Are the environmentalists way of the mark?
Discussion
Following on from the 4x4 thread,i drive nights and during my travels see no end of animals (other than the night life),animals like ,rabbits,fox's,badgers,owls,deer etc,and they seem to be getting more and more braver with their forages into the towns suburbs.
There is one beautiful example of an owl i see on a regular bassis ,either sitting on the white lines in the road or perched on signs also a fox that i can get a roads width away from and looks far as healthy and clean as any house pet ive come across.
All the animals i am seeing are not only plentiful but look extremely healthy and if they are anything to go by then the countryside is doing well,surely this in itself is an example that greenies are a bit wide of the mark when they are saying we are harming this earth and if anything we are enhancing it.
There is one beautiful example of an owl i see on a regular bassis ,either sitting on the white lines in the road or perched on signs also a fox that i can get a roads width away from and looks far as healthy and clean as any house pet ive come across.
All the animals i am seeing are not only plentiful but look extremely healthy and if they are anything to go by then the countryside is doing well,surely this in itself is an example that greenies are a bit wide of the mark when they are saying we are harming this earth and if anything we are enhancing it.
Possibly, who knows? The fact that you're seeing wildlife in towns doesn't mean that it's particularly plentiful - just that the animals have been trained to be far less worried about being seen. Before the town was there, your one owl might have been a flock - or perhaps not.
I guess the 'mentalists are right to be worried - you have to believe that our towns and roads must have some effect on wildlife, and some species of animals and plant life are definately dying out in our modern world. Whether they would have died out anyway is another question entirely.
There's an idea that somehow everything should stay exactly the same. The Victorians didn't believe that, and were happy to rip up the old and bring in the new - archaeology was about digging up pretty trinkets and housing was a question of building bigger and better in new and exciting ways. It has only been in the last century that we suddenly became concerned about preserving our habitiat - both natural and man made. At the extreme, 'mentalists would much rather we live in mud huts because somehow the modern world is bad. Some of it certainly is, but change itself isn't a bad thing.
I guess the 'mentalists are right to be worried - you have to believe that our towns and roads must have some effect on wildlife, and some species of animals and plant life are definately dying out in our modern world. Whether they would have died out anyway is another question entirely.
There's an idea that somehow everything should stay exactly the same. The Victorians didn't believe that, and were happy to rip up the old and bring in the new - archaeology was about digging up pretty trinkets and housing was a question of building bigger and better in new and exciting ways. It has only been in the last century that we suddenly became concerned about preserving our habitiat - both natural and man made. At the extreme, 'mentalists would much rather we live in mud huts because somehow the modern world is bad. Some of it certainly is, but change itself isn't a bad thing.
Tuna said:
Possibly, who knows? The fact that you're seeing wildlife in towns doesn't mean that it's particularly plentiful - just that the animals have been trained to be far less worried about being seen. Before the town was there, your one owl might have been a flock - or perhaps not.
I guess the 'mentalists are right to be worried - you have to believe that our towns and roads must have some effect on wildlife, and some species of animals and plant life are definately dying out in our modern world. Whether they would have died out anyway is another question entirely.
There's an idea that somehow everything should stay exactly the same. The Victorians didn't believe that, and were happy to rip up the old and bring in the new - archaeology was about digging up pretty trinkets and housing was a question of building bigger and better in new and exciting ways. It has only been in the last century that we suddenly became concerned about preserving our habitiat - both natural and man made. At the extreme, 'mentalists would much rather we live in mud huts because somehow the modern world is bad. Some of it certainly is, but change itself isn't a bad thing.
Ive been driving nights off and on for the last 20+ years and the wildlife apart from becoming bolder is looking far healthier and in greater numbers,it was a rare thing to see an owl a few years back but in the last couple off years i have spotted them on a regular bassis,even sitting on white lines on empty dual carriageways at nights,,,,unless they have changed their hunting tactics and find it easier to sit in wait for smaller rodents dashing over the tarmac surface.
Are environ mentalists way off the mark?
At individual level no, people's concern is genuine but they feel this concern for 'the enviwonment' just like busybodies view speeding because of 'the childwen' without really understanding where the problems are and where concern is needed and where it's not.
At organised crime level yes, to the politically motivated national organisers it's a front for marxism by the green door. We've already got state control of capitalism through energy penalties like the risible climate change levy, and whether we're talking about domestic or industrial energy supplies we're at crisis point cos the greens have made it unacceptable to burn your own farts.
Think on about those 'carbon credit cards' they want us to use. It won't matter if you win the lottery, you'll only be able to expend energy (i.e. consume as a consumer) up to your personal limit, set by the ecofascists at some illogical and pointless level based on a random number generated by tipping lentils onto Porritt's trousers and diving the future from the shape of the stain.
At which point every individual will be able to spend precisely as much as every other individual, or to travel the same distance, etc etc. Redistribution of wealth will then set in as rich people buy carbon credits off poor people. Which brings us to the soviet union.
It really is, because the planet is a big threat to all life and the lesser forms need us higher forms to protect them. Think aircraft - parents are told to put the oxygen mask on themselves first so they are conscious and can help children...lifeguards are told to put a rescue between themselves and any rocks or tidebreaks so they remain able to effect the rescue.
All the way down the line the organised greens exploit emotion over reason through propaganda, tweak the guilt glands of the gullible with generalisations, and it's politics not science that's going down here.
At individual level no, people's concern is genuine but they feel this concern for 'the enviwonment' just like busybodies view speeding because of 'the childwen' without really understanding where the problems are and where concern is needed and where it's not.
At organised crime level yes, to the politically motivated national organisers it's a front for marxism by the green door. We've already got state control of capitalism through energy penalties like the risible climate change levy, and whether we're talking about domestic or industrial energy supplies we're at crisis point cos the greens have made it unacceptable to burn your own farts.
Think on about those 'carbon credit cards' they want us to use. It won't matter if you win the lottery, you'll only be able to expend energy (i.e. consume as a consumer) up to your personal limit, set by the ecofascists at some illogical and pointless level based on a random number generated by tipping lentils onto Porritt's trousers and diving the future from the shape of the stain.
At which point every individual will be able to spend precisely as much as every other individual, or to travel the same distance, etc etc. Redistribution of wealth will then set in as rich people buy carbon credits off poor people. Which brings us to the soviet union.
Dr Reed F Noss of The Wildlands Project said:
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans
any sane human said:
b0ll0x
It really is, because the planet is a big threat to all life and the lesser forms need us higher forms to protect them. Think aircraft - parents are told to put the oxygen mask on themselves first so they are conscious and can help children...lifeguards are told to put a rescue between themselves and any rocks or tidebreaks so they remain able to effect the rescue.
All the way down the line the organised greens exploit emotion over reason through propaganda, tweak the guilt glands of the gullible with generalisations, and it's politics not science that's going down here.
you're seeing the animals in towns and cities because they are being forced out of their natural habitats to find food snd shelter - and the urban areas are the best places for them to do this. they arent particularly increasing their numbers, you just see more of them. the hardline environmentalists are by and large nutters, but they are right about this one
I don't think the environmentals are way off the mark, but we ARE better at looking after the environment and protecting birds etc. in Europe than some other places.
(e.g : commercial deforestation in Borneo is wrecks the habitat for the natives and for all the birds and animals , causes massive soil runoff , destroying rivers , the land will never recover as once the jungle floor is eroded down to rock (its only 1 foot thick )- it won't grow back ( seen this for myself ))
(e.g : commercial deforestation in Borneo is wrecks the habitat for the natives and for all the birds and animals , causes massive soil runoff , destroying rivers , the land will never recover as once the jungle floor is eroded down to rock (its only 1 foot thick )- it won't grow back ( seen this for myself ))
Organisms adapt ... if that adptation is to a forest canopy maturing and killing off some of the ground level flora and fauna through light starvation, or foxes adapting to urban sprawl, so what? If you don't adapt you become extinct, a perfectly natural and normal endpoint of the evolutionary pathway.
On a wider but related point why are humans seen as somehow unnatural when we're part of nature and part of the biosphere and do what comes naturally - us our intelligence in whatever way we can? Don't let this fool you into thinking we can pursue a totally selfish line though, as our intelligence also tells us about beneficial relationships with other organisms, plants and so on, and how to operate for mutual benefit.
It's only when you artificially put humans and our activitites 'outside' of nature that a problem appears. We're firmly part of nature and the biosphere.
On a wider but related point why are humans seen as somehow unnatural when we're part of nature and part of the biosphere and do what comes naturally - us our intelligence in whatever way we can? Don't let this fool you into thinking we can pursue a totally selfish line though, as our intelligence also tells us about beneficial relationships with other organisms, plants and so on, and how to operate for mutual benefit.
It's only when you artificially put humans and our activitites 'outside' of nature that a problem appears. We're firmly part of nature and the biosphere.
paulhol said:
you're seeing the animals in towns and cities because they are being forced out of their natural habitats to find food snd shelter - and the urban areas are the best places for them to do this. they arent particularly increasing their numbers, you just see more of them. the hardline environmentalists are by and large nutters, but they are right about this one
But are they being forced out?i live in the South east where building is probably at its healthiest,and if anything we should be forcing the wildlife back into the countryside. Both out in the country and in the suburbs the animal life seems to be at its most active for years,i can even pull over and watch animals at a very close distance.
I remember in the past if you saw a fox then it was normaly a skinny flea bitten thing but all the fox's ive seen in recent times look full and with healthy coats of fur,like i say there is one large fox i can actually get out of my cab and be a roads width away from.
Ive even seen deer come well into the estates,i think a lot of animals access the suburbs using the railway cuttings.
ZR1cliff said:
you're seeing the animals in towns and cities because they are being forced out of their natural habitats to find food snd shelter - and the urban areas are the best places for them to do this. they arent particularly increasing their numbers, you just see more of them. the hardline environmentalists are by and large nutters, but they are right about this one
But are they being forced out?i live in the South east where building is probably at its healthiest,and if anything we should be forcing the wildlife back into the countryside. Both out in the country and in the suburbs the animal life seems to be at its most active for years,i can even pull over and watch animals at a very close distance.
I remember in the past if you saw a fox then it was normaly a skinny flea bitten thing but all the fox's ive seen in recent times look full and with healthy coats of fur,like i say there is one large fox i can actually get out of my cab and be a roads width away from.
Ive even seen deer come well into the estates,i think a lot of animals access the suburbs using the railway cuttings.
The answer is in your question. They are being forced out of the environment and into contact with humans so are becoming used to it. Years ago, a fox would see you long before you saw it and be long gone, now it isnt as fearful and is happy to stick around for longer. It's a couple of years since i had to study this, but im sure there are some urbanisation and wildlife statistics out there easily available. Wildlife displacement is well documented.
turbobloke said:
Wildlife displacement is well documented.
The fact that we've decimated the fishstocks. So there aren't many boats landing catches for the gulls to scounge the waste from.
Set aside and the reduction of intensive agriculture as imports increase last led to more small mammal survival in the country. Foxes come to town 'cos they've developed a taste for Kentucky and there aren't as many loons in silly coats on horses riding around.
The brute fact is that although we are a perfectly natural part of the biosphere, we're making up a rising percentage of it. World population was
1 billion in 1800
2 billion in 1925
4 billion in 1970
6 billion in 2000
8 billion by 2050 unless the birds get us with the biological warfare first.
Hmmm, wonder if there's a mechanism at work there. Too many people jammed too close together rearing domestic poultry = Critical Mass when H5N1 comes to call...Glad I don't live in Thailand..
.............. I think I'll go and have a beer now.
>> Edited by tallbloke on Friday 6th January 18:14
tallbloke said:Now you're talking. Overfishing is a real environmental problem of a kind, but I don't think it explains why gulls are breeding inland. Like foxyloxy they've realised that kentuckyfriedchickenandbeerpuke is great food, and available in town centres everywhere. Intelligent adaptation see.
The fact that we've decimated the fishstocks.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 6th January 17:59
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff