5 ms·
Actually starlings are an invasive species in the United States. So “we” have done no such thing.
by wincy 8y ago
Actually 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