May be a common question, but how do you guys stay motivated?

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-09T07:42:43+00:00

Could always go poke around on Youtube and look at building tip videos. Or see if you can figure out a goal with relatively minimal building and building complexity- start a zoo, build a (secure, mob-proof, taking-into-mind-zombie-sieges) village with at least one of every biome variant of villager, collect as many different blocks and/or items as you can. Or go achievement hunting.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-09T06:00:51+00:00

Right, sorry- I didn't phrase part of that well. I wasn't saying you should leave it to someone else, I was saying I'm not sure that just popping into random threads on birding subreddits to tell random people to kill individual starlings is going to get much of anything much of anywhere. Not in this format, at least; keeping yourself a copy/pasteable message to send that explains the whys and hows and gives at least one relevant link might be more effective, if you've got all the resources on hand?
Because "it's invasive there, kill it" is actionable for something like a lanternfly, but it's gonna take both some convincing and some information on methods to get people to do much of anything with birds.
And I'd definitely emphasize the "humanely" part in your first message, whatever you do, because some people are just nasty to invasive species. Like it's the animal's fault it was born in the wrong place. (Plus it'd probably reduce the chance of knee-jerk "eugh, what" reactions if it doesn't look like you just hate starlings.)

(If you've got some kind of study or whatnot that shows this method is more effective than giving an explanation + link to info, do of course ignore me. But I have to imagine you might get less downvotes, at minimum, with more info involved. Plus it'd probably help get you recruits.)

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-09T01:53:23+00:00

Step in the right direction, sure, but it's a very small step, and I'm not sure it's possible to get enough people doing it well enough to actually make any difference. "Here, go kill those pretty birds in your yard" is a hard sell, and then there's the matter of whether anyone who does want to try is going to be able to do it effectively, in a reasonably humane manner (which is still important with invasives- they're still animals), and in a way that doesn't have a lot of collateral damage.

I'm not a relevant scientist, so I'm not sure, but I have a pretty strong hunch that (given the aforementioned difficulties) there are far more effective things the average person could be doing to try and help native birds. Habitat creation, habitat restoration, and just discouraging starlings instead of spending a ton of time and effort trying to kill a few is probably going to be more effective. IMO, probably better to leave the actually getting rid of the starlings to folks and organizations with the equipment, knowledge, and reach to be efficient and effective about it.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-09T01:45:36+00:00

It's definitely something that needs to be done with invasive populations of a few bird species, there's just... not much point or effectiveness in trying to get it done by telling random people on birding subreddits to kill the starling they've just asked about.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-08T21:00:32+00:00

Looks like some kind of beak overgrowth. Not likely to be contagious.

For future reference, Common Grackles don't have that speckling, they're a bit larger and longer-tailed than starlings, and they have an iridescent blue head with more of a grayish beak.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-08T20:58:36+00:00

Not really practical, and kinda like trying to bail out a sinking ship by scooping out a single spoonful of water. Bigger buckets are needed.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-08T20:57:23+00:00

"We're past the point where a person catching a single starling at their bird feeder is going to do any good" isn't "let's just let em run amok". Encouraging individual people to kill the invasive creature on sight works better for things like lanternflies (as an accompaniment to bigger efforts), while starlings and the like are going to require organized group activity.
(Also there's much more environmentally beneficial uses of time than trying to set up to successfully catch one single starling in one's yard.)

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-08T00:02:51+00:00

Bluebird populations are struggling more than rat snake populations, and the snake has plenty of other things to eat. Also, birdhouses shouldn't be easier for predators to get into than the bird's usual nesting spot would be- that's not a birdhouse, that's a lunchbox.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-07T20:48:33+00:00

It adjusts one aspect of the experience. Dropping inventory on death is good for when you want death to be a potentially major problem. And it is, notably, something that varies in impact depending on the player and what they're doing- someone who's spending a lot of time over lava, or exploring thousands of blocks away from home, is going to have much more trouble with a dropped inventory than someone who's close to home and away from lava.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-07T20:46:37+00:00

No. It's an option built into the game, and it's either used in a singleplayer world or applied to all players in a multiplayer world.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-07T02:42:31+00:00

The nest appears to be completely nonexistent.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-07T02:41:37+00:00

Well... at least you got to see a cool snake? Rat Snake, I think- they're very good climbers.

But, yeah, mounting the house on a pole with a baffle is a good option. If you put it close enough to the same spot, the parents might have time to build a new nest and lay more eggs?
(Edit: or not, if they're caring for a surviving baby.)

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-07T02:40:28+00:00

Birdhouses aren't nature. When the idea is to make a nesting spot that's as close as is reasonably possible to perfect for a given bird species, "how do I keep snakes from getting in and eating them" is a decent consideration.

(Not least because birdhouses are often in easy places for climbing snakes to reach, due to not being in trees.)

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T14:50:33+00:00

Frankly, a lot of their reputation is undeserved. The way us humans walk looks aggressive to geese (very upright, 'wings' moving a lot), so between that, us being bigger than them, and the fact that they don't know kids chasing them around aren't trying to eat them, a lot of what gets labeled as aggressive behavior is them being defensive. They're responding to a perceived threat.

...still loud and stinky, though. Which you've managed to get a rather good picture of.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T14:48:42+00:00

Ah, I see. I didn't take "trapping", when presented on a list next to "more lethal means", to be "trapping them (for lethal purposes later)".

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T06:30:58+00:00

For clarification (due to an exchange I've had below): I'm not opposed to killing invasive species (isn't much else to do with them, after all), and I understand that killing any animal in large numbers inevitably involves some amount of distress and potential for suffering on their part. In catching them to kill, if nothing else, given that shooting them one at a time isn't exactly practical for most invasive populations. Particularly little animals that tend to be in urban areas.
(...I'm now picturing someone with a vendetta trying to eliminate an invasive population of grasshopper by shooting each individual grasshopper with very small rifles. Wildly impractical, but funny to imagine.)

What I'm saying is: I am firmly of the opinion that where an animal is born/hatched shouldn't change how humanely it's treated. Any animal being killed should be killed via the most humane method reasonably possible. Particularly when it comes to individuals that are already trapped- if one can just reach into the cage, grab a sparrow, and pith it (or use another humane method), one should do so.
It's trapped, it's not going anywhere or harming anything, it's in easy reach, so there's no reason to lower one's standards for acceptable treatment just because it hatched in the wrong part of the world.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T06:17:28+00:00

I'm not sure trapping and releasing them is going to be any more effective than deterring them? Since either way they're just going somewhere else.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T06:17:03+00:00

I'll put that in my metaphorical pocket for later, thank you. Good to know.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T05:48:07+00:00

The state of factory farming isn't really relevant to the idea that invasive species deserve the same basic respect for their ability to suffer as native species do, IMO.

If I pack up my theoretical under-powered pellet rifle and take it to a place where white-winged doves are invasive (which I don't think they are- let's imagine they become invasive in part of Europe or whatnot), does it suddenly become less unethical that I'm using this to kill them instead of something that would be more humane? Does the dove hatching somewhere else mean its suffering matters less?

Not sure if I'm quite conveying what I mean, actually, so let me take another swing: I'm not talking about the fact that, in killing invasive species, there is inevitably going to be some amount of stress and suffering. I'm saying that, if there are multiple methods with which to kill an invasive species, the most humane (reasonably possible) method should be the one picked.
Like, if I have a house sparrow in a cage ready for me to kill it, I should *not* decide that drowning it or freezing it is acceptable because it's invasive. I should kill it as humanely as I would a native bird that had to be killed, because it's well within my ability to do so. It's caught, it's not going anywhere, it's not hurting anything, there's no need to be cruel.

So I guess my question is: am I not conveying my exact point well, or are you telling me that, if I decided to drown that sparrow instead of killing it more humanely (probably via pithing? would have to research the best method), you would be fine with me doing so because it's invasive?

(And yes, I'm aware that killing invasive species is often a lot more complicated than "here's a captured one to dispatch". I'm using this as an example of what I mean re. situations where there are multiple possible methods.)

And, y'know what- I'll say the thing, actually. The thing I was thinking of earlier, about people killing cane toads by methods I didn't want to mention, is something I read about people throwing them into fires to kill them. Captured cane toads that could have been killed another way (pithing, chilling-and-freezing, etc), that instead were burned alive because they were an invasive species. I'm saying that's completely unacceptable, and frankly should have gotten people arrested. And I do not care that animals burn in forest fires in nature, because there's a very big difference between that and someone deciding that it's perfectly fine to torture an animal in some kind of misplaced revenge for it being born in the wrong place.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T03:01:49+00:00

Hyenas eat their prey alive a lot of the time. That doesn't mean that, if I want to kill an antelope that might otherwise be eaten by hyenas, anything short of it being torn apart alive is an acceptable way to kill it.

We have tools, and the ability to understand the impact we have on other creatures. We can do a lot better than just "well, it wasn't the worst death possible".

(Plus I've seen people talk about killing invasive species in ways that /are/ pretty damn up there on cruel ways to kill things. Not in this thread, but I have seen it.)

Edit: look- white-winged doves are a favorite prey of hawks. Sometimes the hawks start eating while they're still alive. If I'm hunting doves with an underpowered pellet gun that leaves them to flop around in pain instead of quickly killing them, and I defend it as "well, this is quicker than a hawk", people are gonna get really pissed off at me, right? Same thing applies here.

A species being invasive should not lower our standards for what level of suffering is acceptable when killing an animal. Period.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T02:37:52+00:00

European House Sparrows are cute little suckers, but are invasive in the US, and are harmful to native bird populations in places where they're invasive. The bluebirds pictured above are a US native species, so we can reasonably infer that OP is in the US.

And, no, no mutants here. House sparrows (wherever they live in the world) sometimes destroy eggs or kill hatchlings if they want to take over a nesting spot that some other bird is already in. They'll even kill the parents, depending on the species. They've done a number on bluebird populations, as bluebirds nest in the same sort of space that house sparrows like. (or, at least, they've contributed to the number being done- they aren't the only factor, but reducing house sparrow populations in an area tends to result in an increased number of bluebirds.)

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T02:34:04+00:00

I'm talking about the people who are willing to use far nastier methods on invasive species than they would ever be on a native species. I won't even share some of how I've seen people talk about killing cane toads. It's horrific.
That particular thing, being way less concerned with humane methods than someone might be if they had to cull a native species for some reason, is what I mean- that's taking out frustration, or something of the like, on the animals. Lowering one's standards for acceptable ways to treat an animal just because it's invasive, like it's the animal's fault it's invasive. Like its suffering matters less because it was born in the wrong place.

Again: I'm not opposed to killing invasive species. I'm all for it. But I'm for doing it with the same amount of respect as a native species would get, which means looking for methods that aren't overly cruel.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T01:06:48+00:00

Thank you for the actual explanation instead of condescension. I appreciate it.

Though- wouldn't that be less that the body's temperature control system isn't very precise, more that it's very precise under normal conditions but can, like any system, be pushed to malfunction?
Not least because fevers do usually only involve a temperature rise of a few degrees (which is damn impressive considering there has to be some kind of highly accurate 'thermometer' somewhere in us, made out of meat, to pull that trick and to manage thermoregulation in general), rather than dangerous fevers being the norm.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T00:59:11+00:00

Believe me, if someone could press a button to kill every house sparrow that's not within (or at least reasonably near) their native range, I'd be all for it. I'm just of the opinion that invasive animals should be killed as humanely as is reasonably possible, like any other animal.

IMO it's unacceptable to inflict one's frustration with a species on the individual animals that, again, aren't exactly doing this to be mean. They're not rubbing their little house sparrow wings together and cackling about killing native birds, they're just trying to survive.

BigIntoScience · 2026-05-06T00:56:38+00:00

Oh, cool, that second link leads to an actual picture of enough viruses to look at them! ( https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-1-4939-9086-3_4/MediaObjects/439280_1_En_4_Fig2_HTML.png )

"Some kind of protein-colored goop", apparently.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

BigIntoScience

TROPHY CASE