"Aflockalypse Now" -- here's one possible explanation

[polaris93]

One possible reason for most -- not all, but most -- of the recent spate of mass deaths of birds and fish is that many birds and fish in the regions where these mass deaths have occurred have been weakened, physiologically speaking, by pesticides, other chemicals, and various non-chemical insults in their environment due to human activities. Up

Comments

due to human activities

[justgoto]

Here in eastern Ohio we had an infestation of gypsy moth type worms. Every walnut and cherry tree was eaten bare by midsummer.

Look at my videos.

I heard one news report on how it was common and harmless for whole trees to be eaten bare.

Re: due to human activities

[polaris93]

"Common" and "harmless" . . . When we plant groves of trees of species not native to a region in relatively dense concentrations and, at the same time, remove as much of the native growth in that area as possible, insects, other herbivores, plant viruses, and parasitic fungi aren't drawn off by anything else, and do terrible damage to those groves. At the same time, parasites, herbivores, and viruses new to the area get a free field to eat everything available because many species of native organisms of that sort have either died out or moved away because of removal of much of their normal habitat, and the same has happened to the creatures that formerly preyed on the damaging ones. So there those trees stand, helpless, as the invading armies converge on them, undeterred by anything but our pesticides -- and, after resistance creeps in, perhaps not even them. We've really screwed up.

Re: due to human activities

[polaris93]

By the way, I know that there's a terrible conflict involved here that has to do with production of food and other commodities versus the needs of the environment. In the long run, of course, there is no conflict there; as Ortega Y Gasset said, "The ends do justify the means -- because they are entailed in the means." We need a healthy biosphere, as do our crops; if the health of the biosphere fails, so do our crops -- and so do we. But in the short run, the grim reality of economics takes over, and farmers and other producers have to prioritize. When it comes to a choice between producing bountiful crops in a given season, and thus being able to support one's children and spouse and other dependents, on the one hand, and protecting the long-range interests of the biosphere, on the other, how can a farmer do otherwise in that season than protect his livelihood and thus his children, even if that also comes down to possibly damaging the wildlife and the environment around him

Third thoughts

[polaris93]

BTW, something I may not have made clear: pesticides are the least of what I'm referring to. Consider all the odd chemicals that go into making furniture, clothing, and other items we use all the time these days. The manufactories that make such things always have at least some leaks of those chemicals into the environment, because no process is perfectly efficient, and even a few molecules here and there can add up over time to a significant problem. Consider the landfills and other middens into which such items go when they are deemed no longer useful by anyone; eventually everything in the landfills breaks down and starts leaking into the ground, water, and around them -- and one of those middens is the world ocean, into which it all eventually comes. Consider our mining operations, and our uses of metal to make a host of things -- particles of metal from such things are released into the air and water and make their way to strange ports of call via winds and currents (sometimes to Antarctica and Greenland and the Arctic;