text:
Bowness, Calgary

Bowness is a neighbourhood and former town in west Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The former town was amalgamated into the City of Calgary in 1964.

The neighbourhood is bordered by the Bow River to the north and east, 16 Avenue to the south, and Stoney Trail to the west. The neighbourhood of Montgomery, another former town amalgamated into the City of Calgary a year earlier in 1963, is located across the river to the east.

On the northwest end of the community is one of Calgary's most popular parks, Bowness Park. The park sits between the Bow River and a lagoon, and is popular for picnics, summer sports, ice skating in the winter, and boating. It is also part of the city's large pedestrian pathway network. It is bordered by Edworthy Park to the southeast.

Bowness is represented in the Calgary City Council by the Ward 1 councillor. Residents of the area are called "Bownesians" (Bow-NEE-zhins).

The community has an area redevelopment plan in place.

Early history
The Bow Valley, where Bowness is situated, has been occupied by native peoples since the end of the last ice age, around 10,500 years ago. Archeological evidence shows that the Nitsitapii (Blackfoot) have been in the area for over a thousand years, with Stoney, Cree and Tsuu T'ina peoples arriving from the sixteenth century onwards. Non-natives reached the region in the late 1700s, after which native populations began to decline rapidly, due to epidemics and the decimation of the bison herds on which they depended. In 1877, the Blackfoot, Blood, Peigan, Tsuu T'ina and Stoney First Nations signed Treaty 7, were forced to live on reserves that covered some of their traditional hunting grounds.

At about the same time Treaty 7 was signed, the Dominion Land Survey was done, making it easier to lease or sell land in the west of Canada. The area which is now Bowness was leased for a while by the Cochrane Ranche Company, from 1883. It was then bought and sold several times over the next few decades. Two of these sales were important for the subsequent history of Bowness. In 1890–91 Thomas Stone and Jasper M. Richardson purchased the land. They started the Bowness Ranche and built a ranch house whose stables and barns were on an island in the river which is now Bowness Park. The name Bowness was apparently chosen by Stone, who had enjoyed visiting Bowness-on-Windermere in the English Lake District before coming to Canada.

The second sale of note was in 1908, to John Hextall, an English solicitor. Calgary, just six miles to the east, was booming at the time and Hextall envisioned turning Bowness into an exclusive residential suburb "in a natural scenic setting of great beauty". In 1911, he subdivided part of the ranch, built a bridge personally for $75,000, and got the City of Calgary to run its streetcar line across the bridge into his development, which he called Bowness Estates. In return, he donated two islands on the Bow to the City, for use as a park, now known as Bowness Park. (This arrangement is strikingly similar to one made in 1909 to develop the Glenora suburb of Edmonton.)

Despite an aggressive advertising campaign, and improvements such as the building of a golf course and club house, only a handful of lots were sold. There was a downturn in the economy and then World War I broke out in 1914, and Hextall himself died the same year. After the war, Bowness languished, although Bowness Park was extremely popular with Calgarians, who came in the thousands on the streetcar. Some small farms were established and enough lots sold to justify building a school in 1932, some stores, and in 1934 a post office. Marty Wood, the famous rodeo cowboy, arrived with his family in 1940 or 1941, and attended Bowness School. His parents opened riding stables on Chinook (now 34th.) Avenue. Of note also was the use of a large field near the park, the Bowness Flying Field, as Calgary's first commercial airport. It was managed by Fred McCall, a Canadian wartime flying ace, who flew mostly sightseeing flights to Banff and around the area throughout the twenties.

Bowness began to take off again after World War II, when the government provided 48 one acre plots to returning veterans, in an area known as the Soldiers' Settlement. Schools and churches were built and in 1947 two theatres were opened to serve the growing population. A volunteer fire brigade was formed, a fire hall built, and other public services provided.

Incorporation to amalgamation
Bowness incorporated as a village on February 14, 1948. After recording a population of 2,922 in the 1951 Census of Canada, the village then incorporated as the Town of Bowness on November 5, 1951. John Mackintosh was elected as the first mayor of the Town of Bowness in March 1952.

Bowness grew considerably following incorporation in 1951. By 1956, its population doubled to 6,217 and then tripled to 9,184 in 1961. Following the adjacent Town of Montgomery's amalgamation into the City of Calgary in 1963, the Town of Bowness held a vote in October 1963 to determine its residents' position on the town being absorbed by Calgary. The result was 1,003 votes in favour and 397 in opposition. The Town of Bowness was subsequently amalgamated into the City of Calgary on August 15, 1964. The last population recorded for Bowness was 9,116 in 1964.

Bowness today
Since Bowness was amalgamated, it has had to cope with a number of social issues, in part due to its origins as an autonomous community. Bowness is home to both wealthy and disadvantaged residents and is more socioeconomically diverse than many of Calgary's newest suburban neighbourhoods. This diversity has contributed to some socioeconomic problems in the community (including crime ). An example of this socioeconomic diversity can be seen in the difference in housing stock between the high-priced homes and properties along the Bow River, and the less expensive, former military housing just a few blocks away.

Like many older Calgary neighbourhoods, Bowness is experiencing gentrification with the renovation and reconstruction of some of the housing and commercial properties. For example, between 2006 and 2010 the commercial properties along "Main Street" Bowness have undergone renovation and revitalization including the former Bowness Hotel site (now called Hextall Place) and the former Bow Cycle Building now housing the Calgary Public Library.

Bowness is home to a number of unique annual events including the Lions Club Stampede Parade and Breakfast held the first weekend of Stampede; the Tour de Bowness held at the end of July; and the Harvest Fair held the second weekend in September.

Demographics
In the City of Calgary's 2012 municipal census, Bowness had a population of living in  dwellings, a 2.9% increase from its 2011 population of. With a land area of 5.6 km2, it had a population density of in 2012.

Residents in this community had a median household income of $40,468 in 2000, and there were 24.1% low income residents living in the neighbourhood. As of 2000, 12.7% of the residents were immigrants. A proportion of 30.9% of the buildings were condominiums or apartments, and 45.6% of the housing was used for renting.

Education
Most public senior high school students from the community attend Bowness High School, which was built before the amalgamation. Junior high and elementary schools include Thomas B. Riley Junior High, Belevedere Parkway Elementary, Bowcroft Elementary, and R. B. Bennett Elementary (closed in 2004). There is also one K-9 Catholic school, Our Lady of the Assumption.

title: Bowness, Calgary


text:
Lower Haight, San Francisco

The Lower Haight is a neighborhood, sometimes referred to as Haight–Fillmore, in San Francisco, California.

Location
Referred to as "Pine Valley" in the 70s because of all the pine trees, the Lower Haight lies generally along Haight Street east of Divisadero Street, and between Oak Street (or Fell Street) on the north, and Duboce Avenue (or Waller Street) on south. The eastern boundary is variously placed at Webster Street, Laguna Street, or even Market Street. It is east of the more famous Haight-Ashbury, which is also known as the Upper Haight. The name derives from the significant elevation change as Haight Street climbs steeply from Scott Street to Buena Vista Park.

The area straddles a shallow valley between Mint Hill and Upper Haight, sloping down from Oak Street (north) toward Duboce (south). Duboce Park, toward the corner of Duboce and Scott, is a grassy park containing a children's playground, dog park, and the Harvey Milk Recreational Arts Building.

Adjacent neighborhoods include the Western Addition/Alamo Square to the north; Duboce Triangle to the south; Hayes Valley to the east; and the Upper Haight to the west.

The San Francisco Association of Realtors defines the area more narrowly as the "Haight–Fillmore" neighborhood, bounded by Steiner Street on the west, Webster Street on the east, Fell Street on the north, and Waller Street on the south. In 2015, many real estate listings inaccurately called the Lower Haight "Hayes Valley" but no part of Haight Street is part of Hayes Valley. The Association considers the neighborhood to be a subset of the Hayes Valley (District 6B).

Attractions and characteristics
A mixture of restaurants, small nightclubs, cafes, drinking establishments, residences, galleries, and hair salons characterizes the Lower Haight. Neighborhood institutions include John Muir Elementary School, San Francisco Zen Center, The United States Mint, Duboce and Koshland parks, and the Haight Street Art Center.

Lower Haight differs from Upper Haight by having a more diverse population and a smaller number of retail businesses. The Victorian and Edwardian houses tend to be less ornately painted and maintained in the Lower Haight than in the Haight/Ashbury neighborhood, and rent can be lower. The neighborhood has been referred to as having a "grungey, post-punk bohemian" atmosphere.

It can be at times a dangerous place, but the efforts of local residents, a public nuisance lawsuit in the 1990s against the crime-ridden Hayes Valley housing project, a Federal RICO case against inhabitants of the subsequent housing development, and shootings among local gang members, gradually reduced the crime rate.

In response to crime, a moratorium was placed in 2006 on new liquor licenses in the neighborhood. In 2008, the San Francisco Planning Commission decided that the same historic pattern of crime is no barrier to having multiple medical cannabis dispensaries there. The San Francisco Zen Center is at the northeast edge of the neighborhood in an elegant brick building designed by famed architect Julia Morgan in 1922.

The area is served by several San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) bus lines and is within a few blocks of all MUNI Metro lines. The heart of the neighborhood, at the corner of Fillmore and Haight, is six blocks from the subway stop of Church and Market, which is also the location of the city's largest supermarket, a Safeway. Surveys show that this neighborhood has one of the highest number of daily trips by bike per capita of any San Francisco neighborhood, and walking is also very popular. The geography of the Lower Haight lends itself to the most efficient bicycle routing from the Mission District towards Golden Gate Park and surrounding neighborhoods, and the popular bicycle route termed The Wiggle zig zags through this neighborhood.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lower Haight, San Francisco


text:
UNIVAC 418

The UNIVAC 418 was a transistorized, 18-bit word magnetic-core memory machine made by Sperry Univac. The name came from its 4-microsecond memory cycle time and 18-bit word. The assembly language for this class of computers was TRIM III and ART418.

Over the three different models, more than 392 systems were manufactured. It evolved from the Control Unit Tester (CUT), a device used in the factory to test peripherals for larger systems.

Architecture
The instruction word had three formats:
 * Format I - common Load, Store, and Arithmetic operations

 * f - Function code (6 bits)
 * u - Operand address (12 bits)
 * Format II - Constant arithmetic and Boolean functions

 * f - Function code (6 bits)
 * z - Operand address or value (12 bits)
 * Format III - Input/Output

 * f - Function code (6 bits)
 * m - Minor function code (6 bits)
 * k - Designator (6 bits) used for channel number, shift count, etc.

Numbers were represented in ones' complement, single and double precision. The TRIM assembly source code used octal numbers as opposed to more common hexadecimal because the 18-bit words are evenly divisible by 3, but not by 4.

The machine had the following addressable registers:
 * A - Register (Double precision Accumulator, 36 bits) composed of:
 * AU - Register (Upper Accumulator, 18 bits)
 * AL - Register (Lower Accumulator, 18 bits)
 * ICR - Register (Index Control Register, 3 bits), also designated the "B-register"
 * SR - Register ("Special Register", 4 bits), a paging register allowing direct access to memory banks other than the executing (P register) bank
 * P - Register (Program address, 15 bits)

All register values were displayed in real time on the front panel of the computer in binary, with the ability of the user to enter new values via push button (a function that was safe to perform only when the computer was not in run mode).

UNIVAC 418-I
The first UNIVAC 418-I was delivered in June 1963. It was available with 4,096 to 16,384 words of memory.

UNIVAC 1218 Military Computer
The 418-I was also available in a militarized version as the UNIVAC 1218. It was almost 6 feet tall and weighed 775 lb. It required both 115VAC, 1-phase, 60 Hz and 115VAC, 3-phase, 400 Hz power.

UNIVAC 418-II
The first UNIVAC 418-II was delivered in November 1964. It was available with 4,096 to 65,536 (18-bit) words of memory. Memory cycle time was reduced to 2 microseconds. The militarized version was called the UNIVAC 1219 (known as the "Mk 152 Fire Control Computer.") It was part of the Navy's Mk 76 missile fire control system, used to control the AN/SPG-55 radar system.

UNIVAC 418-III
The first UNIVAC 418-III was delivered in 1969. It was available with 32,768 to 131,072 words of memory. Memory cycle time was reduced to 750 nanoseconds. New instructions were added for floating-point arithmetic, binary-to-decimal and decimal-to-binary conversions, and block transfers up to 64 words. The SR register was expanded to 6 bits. The 418-III had two unique hardware features which enabled it to handle continuously high-speed serial character streams. One was called the buffer overflow interrupt and the other hardware buffer chaining. By the 1990s, all the 418 hardware was gone, but the California Department of Water Resources was still running 418 emulation on a UNIVAC 1100/60.

title: UNIVAC 418


text:
Talk:Seal of the Confederate States

George Washington?
IS THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON ON THE SEAL?

 * I believe it is. The Confederates always claimed to be upholding the spirit of the Founding Fathers, so it is natural they would put one of their heroes on the Seal. Washington was also a slaveholder. It was probably a nod to the State of Virginia, the most influential of the Confederate states. Danthemankhan 04:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Does anyone know what the significance of Feb 22, 1862 is? At first I thought it might be Confederate Independance Day, but wouldn't that be February 4, 1861?

OK I got it. Feb 22, 1862 was the day Jefferson Davis was inaugurated after the first (and only) general election of the Confederacy. It also coincides with Washington's birthday, so that is probably why he is also on the seal. We should probably put this information in the page. I'll do it if I get a chance.

The admiration of Washington HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY. The Name Confederate States was a direct NOD to the founding of America as led to Victory by Washington. 1782 to 1787 We weren't the USA but operated solely as a confederation under the Articles of Confederations.

The GREAT Seal Of The Confederate States Of America
The Great Seal of the Confederate States of America was engraved in 1864, by the late Joseph S. Wyon, of London, England, predecessor of Messrs J. S. and A. B. Wyon, chief engravers of Her British Majesty's seals, etc., and reached Richmond not long before the evacuation of the city, April 3, 1865. It was of silver, and in diameter measured nearly four inches. At the evacuation it was overlooked by the Confederate authorities, and subsequently fell into the possession of the late genial and accomplished Colonel John T. Pickett, of Washington, D.C., who, after having a number of electrotype copies in copper, silver and gold plating made from it, presented the original to Colonel William E. Earle, of Washington, D.C. This last gentleman, on December 27th, 1888, formally presented it to the State of South Carolina. The announcement of the gift elicited from the Picayune, in its issue of January 6, 1889, the interesting report of an interview, by one of its representatives, held with Hon. Thomas J. Semmes, of New Orleans, which follows:

 * Mr. Semmes said it always afforded him pleasure to converse on the events of the war, particularly the transactions of the Confederate Senate. He was attorney-general of Louisiana in 1861. When it became necessary to elect to the Confederate Senate, organized under the new constitution, Mr. Semmes and General Edward T. Sparrow were chosen senators from this State. In drawing for terms he drew that for four years, while General Sparrow drew that for six years. This was at Richmond, Va., in February, 1862.
 * In speaking of his services in the Senate, Mr. Semmes said he was appointed a member of the finance committee in conjunction with Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, and Hon. Robert Barnwell, of South Carolina and a member of the judiciary committee, of which Hon. B. H. Hill was chairman. He was also chairman of the joint committee on the flag and seal of the Confederate States. He drafted, under the direction of Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, the 'tax in kind' bill, which practically supported the Confederacy during the last two years of the war.
 * As member of the finance committee, he advocated the sealing and calling in of the outstanding Confederate currency, on the ground that the purchasing power of the new currency to be issued in exchange would be greater than the total amount of the outstanding currency in its then depreciated condition. He made a report from the judiciary committee adverse to martial law.
 * Upon being questioned as to the seal which he had designed, Mr. Semmes said it was a device representing an equestrian portrait of Washington (after the statue which surmounts his monument in the capitol square at Richmond), surrounded with a wreath, composed of the principal agricultural products of the Confederacy, and having around its margin the words: 'Confederate States of America, 22d February, 1862,' with the motto, 'Deo vindice.'
 * In the latter part of April, 1864, quite an interesting debate was had on the adoption of the motto. The House resolutions fixing the motto as 'Deo Duce Vincemus' being considered, Mr. Semmes moved to substitute ' Deo vindice majores aemulamur.' The motto had been suggested by Professor Alexander Dimitry. Mr. Semmes thought 'Deo vindice' sufficient and preferred it. He was finally triumphant.

In this connection it is appropriate and interesting to reproduce the speech made by Mr. Semmes on that occasion. It was as follows:
 * MR. PRESIDENT--I am instructed by the committee to move to strike out the words "duce vincemus" in the motto and insert in lieu thereof the words "Vindice majores aemulamur," "Under the guidance and protection of God we endeavor to equal and even excel our ancestors." Before discussing the proposed change in the motto, I will submit to the Senate a few remarks as to the device on the seal.
 * The committee has been greatly exercised on this subject, and it has been extremely difficult to come to any satisfactory conclusion. This is a difficulty, however, incident to the subject, and all that we have to do is to avoid what Visconti calls 'an absurdity in bronze.'
 * The equestrian statue of Washington has been selected in deference to the current popular sentiment. The equestrian figure impressed on our seal will be regarded by those skilled in glyptics as to a certain extent indicative of our origin. It is a most remarkable fact that an equestrian figure constituted the seal of Great Britain from the time of Edward the Confessor down to the reign of George III, except during the short interval of the protectorate of Cromwell, when the trial of the King was substituted for the man on horseback. Even Cromwell retained the equestrian figure on the seal of Scotland, but he characteristically mounted himself on the horse. In the reign of William and Mary the seal bore the impress of the king and queen both mounted on horseback.
 * Washington has been selected as the emblem for our shield, as a type of our ancestors, in his character of princeps majorum. In addition to this, the equestrian figure is consecrated in the hearts of our own people by the local circumstance that on the gloomy and stormy 22d of February, 1862, our permanent government was set in motion by the inauguration of President Davis under the shadow of the statue of Washington.
 * The committee are dissatisfied with the motto on the seal proposed by the House resolution. The motto proposed is as follows: 'Deo Duce Vincemus'--(Under the leadership of God we will conquer).
 * The word ' duce' is too pagan in its signification, and is degrading to God, because it reduces him to the leader of an army; for scarcely does the word 'duce' escape the lips before the imagination suggests 'exercitus,' an army for a leader to command. It degrades the Christian God to the level of pagan gods, goddesses and heroes, as is manifest from the following quotation; 'Nil desperandum Tenero duce.' This word duce is particularly objectionable because of its connection with the word 'vincemus'--(we will conquer). This connection makes God the leader of a physical army, by means of which we will conquer, or must conquer. If God be our leader we must conquer, or he would not be the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, nor the God of the Christian. This very doubt implied in the word 'vincemus' so qualifies the omnipotence of the God who is to be our 'leader,' that it imparts a degrading signification to the word 'duce' in its relations to the attributes of the Deity.
 * The word 'vincemus' is equally objectionable because it implies that war is to be our normal state; besides, it is in the future tense --' we will conquer.' The future is always uncertain, and ,therefore, it implies doubt. What becomes of our motto when we shall have conquered? The future becomes an accomplished fact, and our motto thus loses its significance.
 * In addition to this there are only two languages in which the words will and shall are to be found--the English and the German--and in those they are used to qualify a positive condition of the mind and render it uncertain; they are repugnant to repose, quiet, absolute and positive existence.
 * As to the motto proposed by us, we concur with the House in accepting the word 'Deo'--God. We do so in conformity to the expressed wishes of the framers of our Constitution, and the sentiments of the people and of the army.
 * The preamble of the Provisional Constitution declares that 'We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent States of South Carolina, etc., invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain,' etc.
 * In this respect both our Constitutions have deviated in the most emphatic manner from the spirit that presided over the construction of the Constitution of the United States, which is silent on the subject of the Deity.
 * Having discarded the word 'duce,' the committee endeavored to select in lieu of it a word more in consonance with the attributes of the Deity, and therefore more imposing and significant. They think success has crowned their efforts in the selection of the word 'vindex,' which signifies an assenter, a defender, protector, deliverer, liberator, a mediator and a ruler or guardian. 'Vindex' also means an avenger or punisher.
 * No word appeared more grand, more expressive or significant than this. Under God as the asserter of our rights, the defender of our liberties, our protector against danger, our mediator, our ruler and guardian, and, as the avenger of our wrongs and the punisher of our crimes, we endeavor to equal or even excel our ancestors. What word can be suggested of more power, and so replete with sentiments and thoughts consonant with our idea of the omnipotence and justice of God?
 * At this point the committee hesitated whether it were necessary to add anything further to the motto 'Deo Vindice.' These words alone were sufficient and impressive, and, in the spirit of the lapidary style of composition, were elliptical and left much to the play of the imagination. Reflection, however, induced us to add the words 'majores aemulamur,' because without them there would be nothing in the motto referring to the equestrian figure of Washington. It was thought better to insert something elucidative or adaptive of the idea to be conveyed by that figure. Having determined on this point, the committee submitted to the judgment of the Senate the words ' majores aemulamur,' as best adapted to express the ideas of 'our ancestors.' 'Patres' was first suggested, but abandoned because 'majores' signifies ancestors absolutely, and is also more suggestive than 'patres.' The latter is a term applied to our immediate progenitors who may be alive, whereas ' majores' conveys the idea of a more remote generation that has passed away.
 * That being disposed of, the question arose as to the proper signification of the word 'aemulamur.' Honorable emulation is the primary signification of the word; in its secondary sense it is true it includes the idea of improper rivalry, or jealousy. But it is used in its primary and honorable sense by the most approved authors.
 * The secondary and improper sense of the aemulari is excluded in the proposed motto by the relation it bears to 'Deo vindice.' This relation excludes the idea of envy or jealousy, because God, as the asserter of what is right, justifies the emulation, and as a punisher of what is wrong checks excess in case the emulation runs into improper envy or jealousy. In adopting the equestrian figure of Washington, the committee desires distinctly to disavow any recognition of the embodiment of the idea of the 'cavalier.' We have no admiration for the character of the cavalier of 1640 any more than for his opponent, the Puritan. We turn with disgust from the violent and licentious cavalier, and we abhor the acerb, morose and fanatic Puritan, of whom Oliver Cromwell was the type. In speaking of Cromwell and his character, Guizot says that ' he possessed the faculty of lying at need with an inexhaustible and unhesitating hardihood which struck even his enemies with surprise and embarrassment.'
 * This characteristic seems to have been transmitted to the descendants of the pilgrims who settled in Massachusetts Bay to enjoy the liberty of persecution. If the cavalier is to carry us back to days earlier than the American Revolution, I prefer to be transported in imagination to the field of Runnymede, when the barons extorted Magna Charta from the unwilling John. But I discard all reference to the cavalier of old, because it implies a division of society into two orders, an idea inconsistent with confederate institutions."

Mr. Semmes moved to amend by substituting "vindice" for "duce," and it was agreed to. In taking his leave, the reporter was informed by Mr. Semmes that he did not know the seal was in existence and was glad to learn that it had been presented to the State of South Carolina, the first State which seceded from the Union.

Source: Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVI. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1888. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.28 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Saying they seceded is POV, saying they did not may also be POV - instead say neither. Repeated insertion that did did secede has been accompanied by other blatant POV comments in edit summary --JimWae (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The fact that they wrote up a bill of secession and legally ratified it is not POV, it is a fact. User:Rationalizer

I can write a document excusing me from my mortgage and have my family vote on it and have the document notarized. That does not mean my mortgage is cancelled. If they had won the war, then they would have successfully seceded. Since they lost, their action amounts to a rebellion, not a revolution. It is the position of SCOTUS and the US gov't that the acts of secession were null and void -- See Texas v. White. It is POV to say they seceded, a POV for which there is a clear (& in this case, btw, legally official) opposing POV. To state one side's POV as fact is againt wiki policy of WP:NPOV. Instead take neither side & state what happened in NPOV terms. Saying they declared a secession does not say that they did NOT secede --JimWae (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Take Quebec as an example. Many Quebeckers want to secede from Canada, but most recogize that they cannot legally do so unilaterally. Secession is a performance-oriented process, which means it must be successful to be a true secession. Instances of successful secession in the world involve either winning a war to do so, getting the agreement of all the other parties involved, or getting other coutries to recognize the claimed independence. The CSA was not successful in any of those. If the US had lost its Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence would be a null and void scrap of paper. It declared independence, but by itself it did not accomplish independence.--JimWae (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They declared secession, although the U.S. did not recognize it, hence the Civil War started. If they actually did "secede", then they wouldn't be part of the U.S. today. As the old adage goes "if you secede, you'd better succeed". Illegitimate Barrister 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox statements dubious?
There is some conflicting information about when the seal was adopted. The infobox says 1863, and the text says 1863 as well, giving the reference as a link to the object record at the Smithsonian. However, the link page doesn't give the date...only that the vintage was 1864. A more detailed account says that the motto wasn't even settled upon until roughly the same date in 1864. So is "1863" a typo in two places in the article? Or does Semmes account have an error as to the date?

Regardless of the date the seal was adopted and when it was actually produced, the "use" portion of the infobox appears to be conjecture or needs a source. From the Semmes account the seal did not arrive in time to be put into actual use. Red Harvest (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Just noticed the Sigillogia ref above. It appears to confirm the 1863 date, see: https://archive.org/stream/sigillologiabein00pick/sigillologiabein00pick_djvu.txt  So the online transcription or the original article of  Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVI. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1888 might very well be in error when it states, "In the latter part of April, 1864, quite an interesting debate was had on the adoption of the motto."  Need to see if there is a separate Congressional record of this to confirm. Red Harvest (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 * And now I've located confirmation of the act of the 3rd session of the 1st Congress on the date in question. http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/22conf/1863stat.html#p167  So the Semmes account must have the wrong year. Red Harvest (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Who designed the seal?
Did one person design the seal, or was it designed by a committee? – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Colors
Is there any historical basis for the colors used in the seal SVG, or is it just artist's interpretation? – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Great Seal of the Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Seal Created & Defaced?
According to The Numismatist, the seal was defaced with an axe then tossed overboard into the Savannah river.

https://books.google.com/books?id=o_cMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=numismatist+confederate+seal&source=bl&ots=dxy0lRtIew&sig=5CKKxa3eFmXn-Qu19ka_ZMGa5fk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWi8X2xM7RAhUF1CYKHRrHC1YQ6AEIMzAH#v=onepage&q=numismatist%20confederate%20seal&f=false

Honestly, I don't think that's correct, but I felt I'd add it here for discussion and/or debunking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.170 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Deo Vindice doesn't appear in the citation for this
"The religious motto reflected the view of, probably, most Confederate citizens: that slavery was condoned by Christianity and thus, by extension, the Confederacy was supported by God." The citation and reference for this doesn't discuss "Deo Vindice". This line should be deleted.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seal of the Confederate States


text:
Yokuts language

Yokuts, formerly known as Mariposa, is an endangered language family spoken in the interior of Northern and Central California in and around the San Joaquin Valley by the Yokuts people. The speakers of Yokuts languages were severely affected by disease, missionaries, and the Gold Rush. While descendants of Yokuts speakers currently number in the thousands, all languages apart from Valley Yokuts are now extinct.

The Yawelmani dialect of Valley Yokuts has been a focus of much linguistic research.

Languages and dialects
Yokuts consists of half a dozen languages. An estimated forty linguistically distinct groups existed before Euro-American contact.

 * Yokuts
 * Poso Creek
 * Palewyami Yokuts (a.k.a. Poso Creek, Altinin)
 * General Yokuts (all others)
 * Buena Vista
 * Tulamni
 * Hometwali
 * Nim
 * Tule–Kaweah
 * Wukchumni
 * Yawdanchi (a.k.a. Nutaa)
 * Bokninuwad
 * Northern Yokuts
 * Gashowu
 * Kings River
 * Chukaymina (also spelled Chukaimina)
 * Michahay
 * Ayitcha (a.k.a. Aiticha, Kocheyali)
 * Choynimni (also spelled Choinimni)
 * Valley Yokuts (sole living language)

Glottolog finds at least four distinct languages: Palewyami Yokuts, Buena Vista Yokuts, Northern Yokuts, Tule-Kaweah Yokuts.

Speakers and language revitalization
Almost all Yokuts dialects are extinct, as noted above. Those that are still spoken are endangered.

Until recent years, Choinimni, Wikchamni, Chukchansi, Kechayi, Tachi and Yawelmani all had a few fluent speakers and a variable number of partial speakers. Choynimni went extinct in 2017. Wikchamni, Chukchansi, Tachi, and Yawelmani were being taught to at least a few children during the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Chukchansi is now a written language, with its own alphabet developed on a federal grant. Chukchansi also has a phrase book and dictionary that are partially completed. In May 2012, the Linguistics Department of Fresno State University received a $1 million grant to compile a Chukchansi dictionary and grammar texts, and to "provide support for scholarships, programs, and efforts to assemble native texts and create a curriculum for teaching the language so it can be brought back into social and ritual use."

Genetic relations
Yokuts is a key member in the proposed Penutian language stock. Some linguists consider most relationships within Penutian to be undemonstrated (cf. Campbell 1997). Others consider a genetic relationship between Yokuts, Utian, Maiduan, Wintuan, and a number of Oregon languages to be definite (cf. DeLancey and Golla 1997). Regardless of higher-order disagreement, Callaghan (1997) provides strong evidence uniting Yokuts and the Utian languages as branches of a Yok-Utian language family.

The term "Delta Yokuts" has recently been introduced in lieu of the longer "Far Northern Valley Yokuts" for the dialect spoken by the people in the present Stockton and Modesto vicinities of San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, California, prior to their removal to Mission San Jose between 1810 and 1827. Of interest, Delta Yokuts contains a large number of words with no cognates in any of the other dialects, or for that matter in the adjacent Utian languages, although its syntax is typically Northern Valley Yokuts. This anomaly has led Whistler (cited by Golla 2007) to suggest, "The vocabulary distinctive of some of the Delta Yokuts dialects may reflect substratal influence from pre-proto-Yokuts or from an extinct Yok-Utian language." Golla suggests that a "pre-proto-Yokuts" homeland was in the Great Basin, citing a rich plant and animal vocabulary for a dry environment and a close connection between Yokuts basketry styles and those of prehistoric central Nevada.

Proto-language
Proto-Yokuts reconstructions from Whistler and Golla (1986):

 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! gloss !! Proto-Yokuts
 * acorn || *pʰutʰuʂ
 * beaver || *t’ɨːpɨkʰ ~ *ʈ’ɨːpɨkʰ
 * blood || *hɨːpa-ʔ
 * bone || *c’iy
 * child || *witʰip
 * child (diminutive) || *wicʰip
 * coyote || *kʰay’iw
 * eight || *mun’us
 * eye || *sasa-ʔ
 * fingernail || *xiːsix
 * fire || *ʔoʂitʰ
 * fish || *lopʰiʈʰ
 * flea || *p’aːk’il
 * friend || *noːcʰi
 * head louse || *tʰihiʈʰ
 * heart || *ʔuʂik’
 * horn || *ɨʂɨl’
 * mountain || *lomitʰ
 * mouth || *sama-ʔ
 * north || *xosim
 * nose || *ʈʰɨŋɨk’
 * shaman || *ʔaŋʈʰiw
 * skunk || *cʰox
 * sky || *ʈʰipʰin
 * star || *c’ayatas
 * string || *c’ikiy
 * tears || *maŋal
 * three || *ʂoːpʰin
 * two || *poŋiy
 * water || *ʔilik’
 * }
 * heart || *ʔuʂik’
 * horn || *ɨʂɨl’
 * mountain || *lomitʰ
 * mouth || *sama-ʔ
 * north || *xosim
 * nose || *ʈʰɨŋɨk’
 * shaman || *ʔaŋʈʰiw
 * skunk || *cʰox
 * sky || *ʈʰipʰin
 * star || *c’ayatas
 * string || *c’ikiy
 * tears || *maŋal
 * three || *ʂoːpʰin
 * two || *poŋiy
 * water || *ʔilik’
 * }
 * sky || *ʈʰipʰin
 * star || *c’ayatas
 * string || *c’ikiy
 * tears || *maŋal
 * three || *ʂoːpʰin
 * two || *poŋiy
 * water || *ʔilik’
 * }
 * three || *ʂoːpʰin
 * two || *poŋiy
 * water || *ʔilik’
 * }
 * water || *ʔilik’
 * }

title: Yokuts language


text:
Talk:Jock Jams

We need pictures for this article and related articles. --TheSamurai 23:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jock Jams


text: Category:Yokutsan languages

title: Category:Yokutsan languages


text:
Habitat destruction

Habitat destruction (also termed habitat loss and habitat reduction) occurs when a natural habitat is no longer able to support its native species. The organisms once living there have either moved to elsewhere or are dead, leading to a decrease in biodiversity and species numbers. Habitat destruction is in fact the leading cause of biodiversity loss and species extinction worldwide.

Humans contribute to habitat destruction through the use of natural resources, agriculture, industrial production and urbanization (urban sprawl). Other activities include mining, logging and trawling. Environmental factors can contribute to habitat destruction more indirectly. Geological processes, climate change, introduction of invasive species, ecosystem nutrient depletion, water and noise pollution are some examples. Loss of habitat can be preceded by an initial habitat fragmentation. Fragmentation and loss of habitat have become one of the most important topics of research in ecology as they are major threats to the survival of endangered species.

By region
Biodiversity hotspots are chiefly tropical regions that feature high concentrations of endemic species and, when all hotspots are combined, may contain over half of the world's terrestrial species. These hotspots are suffering from habitat loss and destruction. Most of the natural habitat on islands and in areas of high human population density has already been destroyed (WRI, 2003). Islands suffering extreme habitat destruction include New Zealand, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Japan. South and East Asia—especially China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Japan—and many areas in West Africa have extremely dense human populations that allow little room for natural habitat. Marine areas close to highly populated coastal cities also face degradation of their coral reefs or other marine habitat. Forest City, a township in southern Malaysia built on Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Rank 1 wetland is one such example, with irreversible reclamation proceeding prior to environmental impact assessment and approvals. Other such areas include the eastern coasts of Asia and Africa, northern coasts of South America, and the Caribbean Sea and its associated islands.

Regions of unsustainable agriculture or unstable governments, which may go hand-in-hand, typically experience high rates of habitat destruction. South Asia, Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Amazonian tropical rainforest areas of South America are the main regions with unsustainable agricultural practices and/or government mismanagement.

Areas of high agricultural output tend to have the highest extent of habitat destruction. In the U.S., less than 25% of native vegetation remains in many parts of the East and Midwest. Only 15% of land area remains unmodified by human activities in all of Europe.

Currently, changes occurring in different environments around the world are changing the specific geographical habitats that are suitable for plants to grow. Therefore, the ability for plants to migrate to suitable environment areas will have a strong impact on the distribution of plant diversity. However, at the moment, the rates of plant migration that are influenced by habitat loss and fragmentation are not as well understood as they could be.

By type of ecosystem
Tropical rainforests have received most of the attention concerning the destruction of habitat. From the approximately 16 million square kilometers of tropical rainforest habitat that originally existed worldwide, less than 9 million square kilometers remain today. The current rate of deforestation is 160,000 square kilometers per year, which equates to a loss of approximately 1% of original forest habitat each year.

Other forest ecosystems have suffered as much or more destruction as tropical rainforests. Deforestation for farming and logging have severely disturbed at least 94% of temperate broadleaf forests; many old growth forest stands have lost more than 98% of their previous area because of human activities. Tropical deciduous dry forests are easier to clear and burn and are more suitable for agriculture and cattle ranching than tropical rainforests; consequently, less than 0.1% of dry forests in Central America's Pacific Coast and less than 8% in Madagascar remain from their original extents.

Plains and desert areas have been degraded to a lesser extent. Only 10–20% of the world's drylands, which include temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands, scrub, and deciduous forests, have been somewhat degraded. But included in that 10–20% of land is the approximately 9 million square kilometers of seasonally dry-lands that humans have converted to deserts through the process of desertification. The tallgrass prairies of North America, on the other hand, have less than 3% of natural habitat remaining that has not been converted to farmland.

Wetlands and marine areas have endured high levels of habitat destruction. More than 50% of wetlands in the U.S. have been destroyed in just the last 200 years. Between 60% and 70% of European wetlands have been completely destroyed. In the United Kingdom, there has been an increase in demand for coastal housing and tourism which has caused a decline in marine habitats over the last 60 years. The rising sea levels and temperatures have caused soil erosion, coastal flooding, and loss of quality in the UK marine ecosystem. About one-fifth (20%) of marine coastal areas have been highly modified by humans. One-fifth of coral reefs have also been destroyed, and another fifth has been severely degraded by overfishing, pollution, and invasive species; 90% of the Philippines' coral reefs alone have been destroyed. Finally, over 35% of the mangrove ecosystems worldwide have been destroyed.

Natural causes
Habitat destruction through natural processes such as volcanism, fire, and climate change is well documented in the fossil record. One study shows that habitat fragmentation of tropical rainforests in Euramerica 300 million years ago led to a great loss of amphibian diversity, but simultaneously the drier climate spurred on a burst of diversity among reptiles.

Causes due to human activities
Habitat destruction caused by humans includes land conversion from forests, etc. to arable land, urban sprawl, infrastructure development, and other anthropogenic changes to the characteristics of land. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and pollution are aspects of habitat destruction caused by humans that do not necessarily involve over destruction of habitat, yet result in habitat collapse. Desertification, deforestation, and coral reef degradation are specific types of habitat destruction for those areas (deserts, forests, coral reefs).

Overarching drivers
The forces that cause humans to destroy habitat are known as drivers of habitat destruction. Demographic, economic, sociopolitical, scientific and technological, and cultural drivers all contribute to habitat destruction.

Demographic drivers include the expanding human population; rate of population increase over time; spatial distribution of people in a given area (urban versus rural), ecosystem type, and country; and the combined effects of poverty, age, family planning, gender, and education status of people in certain areas. Most of the exponential human population growth worldwide is occurring in or close to biodiversity hotspots. This may explain why human population density accounts for 87.9% of the variation in numbers of threatened species across 114 countries, providing indisputable evidence that people play the largest role in decreasing biodiversity. The boom in human population and migration of people into such species-rich regions are making conservation efforts not only more urgent but also more likely to conflict with local human interests. The high local population density in such areas is directly correlated to the poverty status of the local people, most of whom lacking an education and family planning.

According to the Geist and Lambin (2002) study, the underlying driving forces were prioritized as follows (with the percent of the 152 cases the factor played a significant role in): economic factors (81%), institutional or policy factors (78%), technological factors (70%), cultural or socio-political factors (66%), and demographic factors (61%). The main economic factors included commercialization and growth of timber markets (68%), which are driven by national and international demands; urban industrial growth (38%); low domestic costs for land, labor, fuel, and timber (32%); and increases in product prices mainly for cash crops (25%). Institutional and policy factors included formal pro-deforestation policies on land development (40%), economic growth including colonization and infrastructure improvement (34%), and subsidies for land-based activities (26%); property rights and land-tenure insecurity (44%); and policy failures such as corruption, lawlessness, or mismanagement (42%). The main technological factor was the poor application of technology in the wood industry (45%), which leads to wasteful logging practices. Within the broad category of cultural and sociopolitical factors are public attitudes and values (63%), individual/household behavior (53%), public unconcern toward forest environments (43%), missing basic values (36%), and unconcern by individuals (32%). Demographic factors were the in-migration of colonizing settlers into sparsely populated forest areas (38%) and growing population density—a result of the first factor—in those areas (25%).

Forest conversion to agriculture
Geist and Lambin (2002) assessed 152 case studies of net losses of tropical forest cover to determine any patterns in the proximate and underlying causes of tropical deforestation. Their results, yielded as percentages of the case studies in which each parameter was a significant factor, provide a quantitative prioritization of which proximate and underlying causes were the most significant. The proximate causes were clustered into broad categories of agricultural expansion (96%), infrastructure expansion (72%), and wood extraction (67%). Therefore, according to this study, forest conversion to agriculture is the main land use change responsible for tropical deforestation. The specific categories reveal further insight into the specific causes of tropical deforestation: transport extension (64%), commercial wood extraction (52%), permanent cultivation (48%), cattle ranching (46%), shifting (slash and burn) cultivation (41%), subsistence agriculture (40%), and fuel wood extraction for domestic use (28%). One result is that shifting cultivation is not the primary cause of deforestation in all world regions, while transport extension (including the construction of new roads) is the largest single proximate factor responsible for deforestation.

Habitat size and numbers of species are systematically related. Physically larger species and those living at lower latitudes or in forests or oceans are more sensitive to reduction in habitat area. Conversion to "trivial" standardized ecosystems (e.g., monoculture following deforestation) effectively destroys habitat for the more diverse species. Even the simplest forms of agriculture affect diversity – through clearing or draining the land, discouraging weeds and pests, and encouraging just a limited set of domesticated plant and animal species.

There are also feedbacks and interactions among the proximate and underlying causes of deforestation that can amplify the process. Road construction has the largest feedback effect, because it interacts with—and leads to—the establishment of new settlements and more people, which causes a growth in wood (logging) and food markets. Growth in these markets, in turn, progresses the commercialization of agriculture and logging industries. When these industries become commercialized, they must become more efficient by utilizing larger or more modern machinery that often has a worse effect on the habitat than traditional farming and logging methods. Either way, more land is cleared more rapidly for commercial markets. This common feedback example manifests just how closely related the proximate and underlying causes are to each other.

Climate change
Climate change contributes to destruction of some habitats, endangering various species. For example:

 * Climate change causes rising sea levels which will threaten natural habitats and species globally.
 * Melting sea ice destroys habitat for some species. For example, the decline of sea ice in the Arctic has been accelerating during the early twenty‐first century, with a decline rate of 4.7% per decade (it has declined over 50% since the first satellite records).   One well known example of a species affected is the polar bear, whose habitat in the Artic is threatened. Algae can also be affected when it grows on the underside of sea ice.
 * Warm-water coral reefs are very sensitive to global warming and ocean acidification. Coral reefs provide a habitat for thousands of species. They provide ecosystem services such as coastal protection and food. But 70–90% of today's warm-water coral reefs will disappear even if warming is kept to 1.5 C-change. For example, Caribbean coral reefs – which are biodiversity hotspots – will be lost within the century if global warming continues at the current rate.

On animals and plants
When a habitat is destroyed, the carrying capacity for indigenous plants, animals, and other organisms is reduced so that populations decline, sometimes up to the level of extinction.

Habitat loss is perhaps the greatest threat to organisms and biodiversity. Temple (1986) found that 82% of endangered bird species were significantly threatened by habitat loss. Most amphibian species are also threatened by native habitat loss, and some species are now only breeding in modified habitat. Endemic organisms with limited ranges are most affected by habitat destruction, mainly because these organisms are not found anywhere else in the world, and thus have less chance of recovering. Many endemic organisms have very specific requirements for their survival that can only be found within a certain ecosystem, resulting in their extinction. Extinction may also take place very long after the destruction of habitat, a phenomenon known as extinction debt. Habitat destruction can also decrease the range of certain organism populations. This can result in the reduction of genetic diversity and perhaps the production of infertile youths, as these organisms would have a higher possibility of mating with related organisms within their population, or different species. One of the most famous examples is the impact upon China's giant panda, once found in many areas of Sichuan. Now it is only found in fragmented and isolated regions in the southwest of the country, as a result of widespread deforestation in the 20th century.

As habitat destruction of an area occurs, the species diversity offsets from a combination of habitat generalists and specialists to a population primarily consisting of generalist species. Invasive species are frequently generalists that are able to survive in much more diverse habitats. Habitat destruction leading to climate change offsets the balance of species keeping up with the extinction threshold leading to a higher likelihood of extinction.

Habitat loss is one of the main environmental causes of the decline of biodiversity on local, regional, and global scales. Many believe that habitat fragmentation is also a threat to biodiversity however some believe that it is secondary to habitat loss. The reduction of the amount of habitat available results in specific landscapes that are made of isolated patches of suitable habitat throughout a hostile environment/matrix. This process is generally due to pure habitat loss as well as fragmentation effects. Pure habitat loss refers to changes occurring in the composition of the landscape that causes a decrease in individuals. Fragmentation effects refer to an addition of effects occurring due to the habitat changes. Habitat loss can result in negative effects on the dynamic of species richness. The order Hymenoptera is a diverse group of plant pollinators who are highly susceptible to the negative effects of habitat loss, this could result in a domino effect between the plant-pollinator interactions leading to major conservation implications within this group. It is observed from the worlds longest running fragmentation experiment over 35 years that habitat fragmentation has caused a decrease in biodiversity from 13% to 75%.

On human population

Habitat destruction can vastly increase an area's vulnerability to natural disasters like flood and drought, crop failure, spread of disease, and water contamination. On the other hand, a healthy ecosystem with good management practices can reduce the chance of these events happening, or will at least mitigate adverse impacts. Eliminating swamps—the habitat of pests such as mosquitoes—has contributed to the prevention of diseases such as malaria. Completely depriving an infectious agent (such as a virus) of its habitat—by vaccination, for example—can result in eradicating that infectious agent.

Agricultural land can suffer from the destruction of the surrounding landscape. Over the past 50 years, the destruction of habitat surrounding agricultural land has degraded approximately 40% of agricultural land worldwide via erosion, salinization, compaction, nutrient depletion, pollution, and urbanization. Humans also lose direct uses of natural habitat when habitat is destroyed. Aesthetic uses such as birdwatching, recreational uses like hunting and fishing, and ecotourism usually rely upon relatively undisturbed habitat. Many people value the complexity of the natural world and express concern at the loss of natural habitats and of animal or plant species worldwide.

Probably the most profound impact that habitat destruction has on people is the loss of many valuable ecosystem services. Habitat destruction has altered nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and carbon cycles, which has increased the frequency and severity of acid rain, algal blooms, and fish kills in rivers and oceans and contributed tremendously to global climate change. One ecosystem service whose significance is becoming better understood is climate regulation. On a local scale, trees provide windbreaks and shade; on a regional scale, plant transpiration recycles rainwater and maintains constant annual rainfall; on a global scale, plants (especially trees in tropical rainforests) around the world counter the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Other ecosystem services that are diminished or lost altogether as a result of habitat destruction include watershed management, nitrogen fixation, oxygen production, pollination (see pollinator decline), waste treatment (i.e., the breaking down and immobilization of toxic pollutants), and nutrient recycling of sewage or agricultural runoff.

The loss of trees from tropical rainforests alone represents a substantial diminishing of Earth's ability to produce oxygen and to use up carbon dioxide. These services are becoming even more important as increasing carbon dioxide levels is one of the main contributors to global climate change. The loss of biodiversity may not directly affect humans, but the indirect effects of losing many species as well as the diversity of ecosystems in general are enormous. When biodiversity is lost, the environment loses many species that perform valuable and unique roles in the ecosystem. The environment and all its inhabitants rely on biodiversity to recover from extreme environmental conditions. When too much biodiversity is lost, a catastrophic event such as an earthquake, flood, or volcanic eruption could cause an ecosystem to crash, and humans would obviously suffer from that. Loss of biodiversity also means that humans are losing animals that could have served as biological-control agents and plants that could potentially provide higher-yielding crop varieties, pharmaceutical drugs to cure existing or future diseases (such as cancer), and new resistant crop-varieties for agricultural species susceptible to pesticide-resistant insects or virulent strains of fungi, viruses, and bacteria.

The negative effects of habitat destruction usually impact rural populations more directly than urban populations. Across the globe, poor people suffer the most when natural habitat is destroyed, because less natural habitat means fewer natural resources per capita, yet wealthier people and countries can simply pay more to continue to receive more than their per capita share of natural resources.

Another way to view the negative effects of habitat destruction is to look at the opportunity cost of destroying a given habitat. In other words, what do people lose out on with the removal of a given habitat? A country may increase its food supply by converting forest land to row-crop agriculture, but the value of the same land may be much larger when it can supply natural resources or services such as clean water, timber, ecotourism, or flood regulation and drought control.

Outlook
The rapid expansion of the global human population is increasing the world's food requirement substantially. Simple logic dictates that more people will require more food. In fact, as the world's population increases dramatically, agricultural output will need to increase by at least 50%, over the next 30 years. In the past, continually moving to new land and soils provided a boost in food production to meet the global food demand. That easy fix will no longer be available, however, as more than 98% of all land suitable for agriculture is already in use or degraded beyond repair.

The impending global food crisis will be a major source of habitat destruction. Commercial farmers are going to become desperate to produce more food from the same amount of land, so they will use more fertilizers and show less concern for the environment to meet the market demand. Others will seek out new land or will convert other land-uses to agriculture. Agricultural intensification will become widespread at the cost of the environment and its inhabitants. Species will be pushed out of their habitat either directly by habitat destruction or indirectly by fragmentation, degradation, or pollution. Any efforts to protect the world's remaining natural habitat and biodiversity will compete directly with humans' growing demand for natural resources, especially new agricultural lands.

Solutions
Attempts to address habitat destruction are in international policy commitments embodied by Sustainable Development Goal 15 "Life on Land" and Sustainable Development Goal 14 "Life Below Water". However, the United Nations Environment Programme report on "Making Peace with Nature" released in 2021 found that most of these efforts had failed to meet their internationally agreed upon goals.

Tropical deforestation: In most cases of tropical deforestation, three to four underlying causes are driving two to three proximate causes. This means that a universal policy for controlling tropical deforestation would not be able to address the unique combination of proximate and underlying causes of deforestation in each country. Before any local, national, or international deforestation policies are written and enforced, governmental leaders must acquire a detailed understanding of the complex combination of proximate causes and underlying driving forces of deforestation in a given area or country. This concept, along with many other results of tropical deforestation from the Geist and Lambin study, can easily be applied to habitat destruction in general.

Shoreline erosion: Coastal erosion is a natural process as storms, waves, tides and other water level changes occur. Shoreline stabilization can be done by barriers between land and water such as seawalls and bulkheads. Living shorelines are gaining attention as a new stabilization method. These can reduce damage and erosion while simultaneously providing ecosystem services such as food production, nutrient and sediment removal, and water quality improvement to society

Preventing an area from losing its specialist species to generalist invasive species depends on the extent of the habitat destruction that has already taken place. In areas where the habitat is relatively undisturbed, halting further habitat destruction may be enough. In areas where habitat destruction is more extreme (fragmentation or patch loss), restoration ecology may be needed.

Education of the general public is possibly the best way to prevent further human habitat destruction. Changing the dull creep of environmental impacts from being viewed as acceptable to being seen a reason for change to more sustainable practices. Education about the necessity of family planning to slow population growth is important as greater population leads to greater human caused habitat destruction. Habitat restoration can also take place through the following processes; extending habitats or repairing habitats. Extending habitats aims to counteract habitat loss and fragmentation whereas repairing habitats counteracts degradation.

The preservation and creation of habitat corridors can link isolated populations and increase pollination. Corridors are also known to reduce the negative impacts of habitat destruction.

The biggest potential to solving the issue of habitat destruction comes from solving the political, economical and social problems that go along with it such as, individual and commercial material consumption, sustainable extraction of resources, conservation areas, restoration of degraded land and addressing climate change.

Governmental leaders need to take action by addressing the underlying driving forces, rather than merely regulating the proximate causes. In a broader sense, governmental bodies at a local, national, and international scale need to emphasize:

It is argued that the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation can be counteracted by including spatial processes in potential restoration management plans. However, even though spatial dynamics are incredibly important in the conservation and recovery of species, a limited amount of management plans are taking the spatial effects of habitat restoration and conservation into consideration.
 * 1) Considering the irreplaceable ecosystem services provided by natural habitats.
 * 2) Protecting remaining intact sections of natural habitat.
 * 3) Finding ecological ways to increase agricultural output without increasing the total land in production.
 * 4) Reducing human population and expansion. Apart from improving access to contraception globally, furthering gender equality also has a great benefit. When women have the same education (decision-making power), this generally leads to smaller families.

title: Habitat destruction


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Irate/Evidence

The evidence just presented was compiled at by:

 * * – Users certifying the basis for this dispute at Requests for comment/Irate
 * ** – Other users who endorse this summary at Requests for comment/Irate