5 ms·

If anyone is curious about a billion animal deaths figure in the article here's what this appears to be based on [1] [1] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/new

If anyone is curious about a billion animal deaths figure in the article here's what this appears to be based on [1] [1] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/08/australian-bushfires-more-than-one-billion-animals-impacted.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/08/australia...

john-radio 7y ago
Stealing this take from David Steen: > Sad and tragic. > Incidentally, this is also how many animals that cats are estimated to kill in the United States each year.
- alfromspace 7y ago
  Nature is a cruel place. It's hard to grapple with as somebody who values animal life equally to human life, but also is cognizant of how far beyond our reach it is to remove all the tragedies that are really just part of the ecosystem.
- pera 7y ago
  That seems to me a quite useless and potentially misleading comparison. Scientists should be aware that everything they say can be used against their own work in the wild world of social networks.
- throwawaymath 7y ago
  What's the point being driven at here? Is it minimizing the deaths of Australian wildlife, or is it making a quip about the sheer scale of cat hunting activity? If it's the former, that seems like a bad comparison. The Australian wildfires are destroying ecosystems on a scale cats don't really do. And a much greater variety of wildlife is dying than what cats will typically kill. Finally, wildfires don't support life. They're naturally occurring things, but they are not an activity occurring in the support of other life. Cats kill to hone hunting skills (or simply to hunt, if they're actually hungry). With that observation we can impose a reasonable normative, which is that we don't need to accept wildfires the same way we accept predator activity. Put simply: I don't see that these two things belong to the same category of destruction.
  - jgust 7y ago
    > Finally, wildfires don't support life Not entirely true. Forest fires and prairie fires are a part of some plant lifecycles. https://www.britannica.com/list/5-amazing-adaptations-of-pyrophytic-plants https://www.britannica.com/list/5-amazing-adaptations-of-pyr...
  - CaptArmchair 7y ago
    It's a bad comparison, but for a different set of reasons. Wildfires aren't part of the fauna. This is true. But even without humans, there are wildfires. When wildfires happen, they create a new playing field for species to inhabit. Moreover, life has adapted over the course of millions of years to a low number of wildfires i.e. the spread of a species over a large territory whereas wildfires may be incidental and localized. The adaptability of a species to wildfires - amongst other things - is what defines it's resilience. The difference here is that the size and scope of these fires is far beyond the resilience of entire regional ecosystems. When this is over, what is lost won't return. It will be replaced by different species - plants and animals - that might not be as diverse or rich. We can safely assert that wild cats are inherently part of the ecosystem. However, if a billion animals being killed a year by cats, well, that's not due to the mere presence of cats as a species. But because of the overwhelming number of cats in the ecosystem. And that number is anything but normal. Cats are domesticated animals. The main reason why there are so many out there is simply because society tends to keep and protect cats. Cats and humans live in a symbiotic relationship. And that's why cats thrive as a species. Much to the detriment of other species. Put more poignantly, nobody would argue against the need for pet owners to keep their dogs to a leash and their pet snakes and other predators locked in cages. But cats are the major exception. There are no laws that restrict home owners to let cats go out of the door and roam the neighborhood killing each any small bird, mammal or reptile around. Whereas other wild species who espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats, foxes, mice - are seen as pests. And so, we can safely assert that neither mega wildfires nor the strain cats impose by their numbers are natural occurrences. In both cases, they are manifestations causes by irrational human behaviours.
    - MadWombat 7y ago
      > Whereas other wild species who espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats, foxes, mice - are seen as pests. I have not heard of anyone having a problem with rats and mice hunting other animals. They are mainly considered pests because they eat human food stores. And the only context I have heard of foxes considered pests is when they hunt livestock, chickens, geese etc. If a domestic cat starts hunting chickens, I am pretty sure it will have consequences as well.
layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
Only a billion? That can’t be right since a single ant colony can have tens of millions of ants...
- bobbles 7y ago
  Unfortunately the number does not include insects etc, so the actual numbers are devastatingly higher than those stated
  - ealexhudson 7y ago
    There was a biologist on BBC Radio 4 this morning making exactly the point, and actually going a few steps further: as well as the numbers being extremely high, there are a number of species endemic to Australia whose habitat is entirely within the areas of the fire. He was able to name three or four species which may be entirely extinct at this point due to the fires (obviously, until the fire's gone, it's difficult to tell for sure...)

john-radio 7y ago

Stealing this take from David Steen: > Sad and tragic. > Incidentally, this is also how many animals that cats are estimated to kill in the United States each year.

alfromspace 7y ago
Nature is a cruel place. It's hard to grapple with as somebody who values animal life equally to human life, but also is cognizant of how far beyond our reach it is to remove all the tragedies that are really just part of the ecosystem.
pera 7y ago
That seems to me a quite useless and potentially misleading comparison. Scientists should be aware that everything they say can be used against their own work in the wild world of social networks.
throwawaymath 7y ago
What's the point being driven at here? Is it minimizing the deaths of Australian wildlife, or is it making a quip about the sheer scale of cat hunting activity? If it's the former, that seems like a bad comparison. The Australian wildfires are destroying ecosystems on a scale cats don't really do. And a much greater variety of wildlife is dying than what cats will typically kill. Finally, wildfires don't support life. They're naturally occurring things, but they are not an activity occurring in the support of other life. Cats kill to hone hunting skills (or simply to hunt, if they're actually hungry). With that observation we can impose a reasonable normative, which is that we don't need to accept wildfires the same way we accept predator activity. Put simply: I don't see that these two things belong to the same category of destruction.
- jgust 7y ago
  > Finally, wildfires don't support life Not entirely true. Forest fires and prairie fires are a part of some plant lifecycles. https://www.britannica.com/list/5-amazing-adaptations-of-pyrophytic-plants https://www.britannica.com/list/5-amazing-adaptations-of-pyr...
- CaptArmchair 7y ago
  It's a bad comparison, but for a different set of reasons. Wildfires aren't part of the fauna. This is true. But even without humans, there are wildfires. When wildfires happen, they create a new playing field for species to inhabit. Moreover, life has adapted over the course of millions of years to a low number of wildfires i.e. the spread of a species over a large territory whereas wildfires may be incidental and localized. The adaptability of a species to wildfires - amongst other things - is what defines it's resilience. The difference here is that the size and scope of these fires is far beyond the resilience of entire regional ecosystems. When this is over, what is lost won't return. It will be replaced by different species - plants and animals - that might not be as diverse or rich. We can safely assert that wild cats are inherently part of the ecosystem. However, if a billion animals being killed a year by cats, well, that's not due to the mere presence of cats as a species. But because of the overwhelming number of cats in the ecosystem. And that number is anything but normal. Cats are domesticated animals. The main reason why there are so many out there is simply because society tends to keep and protect cats. Cats and humans live in a symbiotic relationship. And that's why cats thrive as a species. Much to the detriment of other species. Put more poignantly, nobody would argue against the need for pet owners to keep their dogs to a leash and their pet snakes and other predators locked in cages. But cats are the major exception. There are no laws that restrict home owners to let cats go out of the door and roam the neighborhood killing each any small bird, mammal or reptile around. Whereas other wild species who espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats, foxes, mice - are seen as pests. And so, we can safely assert that neither mega wildfires nor the strain cats impose by their numbers are natural occurrences. In both cases, they are manifestations causes by irrational human behaviours.
  - MadWombat 7y ago
    > Whereas other wild species who espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats, foxes, mice - are seen as pests. I have not heard of anyone having a problem with rats and mice hunting other animals. They are mainly considered pests because they eat human food stores. And the only context I have heard of foxes considered pests is when they hunt livestock, chickens, geese etc. If a domestic cat starts hunting chickens, I am pretty sure it will have consequences as well.

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago

Only a billion? That can’t be right since a single ant colony can have tens of millions of ants...

bobbles 7y ago
Unfortunately the number does not include insects etc, so the actual numbers are devastatingly higher than those stated
- ealexhudson 7y ago
  There was a biologist on BBC Radio 4 this morning making exactly the point, and actually going a few steps further: as well as the numbers being extremely high, there are a number of species endemic to Australia whose habitat is entirely within the areas of the fire. He was able to name three or four species which may be entirely extinct at this point due to the fires (obviously, until the fire's gone, it's difficult to tell for sure...)