8 ms·

If we cared about birds we'd be aggressively controlling the cat population.

by rootusrootus 3y ago

throwaway5752 3y ago
deleted
- anticorporate 3y ago
  I think you and the parent commenter are using different scopes for the word "we" in this case. There are some great programs in places to manage feral cat populations, but in many areas they are no where close to large enough to help fix population-level impacts on birds.
- jfengel 3y ago
  The OP is pointing out that most pearl-clutching about the effects of wind turbines comes from people who don't care about birds in any other context. It's solely a way to continue fossil fuel production, using the language of environmentalism. A serious discussion of the safety of birds would sound very different, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to talk about anything other than reducing fossil fuel production.
  - wredue 3y ago
    Ridiculous argument. Why on earth would people care about the birds in the context of natural processes compared to unnatural processes? This is a monumentally stupid apples and oranges “gotcha”.
    - arghwhat 3y ago
      Ridiculous arguments are unfortunately common, and end up being part of politics and ultimately planning and decision-making. Natural vs. unnatural is irrelevant though. "Nature" is normally out to kill you for its own benefit and does not care if the planet or any of its lifeforms survives. What matters is our interests in preserving the world we know or improving it in our eyes, and picking the best option for that. The option that minimizes worldwide cancer development and doesn't screw up weather systems and various biomes would be the winner in that regard.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      > natural processes I'm curious, what are you thinking of when you say 'natural processes'? I hope it's not cats.
      - masklinn 3y ago
        Or oil spills.
      - wredue 3y ago
        Symbiotic relationships are, in fact, a completely natural phenomena that is observed in non-human animal behaviour.
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        Housecats are not a symbiotic relationship. Seriously?
        wredue 3y ago
        Of course they are.
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
Cats are a scapegoat to deflect the incalculable damage done to wildlife by humans themselves, their industries and habitat expansion.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  No, such argument is whataboutism. Bigger problems do not invalidate smaller ones. The only case where your point would matter is if we could only fix one or the other - human- or cat-induced damage - but that is not the case. They can be addressed independently and in parallel. I like cats though...
  - VoodooJuJu 3y ago
    No, that's not what whataboutism is. Whataboutism is if someone says something like "Oh, yeah well, we have a bigger problem - humans kill more, so who cares about cats?" No. I'm literally saying that when it comes to cats killing birds, there is no problem. There's no radical ecological devastation happening. There's nothing to fix. What is happening is that the number of birds killed by cats is emotionally large, such that humans interpret it as a problem, because big numbers are scary. "Did you know cats kill close to 4 billion birds every year? That's awful! We have to do something!" "Did you know that spiders kill and consume 600 million metric tons worth of animals every year? That's awful! That's more meat than humans eat! We have to do something!" Except, we don't, because no matter how scared you are of big numbers, their presence doesn't mean there's a problem. Similarly, with cats, we can maybe make their bird-killing sound even scarier by framing it like the spiders above: "Cats are killing 1 million metric tons worth of birds every year! Birds are doomed! We have to do something!" Big numbers scare me too, especially the spiders one. 600 million metric tons is a lot of meat. Four billion birds sounds like a lot. But are these problems? Don't think so.
    - k__ 3y ago
      However, the cats differ from spiders. They wouldn't exist in such large masses if they weren't bred and fed by humans. So, there is at least the argument to make, that if we didn't hoard so many cats, the naturally occurring ones would probably kill less birds.
tzs 3y ago
Generally we care about a bird species as a whole rather than about individual birds of that species. If something is killing birds, even a lot of birds, but in a place where those birds are abundant and whatever is killing them will just lower lower their equilibrium population a bit rather than set it on a decline or lower it so far that they might die out in the area then there generally isn't a lot of concern over it. Hence activities in places with species of birds that have low population or are threatened or endangered tend to draw more concern than activities in places where that isn't the case even if the latter kills way more total birds.
- uoaei 3y ago
  This is a thoughtful response, put in words I've been missing for a while, to some reasons why the EA crowd seem to be hyperoptimizing on the wrong cost functions (not to mention the ethical dangers that come about when insisting all questions of ethics can be quantified).
- coryrc 3y ago
  Cats are killing endangered birds everywhere outside their native range. They are killing them in the Americas, in Australia, in New Zealand... basically everywhere that's not Europe, Africa, or West Asia IIUC. One reason you might not think it's a big deal is because the genocide is almost complete. They've already killed off 63 species and more in progress: https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/ https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/
  - nullstyle 3y ago
    Felis Catus doesn't have a native range in any meaningful manner, IMO. They are a global species like us, because of us. You can't put that cat back in the bag no matter the .22 cartridges you expend.
    - throwaway03675 3y ago
      That shouldn't stop us from trying to limit their growth. "The cat is out of the bag" so to speak, but a lot of the growth comes from runaway cats, or cats that have been abandoned by their owners (happens more often than you think) We could start by requiring all domestic cats to be sterilized, so that they don't breed. Then the cat population would be limited to certified breeders and wild cats. We could also have the same restrictions on cats as dogs. They should not be allowed to be outside unless they are in leash or in a controlled environment (the latter is hard, as cats can climb over standard fences). I guess fully enclosed "cat parks" would be an option. You may have a harder time training a cat to wear a leash compared to a dog, but it's possible. It's strange to me that we think cats need to be outside to satisfy their predator instincts, as if dogs and other animals like to be inside all day while we are at work. If someone doesn't like that thought, they have the option of not owning a cat.
foxyv 3y ago
Cats are mostly a problem because of suburban sprawl. You don't see many cats where there are no human residences. By creating massive sprawling car dependent suburbs we make huge deadly areas for birds. If we instead focused on making smaller walkable communities with public transport, then we could reduce the habitat destruction and have more land for birds and other wildlife.

If we cared about birds we'd be aggressively controlling the cat population.

throwaway5752 3y ago

deleted

anticorporate 3y ago
I think you and the parent commenter are using different scopes for the word "we" in this case. There are some great programs in places to manage feral cat populations, but in many areas they are no where close to large enough to help fix population-level impacts on birds.
jfengel 3y ago
The OP is pointing out that most pearl-clutching about the effects of wind turbines comes from people who don't care about birds in any other context. It's solely a way to continue fossil fuel production, using the language of environmentalism. A serious discussion of the safety of birds would sound very different, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to talk about anything other than reducing fossil fuel production.
- wredue 3y ago
  Ridiculous argument. Why on earth would people care about the birds in the context of natural processes compared to unnatural processes? This is a monumentally stupid apples and oranges “gotcha”.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    Ridiculous arguments are unfortunately common, and end up being part of politics and ultimately planning and decision-making. Natural vs. unnatural is irrelevant though. "Nature" is normally out to kill you for its own benefit and does not care if the planet or any of its lifeforms survives. What matters is our interests in preserving the world we know or improving it in our eyes, and picking the best option for that. The option that minimizes worldwide cancer development and doesn't screw up weather systems and various biomes would be the winner in that regard.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > natural processes I'm curious, what are you thinking of when you say 'natural processes'? I hope it's not cats.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      Or oil spills.
    - wredue 3y ago
      Symbiotic relationships are, in fact, a completely natural phenomena that is observed in non-human animal behaviour.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Housecats are not a symbiotic relationship. Seriously?
        wredue 3y ago
        Of course they are.

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

Cats are a scapegoat to deflect the incalculable damage done to wildlife by humans themselves, their industries and habitat expansion.

arghwhat 3y ago
No, such argument is whataboutism. Bigger problems do not invalidate smaller ones. The only case where your point would matter is if we could only fix one or the other - human- or cat-induced damage - but that is not the case. They can be addressed independently and in parallel. I like cats though...
- VoodooJuJu 3y ago
  No, that's not what whataboutism is. Whataboutism is if someone says something like "Oh, yeah well, we have a bigger problem - humans kill more, so who cares about cats?" No. I'm literally saying that when it comes to cats killing birds, there is no problem. There's no radical ecological devastation happening. There's nothing to fix. What is happening is that the number of birds killed by cats is emotionally large, such that humans interpret it as a problem, because big numbers are scary. "Did you know cats kill close to 4 billion birds every year? That's awful! We have to do something!" "Did you know that spiders kill and consume 600 million metric tons worth of animals every year? That's awful! That's more meat than humans eat! We have to do something!" Except, we don't, because no matter how scared you are of big numbers, their presence doesn't mean there's a problem. Similarly, with cats, we can maybe make their bird-killing sound even scarier by framing it like the spiders above: "Cats are killing 1 million metric tons worth of birds every year! Birds are doomed! We have to do something!" Big numbers scare me too, especially the spiders one. 600 million metric tons is a lot of meat. Four billion birds sounds like a lot. But are these problems? Don't think so.
  - k__ 3y ago
    However, the cats differ from spiders. They wouldn't exist in such large masses if they weren't bred and fed by humans. So, there is at least the argument to make, that if we didn't hoard so many cats, the naturally occurring ones would probably kill less birds.

tzs 3y ago

Generally we care about a bird species as a whole rather than about individual birds of that species. If something is killing birds, even a lot of birds, but in a place where those birds are abundant and whatever is killing them will just lower lower their equilibrium population a bit rather than set it on a decline or lower it so far that they might die out in the area then there generally isn't a lot of concern over it. Hence activities in places with species of birds that have low population or are threatened or endangered tend to draw more concern than activities in places where that isn't the case even if the latter kills way more total birds.

uoaei 3y ago
This is a thoughtful response, put in words I've been missing for a while, to some reasons why the EA crowd seem to be hyperoptimizing on the wrong cost functions (not to mention the ethical dangers that come about when insisting all questions of ethics can be quantified).
coryrc 3y ago
Cats are killing endangered birds everywhere outside their native range. They are killing them in the Americas, in Australia, in New Zealand... basically everywhere that's not Europe, Africa, or West Asia IIUC. One reason you might not think it's a big deal is because the genocide is almost complete. They've already killed off 63 species and more in progress: https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/ https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/
- nullstyle 3y ago
  Felis Catus doesn't have a native range in any meaningful manner, IMO. They are a global species like us, because of us. You can't put that cat back in the bag no matter the .22 cartridges you expend.
  - throwaway03675 3y ago
    That shouldn't stop us from trying to limit their growth. "The cat is out of the bag" so to speak, but a lot of the growth comes from runaway cats, or cats that have been abandoned by their owners (happens more often than you think) We could start by requiring all domestic cats to be sterilized, so that they don't breed. Then the cat population would be limited to certified breeders and wild cats. We could also have the same restrictions on cats as dogs. They should not be allowed to be outside unless they are in leash or in a controlled environment (the latter is hard, as cats can climb over standard fences). I guess fully enclosed "cat parks" would be an option. You may have a harder time training a cat to wear a leash compared to a dog, but it's possible. It's strange to me that we think cats need to be outside to satisfy their predator instincts, as if dogs and other animals like to be inside all day while we are at work. If someone doesn't like that thought, they have the option of not owning a cat.

foxyv 3y ago

Cats are mostly a problem because of suburban sprawl. You don't see many cats where there are no human residences. By creating massive sprawling car dependent suburbs we make huge deadly areas for birds. If we instead focused on making smaller walkable communities with public transport, then we could reduce the habitat destruction and have more land for birds and other wildlife.