The OP is pointing out that most pearl-clutching about the effects of wind turbines comes from people who don't care about birds in any other context. It's solely a way to continue fossil fuel production, using the language of environmentalism.

A serious discussion of the safety of birds would sound very different, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to talk about anything other than reducing fossil fuel production.

Ridiculous argument. Why on earth would people care about the birds in the context of natural processes compared to unnatural processes?

This is a monumentally stupid apples and oranges “gotcha”.

Ridiculous arguments are unfortunately common, and end up being part of politics and ultimately planning and decision-making.

Natural vs. unnatural is irrelevant though. "Nature" is normally out to kill you for its own benefit and does not care if the planet or any of its lifeforms survives. What matters is our interests in preserving the world we know or improving it in our eyes, and picking the best option for that.

The option that minimizes worldwide cancer development and doesn't screw up weather systems and various biomes would be the winner in that regard.

> natural processes

I'm curious, what are you thinking of when you say 'natural processes'? I hope it's not cats.

Or oil spills.

Symbiotic relationships are, in fact, a completely natural phenomena that is observed in non-human animal behaviour.

Housecats are not a symbiotic relationship. Seriously?

Of course they are.

I think you and the parent commenter are using different scopes for the word "we" in this case. There are some great programs in places to manage feral cat populations, but in many areas they are no where close to large enough to help fix population-level impacts on birds.