5 ms·
Lovely, after destroying their habitat, now we hunt them with lasers :)
by 21 8y ago
Lovely, after destroying their habitat, now we hunt them with lasers :)
- wincy 8y agoActually starlings are an invasive species in the United States. So “we” have done no such thing.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y agoActually starlings are an invasive species in the United States. Yes, but so are American humans. We’re hardly in a position to throw stones in that direction I think. Edit: My point seems to have flown past some, I am not in favor of lasering birds.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoWe brought them there. Do you think we discriminate between invasive and non invasive birds? "[The lasers are] running right now as we speak. You're out here in over 175 acres of blueberries," he says, punctuating the observation with a staccato of hand claps. "There's not one bird that you see flying around." We should tell them to feed elsewhere. Put a sign or something. If they don't comply, then we'll stress them out until they stop being thieves or go to die somewhere.
- ryanmarsh 8y agoEasy there fella. Keep that hyperbole pointed in a safe direction. Tell us how you really feel.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoSure. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/forty-percent-of-the-worlds-bird-populations-are-in-decline-new-study-finds https://e360.yale.edu/digest/forty-percent-of-the-worlds-bir... "Agriculture has the biggest impact of all human activities on birds, threatening 74 percent of the 1,469 species at risk of extinction." It's just laser. It's OK. Their retina doesn't seem to be affected. They just don't fly here anymore. Can you see a bird?
- dang 8y agoPlease post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mmirate 8y ago> Put a sign or something. Unfortunately, they can't read. (If they could, then that would imply them being intelligent enough to interact with humans in a civilized manner.) Otherwise, your last paragraph rings true at face value.
- maxwell 8y agoClassifying humans as invasive to particular regions is an interesting idea. I wonder how it would play out legally.
- komali2 8y agoIn every government I'm aware of, humans have the most power of Right compared to any other animal, so my expectation is "thrown out of whatever court you choose." Then again some countries maintain Nature Preserves and National Parks. Hm.
- schiffern 8y ago> In every government I'm aware of, humans have the most power of Right compared to any other animal But is a human's "right" to destroy the ecosystem (eg clearing and erecting buildings) superior to the entire forest's "right" not to be killed? As a counterpoint, Equador has enshrined Rights of Nature into their Constitution,[1] and ecosystems themselves can be plaintiffs in environmental suits brought on their behalf[2]. [1] http://therightsofnature.org/ecuador-rights/ http://therightsofnature.org/ecuador-rights/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMpxG_he8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMpxG_he8k
- michaelmrose 8y agoA forest may be a valuable resource but we recognize its value in respect to us. Even when we recognize that a lot of value may be obtained by protecting it for its own sake we do so because we feel that we will ultimately benefit in the long run. Forests aren't individuals and talking about their rights is meaningless.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoHumans only have rights because humans say we do.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
- stephengillie 8y agoTierZoo agrees with you. https://youtu.be/ImYu9dJM4kQ?t=6m44s https://youtu.be/ImYu9dJM4kQ?t=6m44s
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoThieving Birds. "Thieving Birds". Who can write that in 2018? Seriously, what's wrong with mankind to not realize that we've become the biggest threat to life on Earth? Thieving Birds... https://www.dw.com/en/time-running-out-to-save-the-earths-plants-and-animals/a-43091288 https://www.dw.com/en/time-running-out-to-save-the-earths-pl...
- maxwell 8y agoHumans are a threat to biodiversity, but so are starlings: http://blogs.longwood.edu/kepleasants/2013/03/15/invasive-species/ http://blogs.longwood.edu/kepleasants/2013/03/15/invasive-sp...
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoWho's to blame? Who brought them to the US? If these lasers are used to prevent these species from damaging the ecosystems, then OK. But AFAIK, it was never the intention to discriminate between invasive and non invasive species.
- devicenull 8y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schieffelin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schieffelin
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoA human, again?!
- trukterious 8y agoYet some humans try to save other species. No other species does that.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoI was reading the Wikipedia article about "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", which I found after translating the idiom from my native language. I wanted to make sure you'd understand the quote but guess what? Here's the first sentence of the first section (Meaning): >A common interpretation of the saying is that wrongdoings or evil actions are often masked by good intentions; or even that good intentions, when acted upon, may have unintended consequences. A simple example is the introduction of an invasive species, like the Asian carp, which has become a nuisance due to unexpected proliferation and behaviour. Why do you think we are the only species that feel the need to save others? Have we ever tried to save one that wasn't threatened by the consequences of humans' wrongdoings? We act like we don't know what we're doing. Perhaps we should calm down and observe before destroying our fragile environment and rush to save it (often destroying it further in the process). Just. Calm. Down.
- dang 8y agoThis comment breaks several of the site guidelines, including the one that asks you not to post shallow dismissals, and the one the asks you to please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. "Someone" here applies to stories just as much as to comments. Also, the guidelines ask you not to snark. You may have a good underlying point, but if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and express your good underlying points more thoughtfully from now on, that would be much less destructive and we'd appreciate it.
- sometimesijust 8y agoI found those two guidelines ironic considering that calling something a shallow dismissal without making reference to the original argument is in itself a shallow dismissal that encourages weakening the interpretation of the strength of an argument. It only gets worse when you consider the case of domain experts giving concise commentary using domain specific language. Is an argument shallow if you don't understand it?