Progressing into a Bird-Less Era

Look! It’s a bird… No, a plane… Wait, it’s both?

Progressives and environmentalists alike cringe to hear stories of man and nature colliding in highly preventable accidents, such as the recent flight 1549 plane crash into the Hudson River which was apparently caused by a large bird striking the plane and taking out one or more of its engines. However, are problems like this resolvable for both humans and nature, or is it inevitable that human progress will always come out on top in the struggle for human consideration?

Well, if you believe that very little consideration for the birds at all to be a reasonable amount, then yes. Leading researchers are developing new technology to allow airplanes to withstand the force of even larger birds than they already can. According to reports, instead of sucking up birds of 4 to 5 pounds or smaller, researchers are trying to achieve propeller strengths that can obliterate flying objects (unidentified or otherwise) of up to 20 pounds. Watch out flying geese!
But wouldn’t it be way smarter for someone to figure out a way to keep objects out of the plane’s vortex all together as opposed to the steam roller approach in which anything in the plane’s path is destroyed? Well, that sounds reasonable enough, but I’m far from a scientist myself and I have very little power in persuading the great minds of the world to make that technology available in the future. So until then, mitigating the damages that these two parties can and do inflict upon each other must be considered.

Proposed alternatives to solve the problem include re-routing bird migration patterns, relocating bird habitats farther away from runways, utilizing natural predators of the birds such as falcons to catch and ward off the birds, and remodeling airport areas to include less water and foliage so that they attract fewer birds. All of these seem like fairly feasible ideas; however, none seem to take into consideration the plight of the birds. Climate change and habitat destruction coupled with increased accessibility to food, decrease in natural predator populations, and birds becoming increasingly “familiar” with humans and their civilizations are responsible for an explosive bird population boom over the last few decades. The bird population in North America has quadrupled since 1990 and, in turn, the number of bird-airplane collisions has increased from approximately 1500 to nearly 8000 during that same time period. Additionally, over the past few decades commercial airplanes have converted from four or six engines to two quieter engines per plane, making them less detectable by birds and more prone to crashing in the event of a collision.

All of these factors contributing to the increase in bird-airplane collisions have been the result of human activity. Yet no proposed solutions involve curtailing or modifying human activity. The major problem in this situation is not the fact that birds and planes are coming into contact more often. It is the fact that humans, the more advanced of the two species, have developed a blatant and unabashed disregard for the proliferation of other species. Countless innovations in human society have developed at the expense of nature, yet very little has been done to innovate solutions for the benefit of nature. Human activity and advancement seem to be spurred by selfish motives such as prestige or monetary compensation rather than a sense of obligation to protect the environment that we live in.

While it is obvious that humans will continue to evolve more sophisticated technology that may or may not endanger the natural environment, it is important that we consider the consequences of such advancements for the future of the environment and the humans that will inhabit it. Right now problems such as the bird-plane collision dilemma that effect both humans and the environment in a negative way are being examined. However, I guarantee if the birds were the only party being negatively impacted by the situation this problem would get very little attention if any.

Saturday, March 28, 2009