For instance, habitat loss is thought to pose by far the greatest threat to birds, both directly and indirectly, however, its overall impact on bird populations is very difficult to directly assess.
deforestation, development and agriculture are, as ever, #1 by far. only climate destabilization will likely ever surpass the twin-headed monster of urbanization and monoculture eating the world and shitting out dollars. literally millions of acres of diverse, complex habitat are lost every year in the US alone, denuded, stripped, and converted to fragile, energy sucking moonscapes.
sure. the ways we, in particular, create built environments and the ways we, in particular, manage land to provision resources are intensely destructive in the era of cheap fossil energy. our concepts of urbanization and agriculture are contingent on destroying/displacing all biota that do not maximize monetary ROI. there is no reason we cannot have cities with habitats, enclaves, and carve outs etc for non-dangerous wildlife. the same is true for our agricultural systems. it necessitates a quasi deep ecology approach to the world and planning our use of space, and one that accepts the geographic linkages and accountability of densely planned metropolises for the hinterlands they enslave and destroy to feed, clothe, and entertain their inhabitants.
i am not against agriculture anymore than i am against urbanization, but we are doing them both in a way that needs serious reform.
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds
deforestation, development and agriculture are, as ever, #1 by far. only climate destabilization will likely ever surpass the twin-headed monster of urbanization and monoculture eating the world and shitting out dollars. literally millions of acres of diverse, complex habitat are lost every year in the US alone, denuded, stripped, and converted to fragile, energy sucking moonscapes.
deleted by creator
sure. the ways we, in particular, create built environments and the ways we, in particular, manage land to provision resources are intensely destructive in the era of cheap fossil energy. our concepts of urbanization and agriculture are contingent on destroying/displacing all biota that do not maximize monetary ROI. there is no reason we cannot have cities with habitats, enclaves, and carve outs etc for non-dangerous wildlife. the same is true for our agricultural systems. it necessitates a quasi deep ecology approach to the world and planning our use of space, and one that accepts the geographic linkages and accountability of densely planned metropolises for the hinterlands they enslave and destroy to feed, clothe, and entertain their inhabitants.
i am not against agriculture anymore than i am against urbanization, but we are doing them both in a way that needs serious reform.
could do slightly less dense cities with agriculture within the city like how Cuba does allotments