Both the reading and the lecture discuss the effect of the growth of the human population on the number of birds. The reading claims that the growth of human population will result a decline in the number of birds in the United states, and provides three reasons of support. However, in the lecture, the professor says that the reading's explanations are unconvincing and refutes each of the reading's reason.
First, the reading avers that since the growing population of human needs more land to settle, birds' natural habitats will continue to disappear and causes a decrease in their population. The professor opposes this idea by saying that this might be true for some birds, but there are some other birds that this change increased their population like pigeons. She says that this claim is not true because the decline is not uniform, some birds show a decline while others show a growth in their population.
Second, the reading states that the need of increasing agricultural activities will result in the further destruction of birds' habitats. The professor rejects this by saying that at least in the USA less and less lands have been used each year for agriculture. She says that the new approach in agriculture is producing high yield products, which could produce more food in less land.
Finally, the reading pushes forth the idea that chemical pesticides are harmful for birds. The professor contradicts this point by saying that it is true that chemical pesticides are toxic for birds but it is incorrect to apply this to the future. Since we realized that pesticides are toxic, scientist made two changes; first: producing less toxic pesticides, second: trying to produce pest-resistant crops. Therefore, pesticides will not be harmful for birds in the future.
Both the
reading
and the lecture discuss the effect of the growth of the human
population
on the number of
birds
. The
reading
claims that the growth of human
population
will result a decline in the number of
birds
in the
United states
, and provides three reasons of support.
However
, in the lecture, the
professor
says that the reading's explanations are unconvincing and refutes each of the reading's reason.
First
, the
reading
avers that since the growing
population
of human needs more land to settle, birds' natural habitats will continue to disappear and causes a decrease in their
population
. The
professor
opposes this
idea
by saying that this might be true for
some
birds
,
but
there are
some
other
birds
that this
change
increased their
population
like pigeons. She says that this claim is not true
because
the decline is not uniform,
some
birds
show
a decline while others
show
a growth in their population.
Second, the
reading
states that the need of increasing agricultural activities will result in the
further
destruction of birds' habitats. The
professor
rejects this by saying that at least in the USA
less
and
less
lands have been
used
each year for agriculture. She says that the new approach in agriculture is producing high yield products, which could produce more food in
less
land.
Finally
, the
reading
pushes forth the
idea
that chemical
pesticides
are harmful for
birds
. The
professor
contradicts this point by saying that it is true that chemical
pesticides
are toxic for
birds
but
it is incorrect to apply this to the future. Since we realized that
pesticides
are toxic, scientist made two
changes
;
first
: producing
less
toxic
pesticides
, second: trying to produce pest-resistant crops.
Therefore
,
pesticides
will not be harmful for
birds
in the future.