> Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List [1]
Cats are probably a leading cause of mortality in birds. [2] Domestic cats are not native to North America. The birds here would not have evolved to avoid them (and beyond that, domestic cat numbers are not limited by prey availability because they're pets bred and fed by humans).
You'll find plenty of studies with evidence that domestic cats are probably bad for bird populations. [3][4]
But to be fair, buildings/glass windows kill a lot of birds too. [5]
Suppose it's true that cats are bad for bird populations. The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. More than that, that cats should be imprisoned for their entire lives, when they naturally want to roam.
Someone can take one side of this ethical debate or the other, and both sides probably won't agree. I personally find it sad that people would place the well-being of birds above that of a wonderful, furry companion that clearly belongs to someone.
The logic also doesn't quite line up: I was hoping someone would try to justify why it's okay to kill flies but not birds, since that's the real counterargument to this one. Especially when they kill flies with their own hands.
So much of life boils down to "we're the apex species and we do what we want." But such is life. I find it difficult not to call out the absurdities when they appear, though.
To the topic at hand, how exactly is this quantified? I suspect that word "contributed" is doing a lot of work here. [2] seems to admit as much:
> True estimates of mortality are difficult to determine. However, recent studies have synthesized the best available data to estimated ranges of mortality to bird populations in North America from some of the most common, human-caused sources of bird mortality.
The numbers in [2] are admittedly pretty startling. But it looks like they come from one report labeled "2013a". Any info on where to find it, or what it even is? Otherwise it's easy to call [2] a citation when in fact no evidence whatsoever is being presente.
[4] is much better. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 But cats are still only a contributory factor, not the main cause; the report says they're the second leading cause of admissions, not the first. So, high, and worth thinking about.
But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." I'm not above saying that we should probably care about cats more than birds, because of the emotional bonds they form with humans. After all, that's why we're fine with flies being killed, right? No emotional bonds.
> The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat.
I don't think anyone's implying that? It just seems foolish to let your cat roam about. Not only are they at risk of getting stolen, but the risks of getting injured/killed or sick (or poisoned) are so much higher than if you keep them at home.
Whenever I hear about someone who's distraught about an outdoor cat of theirs that died while outside, I feel super bad for the cat, and not quite so much for the owner. That death could have been prevented, trivially.
I believe the Loss et al. 2013a numbers from [2] come from [1] Scott R. Loss (2013).
And, sure, you can look up some other studies [6] that will make you question the accuracy of the numbers but, even if you decrease the estimate by 70%, cats are still killing a lot of birds. Instead of #1 on the [2] list maybe they're #2 (behind buildings).
It's very easy to give a cursory search and see overall North American bird populations are decreasing. Heck, even flying insect biomass is significantly down.
We don't care about people killing flies in their house. We do care about flies dying on a mass scale. Flies are important pollinators! Ecosystems need them.
A few cats killing a few birds is no big deal. Millions of cats killing hundreds of millions of birds, in an ecosystem that shouldn't have cats, is a big deal.
If we armed every American human with flyswatters and sent them outside every day with orders to kill every flying insect they saw then it would probably be very bad (though I think this imagery is also hilarious).
I don't really want to get into my full opinion on the ethics and morality of pet ownership. Stealing other people's pets is wrong. I think if one lives in North America and feels their cat needs outdoor time then it should be supervised on their own property or train it and walk it with a harness and leash. Catios are neat too.
Once again: You kill flies. Sometimes dozens of them. Your conscience is clear. That's wildly selfish of you, yet you don't seem to care about the flies. Why not? They're just as much a part of the ecosystem as the birds.
Also, this entire discussion is off-topic. The point was for vets to verify microchips, something directly related to the article.
you literally just quoted something about "respond to the central argument" to me. instead of following your own advice, you are closing your eyes, saying "off-topic" and yelling "what about!". all the while, ignoring the entire argument being put forth (alongside the dozens of citations that back the argument up).
> I'm looking after for my cat's wellbeing, not some bird's
What a selfish way to look at things. So you think it's fine to bring invasive species into a new environment and let them damage the local ecosystem? Cool cool cool.
If you were truly looking after your cat's well-being, you'd keep them inside in the first place. Their attachment to roaming about is not as strong or essential as you seem to think it is.
Suppose someone were arguing that you should imprison your own child for their entire life, because every time they go outside, they kill ants. Would you still consider it selfish to disagree?
Except "the birds" aren't your animals. I don't know why there are so many low-quality comments tonight. It's as if people will address everything except my central point, which is: you routinely kill a bunch of stuff without batting an eye. Yet in this case, we're supposed to feel sorry for the birds, even though you don't feel sorry for flies or ants.
It's my legal right to let my animal roam. You can have a problem with it as much as you'd like. Just don't put your hands on my cat, and we're fine.
As far as I can tell, we seem to be living in an age where the entire world is a bit crazy on a certain topic. Slavery used to be legal, and normal. This to me is no different. You justify keeping them indoors for their entire lives on the basis that birds might die. That's asinine, especially from hypocrites that are happy to kill flies when it suits them. Cats don't harm you, and they don't harm your animals.
I didn’t say anything about birds or flies or ants.
I have pets. They are allowed into my yard. They don’t leave my yard. If your cat enters my yard because you don’t want to crimp their free spirited wanderlust, it’s going to end up in an altercation with my pets.
>Slavery used to be legal, and normal. This to me is no different.
people pointing out how damaging your cat is and saying you should keep it inside is the same as fucking slavery?
fuck me, that is one the most out-to-lunch things i have heard someone say in a long time. slavery! jesus christ.
go up to someone who has a family that suffered as slaves. tell them that keeping a cat indoors is the same as what their family suffered. please. i will watch it when it shows up in a worldstar video.
>Cats don't harm you, and they don't harm your animals.
there are probably ~50 citations in this thread about how they do, about how they have caused the extinction of multiple species, etc. but yeah, whatever.
> the cost of interceptors is greatly more expensive than the cost of building the conventional missiles
And the same thing is true with this comparison. The cost comparison is not interceptor vs conventional missile.
It's interceptor vs conventional missile + the damage the missile would have done.
Yes, you don't want to use Patriots to intercept Shaheds but that's an argument for using the right tool for the job. It's not an argument that the economics of interception are completely broken.
Ukraine has interceptors that are cheaper than Shaheds.
Nearly every time I add the free EGS games to my cart the checkout fails. I frequently have to restart the EGS client for checkout to work (and even then it fails often).
I launched EGS just now to time some comparisons and it's a black rectangle on my screen with no GUI (probably self-updating). I had to kill the process and restart it.
The Look and Feel for the EGS client just feels slow. Not that Steam is always amazing in this regard either but it's way better than EGS. Go to your EGS library and click between "favorites" and "all games". Switching from favorites to all games takes me ~4 seconds, every time (if you have any meaningful number of games).
The search/sort is slow. Steam's feels instant.
The library list has a ton of wasted space. In terms of vertical space, the Steam library lists three games for every game EGS lists.
The EGS social features compared to Steam are downright anemic (and Steam is pretty bad compared to something like Discord). You can't even set an avatar in EGS. Even EA's Store app (whatever they call Origin now) lets you do that.
Steam game releases seem to be up maybe a bit more than expected. [1]
And you can even see the number of new games that disclosed using generative AI (~21% in 2025). [2]
And that's probably significantly undercounting because I doubt everyone voluntarily discloses when they use tools like Claude Code (and it's not clear how much Valve cares about code-assistance). [3]
Also no one is buying or playing a lot of these games.
I think a fair number of us here got into computers because of playing computer games as kids.
The issue is setting limits.
Now obviously banning is easier and lower friction but limiting to an X time per day routine can also help with self-discipline. Depends on the person.
Kids can have the same issue with TV.
I had an issue as a kid with books. My parents had to limit my reading time because I would stay up all night under my covers with a flashlight reading.
There is a big difference between games now and games then. E.g. an SNES game was made to be fun, but not to be intentionally addictive, you would never buy a new game if it was.
Many online games are designed to be as addictive as crack to extract as much revenue as possible. Our kid is in the typical video gaming age, almost every kid of her age is stuck in Roblox and some in Fortnite.
Setting limits helps, but more broadly, games that require a monthly subscriptions or buying in-game currency should just be outright forbidden for anyone under 16 or 18. Yes, kids need to learn to recognize and suppress abusive patterns, but these addictive games, together with social media, and Youtube Shorts is destroying their mental health and normal, healthy exploration of the world.
I think parents are also failing in general. It's insane how many use tablets as a pacifier, some give 2 year-olds an iPad to play with. Or setting bad examples like using phones themselves at the dinner table.
I’m a parent. Girls 7 and 4. I think you’re right about a number of parent habits.
Hard to impose a device limit on a kid if that kid watches you use your device constantly. I’m not some hero here - constantly reminding myself to be aware.
Now, I think imposing limits in the open world is a specific challenge. To your point, you’ll see kids at restaurants on iPads. Well, now your kid wants iPad. You don’t give it? They start a shitstorm.
I don’t think an outright device ban is so critical. But limits are important, and even more important is sticking to what you said you would do as a parent. With mine, they sense that moment of giving and almost instinctually rush to exploit. That said, flexibility is important too - knowing when you use it.
As for game, I set a rule on an iPad. No games with ads. Those seem to be the worst of them, and there are tons.
Now, I think imposing limits in the open world is a specific challenge. To your point, you’ll see kids at restaurants on iPads. Well, now your kid wants iPad. You don’t give it? They start a shitstorm.
Our daughter certainly did not have access to an iPad at that age. Maybe she could use her mom's iPad (I don't have one) once every few weeks for a brief period. The shitstorm only happens a few times, they get over it pretty quickly.
It got harder once she was 9 or 10, because most kids have access to a phone after school. Once she got a phone and a tablet, there have been very clear time restrictions. A lot of kids hang around on devices all afternoon, the rule here on weekdays is that she can have some screen time before dinner. (I remember that also being TV time for us when we were kids.)
She was allowed to play on the Nintendo Switch when she was 7 or 8, but only fun, non-addictive games (the typical Nintendo titles) and no multi-player.
Hard to impose a device limit on a kid if that kid watches you use your device constantly. I’m not some hero here - constantly reminding myself to be aware.
Yeah, that is hard. I think banning phones from shared moments like (the time around) breakfast, dinner, or when having a cup of tea together is an easy and impactful move. Those are moments when they are also not playing, so it's a good time to be together without distractions.
My kiddos don't have that access either. They do have their own iPads but not with unlimited access. Most common usage: flights, long drives. Otherwise, no weekday or weekend usage for the most part.
As for the shitstorm, yes, they get used to your rule and calm down. But that was my point: lots of folks overreact and create the vicious cycle. Your kid complains, you give the phone, they shut up. Repeat. Repeat again. Now your kid expects the phone. And now you believe they will only ever stay calm if you give them the phone.
Breaking the cycle requires you to stick to your statements, but also, in public, to not give a shit about embarrassment. When you worry if you're disturbing everyone else or you feel inadequate as a part that can't calm a kid, you might give in. You can't!
PS: multiplayer games in my statement -> multi-player with me. Not internet.
Kudos dad/mom, that's a hard job. I feel like getting them exposed to technology and the dopamine generator that is games as a younger kid can help you teach more lessons around managing habits that can become maladaptive. Our world is increasingly engineered for addiction, and having conversations about self control starting young can help develop maturity. I know plenty of friends (2001 baby) that did not have access to internet/games until the 8th grade when the school provided laptops, and they STRUGGLED to handle the intensity of that distraction because they were never exposed and weren't taught healthy habits around technology. Exposure therapy is a great way to manage that.
Yes - I think the general approach of collaborating on things with your kids is the way to go, though not always the path I choose (I'm a normal dad with my own pluses and minuses).
But if you only ever say no, or the reverse, and never explain or attempt to explain, you're missing some opportunities to chat with your kids. They of course need to sort some things on their own too.
I think the reason for that is less that they didn't want to do it and more that they hadn't polished the mechanisms for it.
I've said before that the analogue for these sorts of games is arcade games - where you had to put in currency per unit time of enjoyment, and they had to try to guesstimate play time versus amount they're willing to pay for it and then would go in person to "test" arcades with early versions of games to see if they were wrong.
The internet reduced that feedback cycle to minutes, so we speedran evolution on it.
TBH, I don't see monthly fee games as even in the same category of concern - at least, not in a vacuum. Games with microtransactions, yes, absolutely, but that's true whether it's nominally a pay-once game or not, I think.
I said in another comment, I don't hate the idea of allowing microtransaction/gambling-style mechanics in games as long as they can't involve real currency on either side, if children are the market - not because I think it's great for kids, but because I think you're not going to manage to ban everything that's the same addictive "shape" as those, and allowing people to be exposed to that in a venue they care about, but with foam sword padding so you can't blow actual money on it, is probably a reasonable risk/reward balance.
(You might reasonably argue that this is just going to lead to kids being primed for addictive behaviors as adults, but the only thing that's going to help that is being mindful about it, e.g. education, and nothing short of people the kids respect reinforcing that is going to change that whether the games allow this sort of soft pain or not...and being exposed to something like Vegas naive or primed is going to, I think, have the same outcomes either way if you're not mindful about it.)
We set time limits on tablet and rules like getting your homework done first, but my 9 year old specifically begs me to let him have Roblox, which I think he is too young to play.
I told him he can play it, but he has to beat Chrono Trigger (tablet version) first. He didn't even get to the county fair and gave up, saying it was too boring, the nerve!
But also maybe the parent post and you refer to kids of different ages?
I didn't have access to a computer until I was 9, and then also we didn't have tables and smartphones, so there computer was only available at home as well.
I think below a certain age the limit is fine to be set as 'not at all'.
Anecdote here: I was given a computer at age 4, and I didn't really have any limits on how long I could use it. On the other hand, I wasn't allowed to register any accounts and I had to ask before visiting sites I had never been to before. >75% of my time on the computer at that age was spent on hacking with Scratch. I learned a lot and developed my love of computers at that age. I'm absolutely glad that I didn't have "screen time", but I can also see that if I didn't have the limits I did I could have ended up pretty badly.
I know I had a pretty bad overuse of TV as a kid.. that said, my mom's restriction of an hour a day was a bit too restrictive imo, didn't last long though, because hanging out in the livingroom in the evenings was kind of a given, even if I didn't get to choose what was on...
The computer games I used to play are nothing like the stuff my son is playing. Its not just a matter of how much time is spent. They are the same as social media, engineered for maximum engagement, contain ads or try to sell you something .
Can probably ignore rent savings. In the article the author says she missed her husband, kids, and dog so she still had some of the same costs going on back home.
And Wikipedia says she earned a Ph.D. in 2004 and lives in NYC [1]
https://archive.md/VQNcJ (sadly this isn't the updated version with the 18 wellbeing experts line)
But basically it's about Zuckerberg testimony and evidence in an ongoing court case in California. I believe case 23SMCV03371 but there's a number of coordinated cases. [0]
From reading other articles[1][2][3][4] about the testimony I think "18 wellbeing experts" is referring to external consultation funded by Meta/Instagram that appears to have overwhelmingly turned up concerns about the impact beauty filters could have on young girls (who weren't even supposed to be on the platform in the first place).
There's some stuff with internal Meta employees also raising concerns. I didn't see anything about internal Meta employees saying it was ok but of course it's hard to know without free access to actual court transcripts and exhibits.
Zuckerberg himself said they decided to allow the filters but not recommend them and that not allowing the filters would have been paternalistic.
Cats are probably a leading cause of mortality in birds. [2] Domestic cats are not native to North America. The birds here would not have evolved to avoid them (and beyond that, domestic cat numbers are not limited by prey availability because they're pets bred and fed by humans).
You'll find plenty of studies with evidence that domestic cats are probably bad for bird populations. [3][4]
But to be fair, buildings/glass windows kill a lot of birds too. [5]
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
[2] https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds#:~:tex...
[3] https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/7/322
[4] https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737
[5] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
reply