Why cities should be designed for birds

nietp:

probablyasocialecologist:
Beyond just reducing hazards we need to recognize that cities can be a positive force on behalf of birds, and for the conservation of biodiversity more generally. Cities can play a significant role and serve as an important counterbalance to the loss of habitat elsewhere. Every design and building project in the city should be seen as the chance to make room for other species of life, especially birds. Habitats that will be good for birds will be good for humans as well.
Our city planning must change to better take the movement of birds and other animals into account: Ecological networks and connectivity will be essential. Most city plans rarely mention birds or take them into account. I think that should change, and we should usher in the era of bird-centric planning. When we do what is necessary to accommodate and make room for birds, we support many other animals as well. Cities should follow the example of Vancouver preparing a bird strategy and appointing a standing Bird Committee. We need to give more explicit attention to the interests of birds in the governance and planning of cities.
Cities can also be a force for the conservation of essential and intact ecosystems essential for many bird species. Cities can join together to support the many migratory birds they share in common, working both to protect habitat at home but also the habitats and environments they will travel through or spend time in during their lifecycle.
Architects, builders, elected officials, and others must recognize an ethical duty of care to protect birds and to minimize their pain and suffering. If this happens many things will change, and cities will see the adoption of bird-safe building standards as a moral imperative on a par with efforts to protect human health and safety.
Abundant bird life is the secret sauce for soul-nourishing cities. Birds matter tremendously, and their presence near to us in cities delivers delight and awe. It is hard to be lonely when birds are nearby. Our lives are richer, our days fuller, when we hear their magical voices of the fluttering energy and blur of color that birds provide. They make cities more interesting, infusing urban neighborhoods and spaces with a life force.

(via lovergirl)

bostonpoetryslam:

Elizabeth Bishop, from The Complete Poems, 1927-1979

(via poeticrose)

kpopgirlslover:

pixelartarchive:

low-poly pixel GameCube!

(via fuckyeah2000s)

wemustnotcursethepassageoftime:

whatever happens to me, i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better i know it’s for the better

(via rosewreathgoldenstar)

escuerzoresucitado:

(via probablyasocialecologist)

unicouniuni:

Uni.

(via ferpykins)

vraska-theunseen:

vraska-theunseen:
DID YOU ALL KNOW THAT YOU CAN DO WHATEVER UOU WANT WHEN YOURW MAKING ART ISNT THAT WILD
ALT
i have no defense against this. you’ve got me

(via ferpykins)

along-the-meadow-path:
“ Studio Ghibli + Butterflies
”

hotvampireadjacent:

tainbocuailnge:
microwavable-rice:
tainbocuailnge:
microwavable-rice:
tainbocuailnge:
it’s easy to dunk on people with poor reading comprehension or to look down on them (consciously or not) even if you’re not actively shaming them for “not getting it” or “being stupid” but it’s not actually helpful. it’s a worrying development that many people (particularly many young people) are becoming resistant to the idea that complex and/or challenging books have value but it’s also an understandable development, because in many cases it’s a reaction to being shamed for their struggles with literacy and not given the help they would’ve needed to develop an adequate level of literacy.
that’s not even going into what should even be considered an “adequate” level of literacy to begin with, because the truth is that a lot of people will simply never be able to read better than absolutely necessary to navigate their daily life, and this shouldn’t be treated as some kind of failure on their part. the goal of literacy education should be to give people the tools for self-sufficiency.
what’s worrying is not that there are a lot of people who don’t engage with complex texts, but that there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that there is something to be gained from engaging with complex texts. someone doesn’t have to read or understand shakespeare or kafka or what-have-you in order to live a fulfilling life, but when they become resistant to the idea that a text can have something going on beyond what’s immediately apparent on the surface, they become easy targets for deception. this hinders the self-sufficiency that literacy is supposed to provide them with.
the goal of you high school language class is not just to get you to analyze texts, but to introduce you to the idea that texts can be analyzed in the first place, even if you don’t go on to be particularly good at actually analyzing them yourself. you don’t need to be able to read between the lines to understand that it is possible to read between the lines, and that therefore a text that seems nonsensical to you at first may simply be written for an audience of a different skill level - this is only a problem if there is a mismatch between the complexity of the text and the literacy of its target audience. an inability to read for subtext is not a personal failure, nor does the ability to read for subtext make you a better person than someone who can’t. literacy is a skill, and like any skill there are people to whom it comes more easily than others.
calling people who are drawn to anti-intellectual rhetoric due to their struggles with literacy stupid is not going to encourage them to change their mind. developing media literacy and reading comprehension is something that is very difficult to do on your own, and doubly so if any attempt at trying to learn is met with derision for not already being able to do it. the problem is not people who only engage with easy texts, the problem is people growing hostile towards the idea that there is worth in engaging with more complex texts
if reading comprehension has always come naturally to you, it can be difficult to grasp how someone can fail to understand a text that you thought was easy enough to follow. I myself am guilty of snapping at people for misinterpreting me so wildly it seemed like they were doing it on purpose. you need to learn to suppress this kneejerk reaction, and instead see this frustration as common ground: you are both facing a situation where your communication skills are insufficient. what can you do to bridge this gap? how can you present this information in different ways that better suit how the other party processes information? keep in mind that this does not necessarily mean to simplify the information, because nobody likes being condescended to, and being condescended to is in many cases exactly what made these people hostile towards more complex ideas to begin with.
I don’t have an easy solution, because this is a complex problem, and what helps some people will inevitably be useless to many others. but I believe fostering a culture where you won’t be met with derision or ridicule for not understanding something or needing more explanation will go a long way. next time someone comments on your post with an absolutely baffling take that makes you wonder if they even read what you said, consider that maybe they are trying to engage with a text that is above their reading level, and they genuinely lack the ability to parse and retain the information you presented in the way you presented it. if you’re going to respond, try to do so in good faith.
this you?
I did say that. I don’t think being snappy at someone a year ago means I can’t try to become less snappy at people in the present though. this post is a reminder to myself as much as it is advice for others.
Oh sorry about that, let me clairfy. That isnt you being snappy- if thats what you want to call it- at someone. Thats you being snappy at me for making a nonserious post about an anime game. After which i called you out for being mean, you wrote a vague post insulting me, and then blocked me.
Im glad that you can practice good faith and kindness now. If you need a reminder to do so, by all means.
i blocked you after that because a lot of your posts make me mad and i realized i should’ve done so long before i got tempted to actually get mad at you directly. now that you’ve identified yourself I will block you again, and I encourage you to block and blacklist me as necessary too. may we never get in each other’s way again.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to just. Apologize for snapping at them… that’s really all they’re after. Trying to paint yourself like you’re above it bc it was some time ago doesn’t really count when the person you snapped at is still asking for you to own up to your actions and apologize.