet concerned by
this click-bait title.

In this day of clickbait titles, studies that are not reproducible, and
suspect motivation for studies, the idea that we can calculate the total
number of birds with an error rate of less than 30%, including the fact that
some data is 50 years old, doesn't pass my smell test.

I would prefer waiting for accurate data rather than panic over yet another
headline that is not anchored in actual science and facts. For example, did
they try to count the number of birds at the same time of the year both times?
Do some birds have different multi-year migratory patterns leading to them
being in different parts of the world? Did they try counting the birds twice
using the same techniques but two different teams, and then compare the
numbers?

There are too many ways this calculation could fail for me to be trust this
data point.

~~~
appleiigs
> The analysis, published in the journal Science, is the most exhaustive and
> ambitious attempt yet to learn what is happening to avian populations.

> A team of researchers from universities, government agencies and nonprofit
> organizations collaborated on the new study, which combined old and new
> methods for counting birds.

> Kevin Gaston, a conservation biologist at the University of Exeter

> Hillary Young, a conservation biologist at the University of California,
> Santa Barbara

> Scott Loss, a conservation biologist at Oklahoma State University

> Kenneth V. Rosenberg, a conservation scientist at Cornell University and the
> American Bird Conservancy

> Dr. Young, of the University of California, Santa Barbara

> “If we have two data sets showing the same thing, it’s a home run,” said
> Nicole Michel, a senior quantitative ecologist at the Audubon Society who
> was not involved in the study.

> Europe is experiencing a similar loss of birds, also among common species,
> said Dr. Gaston, of the University of Exeter. “The numbers are broadly
> comparable,” he said.

 _So all these people are idiots and you know better?_

~~~
joey_bob
This appeal to authority probably won't be very effective in convincing thr
root commenter about the validity of the study. None of the quotes addres the
concerns about counting methods, and the experts cited are more likely to be
seen as experts in biology than statistics, inference, and logic.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
If the experts do this sort of work often they'll be proficient in the
application of statistics. We don't distrust engineers because they aren't the
people who came up with the physics they are applying.

~~~
joey_bob
That's a valid assumption to start with, sure. If the results are called into
questions on the basis of statistics, their field of work is no longer a
convincing argument. When someone calls into question your design choice, you
don't say "trust me an engineer" unless you're joking.

