4 ms·

Headlines 10 years from now: "Scientists mystified by 'bird blindness' colony collapse" "Laser manufacturers found to be spending millions on lobbyist groups"

justicezyx 8y ago
Particularly put down by this type of comments. Such comments are pure negative addition, not adding any value in terms of solving the problem. It's not even clear if this is a problem: "very little is known about whether lasers can harm the animals' retinas." The sentiment of this type of comments are also predominantly one-sided, which always is the most important property of any failed attempts of solving any non-trivial large-scale problems.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  It's like an invitation to the precautionary principle. "When the occurrence of any damage, albeit unpredictable in the current state of scientific knowledge, may seriously and irreversibly harm the environment, public authorities shall, with due respect for the principle of precaution and the areas within their jurisdiction, ensure the implementation of procedures for risk assessment and the adoption of temporary measures commensurate with the risk involved in order to preclude the occurrence of such damage" I like it.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > It's not even clear if this is a problem: "very little is known about whether lasers can harm the animals' retinas." It's not clear it's not a problem, either. As you cite, we don't know either way yet. "Let's be careful mucking with an ecosystem" isn't negative, and there's a lot of historical evidence such caution is necessary.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    I think this fails the base rate fallacy test; there are lots of times when mucking with an ecosystem hasn't caused problems, but nobody talks about those.
    - elago 8y ago
      Failure of an ecosystem is very severe. What does the base rate fallacy test have to say about playing russian roulette? No one talks about the 5/6 times it doesn't cause any problems.
      - nerpderp83 8y ago
        Mistakes that can't be unmade. They happen only once.
mirimir 8y ago
Maybe so, but the risk of retinal damage is arguably preferable to death from raptors, shotguns or poison.
- make3 8y ago
  no way raptors or shotguns can affect close to as many birds.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Maybe no way so far. But what about automated shotgun sentries?
code_duck 8y ago
Many birds are already in dramatic decline from threats like forest fragmentation, southern deforestation, windmills, and cellphone towers. I doubt they’ll be able to kill off black birds and seagulls, though.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > cellphone towers Uh, how?
  - scrumption 8y ago
    The birds just don't see them and fly into parts at full speed, more frequently if there are disorientingly bright lights at the installation.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/technology/2292105-wildlife-officials-say-planned-cell-phone-tower-danger-birds https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/technology/229210... They fly into it and die since giant metal structures are not found in nature. Makes sense, right? Tens of thousands of birds can die in one night on one tower during migrations.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  I thought it was house cats killing them off.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Sadly, I think it’s a variety of factors pecking away at them from all directions, so to speak. Habitat loss, loss of food stocks, urban, suburban, agricultural and industrial pollution, more buildings to fly into, intentional killing, pets, climate change, and probably even more. Essentially being a bird isn’t working out for them right now.
- scrumption 8y ago
  Wind turbines do not kill significant numbers of birds, that is a fossil fuel lobby talking point. Communications towers kill about 20x as many birds: https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/communication-towers.php https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/...

justicezyx 8y ago

Particularly put down by this type of comments. Such comments are pure negative addition, not adding any value in terms of solving the problem. It's not even clear if this is a problem: "very little is known about whether lasers can harm the animals' retinas." The sentiment of this type of comments are also predominantly one-sided, which always is the most important property of any failed attempts of solving any non-trivial large-scale problems.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
It's like an invitation to the precautionary principle. "When the occurrence of any damage, albeit unpredictable in the current state of scientific knowledge, may seriously and irreversibly harm the environment, public authorities shall, with due respect for the principle of precaution and the areas within their jurisdiction, ensure the implementation of procedures for risk assessment and the adoption of temporary measures commensurate with the risk involved in order to preclude the occurrence of such damage" I like it.
ceejayoz 8y ago
> It's not even clear if this is a problem: "very little is known about whether lasers can harm the animals' retinas." It's not clear it's not a problem, either. As you cite, we don't know either way yet. "Let's be careful mucking with an ecosystem" isn't negative, and there's a lot of historical evidence such caution is necessary.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  I think this fails the base rate fallacy test; there are lots of times when mucking with an ecosystem hasn't caused problems, but nobody talks about those.
  - elago 8y ago
    Failure of an ecosystem is very severe. What does the base rate fallacy test have to say about playing russian roulette? No one talks about the 5/6 times it doesn't cause any problems.
    - nerpderp83 8y ago
      Mistakes that can't be unmade. They happen only once.

mirimir 8y ago

Maybe so, but the risk of retinal damage is arguably preferable to death from raptors, shotguns or poison.

make3 8y ago
no way raptors or shotguns can affect close to as many birds.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Maybe no way so far. But what about automated shotgun sentries?

code_duck 8y ago

Many birds are already in dramatic decline from threats like forest fragmentation, southern deforestation, windmills, and cellphone towers. I doubt they’ll be able to kill off black birds and seagulls, though.

craftyguy 8y ago
> cellphone towers Uh, how?
- scrumption 8y ago
  The birds just don't see them and fly into parts at full speed, more frequently if there are disorientingly bright lights at the installation.
- code_duck 8y ago
  https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/technology/2292105-wildlife-officials-say-planned-cell-phone-tower-danger-birds https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/technology/229210... They fly into it and die since giant metal structures are not found in nature. Makes sense, right? Tens of thousands of birds can die in one night on one tower during migrations.
WalterBright 8y ago
I thought it was house cats killing them off.
- code_duck 8y ago
  Sadly, I think it’s a variety of factors pecking away at them from all directions, so to speak. Habitat loss, loss of food stocks, urban, suburban, agricultural and industrial pollution, more buildings to fly into, intentional killing, pets, climate change, and probably even more. Essentially being a bird isn’t working out for them right now.
scrumption 8y ago
Wind turbines do not kill significant numbers of birds, that is a fossil fuel lobby talking point. Communications towers kill about 20x as many birds: https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/communication-towers.php https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/...