Slashdot Mirror
Humans Not Solely To Blame For Passenger Pigeon Extinction
sciencehabit (1205606) writes When the last passenger pigeon died at a zoo in 1914, the species became a cautionary tale of the dramatic impact humans can have on the world. But a new study finds that the bird experienced multiple population booms and crashes over the million years before its final demise. The sensitivity of the population to natural fluctuations, the authors argue, could have been what made it so vulnerable to extinction.
...we humans still hunted the crap out of it with absolutely no regard to the future of the species. I'd still say it was our fault.
How DARE someone say humans aren't to blame!
In discussion about potentially cloning passenger pigeons, there were concerns that the species needed huge flocks. As a result, there were concerns that cloning just a few wouldn't be enough to bring back the species.
Since this study showed that passenger pigeons had population crashes before and came back, this should alleviate the flock size concerns.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Much in the same way that Slashdot isn't entirely responsible for the "503, Service Unavailable" message I got when trying to follow the link.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Nothing beats squab and rice
What's the deal with the spate of ideologically-driven "scientific" studies appearing in the last couple of years? The first really blatant one I am aware of was the "organic food isn't more nutritious" study, which completely deflected from the point of organic food altogether. It was obviously a piece designed to confuse lay people into thinking organic food didn't have additional health benefits over conventionally-grown food. Now we see this piece, claiming that a species genetically equipped to survive huge fluctuations in population over millions of years was really just going to go extinct anyway and we just happened to be there to see it. These people should be blacklisted from scientific journals. They're not academically honest in the slightest.
If you read the actual study, the scientists didn't say that. The article only says that the rapid population spikes and crashes the passenger pigeon experienced made it more vulnerable to humans. "Here we use both genomic and ecological analyses to show that the passenger pigeon was not always super abundant, but experienced dramatic population fluctuations, which could increase its vulnerability to human exploitation." Furthermore, the point of the study was not to suggest that humans had no effect on passenger pigeons, but rather that even species with very large populations could be vulnerable to extinction pressures caused by humans if they are also vulnerable to the same effects that caused the passenger pigeon population swings. Nowhere do I see the article in question exonerate human effects from extinction.
Scientists like to be topical, and even when they aren't it's easy for their findings to be given a political spin or viewed through a political lens.
I don't know how respectable this research is, because I don't care enough to actually read it, and even if I did I am not remotely qualified to judge something in this field. I do know that even if the research is perfectly valid and the authors don't care about politics at all, it'll still aquire a political spin in the process of being turned into popular reporting. The left will go for the 'earth is delicate than we thought, so we must protect it' angle. The right will go for the 'Wiping out a species is really hard, and those pigeons were just a special case, so we can stop protecting the desert tortoise and give Bundy back his grazing land' angle.
An edible bird that was in direct competition with humans for nuts, berries, and cultivated grain happened to go extinct as these selfsame bipeds were settling a continent where the pigeons had previously flourished.
The causation is strong with this one.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
What's the deal with the spate of ideologically-driven "scientific" studies appearing in the last couple of years? The first really blatant one I am aware of was the "organic food isn't more nutritious" study, which completely deflected from the point of organic food altogether. It was obviously a piece designed to confuse lay people into thinking organic food didn't have additional health benefits over conventionally-grown food. Now we see this piece, claiming that a species genetically equipped to survive huge fluctuations in population over millions of years was really just going to go extinct anyway and we just happened to be there to see it. These people should be blacklisted from scientific journals. They're not academically honest in the slightest.
The majority of the scientific studies the media reports on are barely scientific, involve little study, and are mainly geared toward pushing ideology.
It has been this way for decades.
Will someone please tell me what is so precious about a pidgeon?
I wipe out the dandelions in my lawn ... and do the environmentalists rage on about that?
People kill billions of chickens every year and serve them up with alfredo sauce or cut up in nugget-sized pieces. Where's all the hoopla about that?
The point of this study was not to prove the environmentalists wrong. It was to gain a better understanding of what really happened. Heaven forbid if mankind should ever apply that magic thing called SCIENCE.
That's a load off my back!
On a serious note, we competed with these birds for food/nuts etc. Survival of the fittest would seem to apply
You have it backwards, the media spins the results of science for percieved political gain, not the other way around. There is absolutely nothing political about the claim that other factors may have played a part in their extinction.
As to the organic food study: Nutrition may not be "the point" in your mind, but there were certainly plenty of charlatans promoting it, there's even a 1970's clip on YT somewhere with Feynman himself having a go at the 'unscientific' claims of better nutrition from organically grow crops. The nutritional study injected facts into a factual vacum, even if nobody was interested in the study it is still worthy of publication. Nobody denies the health benfits of washing the copper-sulphate off your industrially grown tomatos before eating them (except maybe the pesticide company), but the study presented strong evidence that a tomato is a tomato no matter where it obtains the atoms that constitute it's genetically programmed flesh.
If you're finding politics and ideology in evidence based statement like either of those studies, it's not because the scientists put it there, you did that yourself while you were looking for reasons to reject the findings.
Disclaimer: I've been a "greenie" since the 70's, if the above findings are somehow an inconviennce to green politics then so be it, I want my government to formulate laws and policies that respect evidence, and adapt when contrary evidence is found. I want our politicins to be more like our scientists and engineers, get off their ideological high horses and get on with the job.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If the damn things hadn't been so delicious, they'd still be around!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Passenger pigeons must have been so delicious. Think about it.
if you bring back the passenger pigeon in some sort of wildlife preserve and they outgrow their food supply, how are you going to get the flock out of there?
You DO know that they fly, don't you?
Like in flocks of millions over continental distances?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There are not many scenario. You always survive population boom and crash until the last crash which you do not survive, interspersed with maybe a few stable periods. Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"Squab, by definition, are young domestic pigeons."
I thought it was a seat or couch cushion
What's the deal with the spate of ideologically-driven "scientific" studies appearing in the last couple of years? The first really blatant one I am aware of was the "organic food isn't more nutritious" study, which completely deflected from the point of organic food altogether.
It isn't more nutritious. What it is is lacking is some key nutrition components, like Roundup.
But all joking aside, it's better by virtue of what it lacks.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This sensationalist crap is just an excuse to get some publicity. Climate change had nothing to do with the pigeon's demise. It operates too slowly and migratory birds are not that sensitive because they can move around to find food sources. It was hunting, greed, and avarice. Nothing more.
If you're finding politics and ideology in evidence based statement like either of those studies, it's not because the scientists put it there, you did that yourself while you were looking for reasons to reject the findings.
Studies are funded by entities with biases, thus the studies have desired outcomes. The institutions that get the grants are the ones who can get the desired outcomes. It's not just the social "sciences" and hot "issues" like climate change. Even the hard sciences fall victim to this. It doesn't matter if you're trotting out an insignificant cock and bull story about why some species died or if you're hiding how many people your experimental drug killed.
Science is subject to the same power dynamics as everything else in society. People want power and will do dirty things to get it. Power in our society is related to money, political status, celebrity, and, as always, sex.
I have no idea why you responded to me with any of the other stuff in your post. I said nothing about organic foods. I said nothing about any specific study - I'm merely pointing out that science isn't some sacred cow immune to bias, influence, and impropriety. The vast majority of research is improperly influenced to various degrees. Research the media reports on is improperly influenced to higher degrees than research the media ignores. This is a simple result of the media reporting on what's interesting to viewers - controversial or divisive topics get trotted out, benign topics get ignored.
Science has ways of dealing with bias, influence, and impropriety. It can take a while, but it works.
Scientific institutions are usually devoted to finding things out. It's not easy to get most scientists to deliver a predetermined result, partly because people who do that tend not to become scientists, and partly because it can be devastating to one's reputation if found out. A peer-reviewed scientific paper is about as close to truthful and reliable as you're likely to get.
Science journalism can be very good. However, it often suffers from journalists not understanding the science, and not understanding how science works. Journalists tend to go for the sensational stories, and they often try to show both sides, even when one side is clearly correct. Journalists, on the whole, are far less reliable than scientists.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes