Mad Guardian Article (1 Viewer)

[lashinala]

true, but on an evolutionary scale, niche diversity is more important than species diversity. Given time, something WILL eventually come along.

 

[fugl]

Who's going to maintain the fences once our civilisation collapses and/or humans are extinct? My concern over conservation practice is that it is short-term and instrumentalist, i.e. ultimately concerned with the value of biodiversity to us, as humans. Shouldn't we be concerned with the long-term preservation of biodiversity for its own sake? On an evolutionary timescale, a fence is useless.

Graham

Concerned in what way--thinking about it a lot? There is certainly nothing practical we can do to preserve biodiversity "on an evolutionary timescale". What we can do is build fences & preserve it for our time--to study & enjoy in our ephemeral way & in the hope that future generations have the means & inclination to carry on the good work

 

[Qingcol]

What is 'relieving the man made pressure' - would this extend to recreating habitats lost, reforesting, etc.

If not, would this mean you view habitat recreation is a waste of time and money?

I fail to see how anybody would object to any project which, when all is done, leaves more behind than when was started. Loads of examples in the UK of valuable habitat creation leadig to massive increases in biodiversity, but equally many elsewhere across the globe. How about the recreation of forest corridors between extension protected areas? Habitats being enhanced to replace nearby areas destroyed?

I suppose it's some selfish deep yearning within me for true wilderness, something we will never see again in our time, not just a series of zoos with the best ones interlinked, the inmates sporting multiple colour rings, tags flags or radio collars, with TV cameras pushed right up against their nests. With my poor grasp on the English language, having experienced the lower end social education system in 50s Britain, a time when "one to one" meant a bloody scrap in the playground with the teacher looking the other way, I could never begin to explain to anyone who believes that they could do a better job of creating or preserving biodiversity than natural selection, one of the forces that created us, it would be like trying to sell Darwin or Dawkins to a creationist, or the other way round and I'm not saying that I nessarily have the right answer just an opinion, like all the other opinions expressed on this forum.I applaud any project that atempts to slow the destruction of natural habitats and species. I think we should do as little as possible simply because of past mistakes, other than, provide 'the permanent space for wildlife to flourish', the vegitation would become sustainable for the prevailing climatic conditions and the organisms attracted selected for their fitness, this would be moving foward the only way that evolution can, not trying to sustain a snapshot of the past, not the wilderness I yearn for but hopefully a new wilderness better adapted to modern pressures. If the urge to control is too great we at least have at some point to concentrate our efforts on controlling our own species population growth, if we value the natural world.

 

[Qingcol]

It was fairly big but a lot smaller than the other Earth Sanctuaries - Scotia sanctuary for example is 160,550 acres (though I don't think the entirety is feral free yet). As I understand it the idea is to create protected natural ecosystems which can then spread out into the non-fenced surroundings (by means of plant growth, bird/insect flight and small marsupial/reptile/amphibian spread through the fence). In other words it might not be ideal and certainly isn't something to compare with europe, asian or american conservation schemes but, as an example of how things in Aus need to be a little different its spot on. In terms of scale the Earth Sanctuary company's stated goal was protection of a set percentage of the total landmass of australia in such large sanctuaries (I can't remember if it was 1% or 10% but either way it was an enormous area).

Many thanks for the INFO, we need them that size in the UK!

 

[Isurus]

Who's going to maintain the fences once our civilisation collapses and/or humans are extinct? My concern over conservation practice is that it is short-term and instrumentalist, i.e. ultimately concerned with the value of biodiversity to us, as humans. Shouldn't we be concerned with the long-term preservation of biodiversity for its own sake? On an evolutionary timescale, a fence is useless.

Graham

true story but if the seed for the evolutionary development just got eaten by an escaped moggy we're stuck either way. This type of development is obviously a stopgap. I'm kind of hoping that before we go extinct as a species we'll deal with australia and new zealand's ferals more decisively.

 

[s. james]

true, but on an evolutionary scale, niche diversity is more important than species diversity. Given time, something WILL eventually come along.

Think I know what you mean but could you elaborate?

 

[lashinala]

In the 'long run', everybody needs a job to do. What the guy's name is...the species...isn't really as important has whether the job gets done. On an island, the jobs...the niches...are replaced much more slowly. Eventually, if all niches aren't filled, the whole island is 'anemic' in a way, not able to take advantage of opportunities presented to evolve new niche species. Somebody will eventually chew up dead/dying trees, distribute tree seeds, pollenate flowers, eat dead animals, etc. When is the only real question.

 

[John o'Sullivan]

Just a very quick reply. One that is attempting to concentrate on the belief systems that underpin conservation.

One of my firm beliefs and one that people who have seen my involvement on previous posts is that Conservation is the Opium of the Green Masses. It is used by governments to placate the green public and con them into thinking that something is being done.

British conservation is only possible because the food for the people of Britain is largely grown elsewhere and manufacturing has been transported across the world.

Massive environmental damage is caused in other countries so British conservationists can pat themselves on the back and say "haven't we done well".

In terms of the resources generated by the U.K. I heard a report on the radio that stated that by St Georges day i.e. April 23rd Britain had used up the equivalent of all its home produced resources for the year. The rest of the year we are relying on Global production from other countries.

What price the green belt, British nature reserves. In conserving this we lose tropical rainforest, Kenyan agricultural land etc etc etc.

In keeping British rivers clean we lose South east asian river systems and Delta's.

Which of these are more important globaly.

It is not conservation. It is capitalism and consumerism.

Brown and Obama's green energy campaign has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies, job creation, an attempt at shoring up crippled economies and the continuation of a rampant consumerist energy dependent society.

 

[username]

John O Sullivan............i don't have any wish to 'go thru' several of your points in your latest post...as there are far better folk than me around to do that i'm sure. I would be interested, however, to hear wot your alternatives might be?...regards the uk situation. Would you advocate ploughing up all the nature reserves then...in order to grow more crops for the uk population?...[or have i misunderstood your position]?
I would be interested to hear any of your alternative idea's....[kinda know what you don't like n disagree with now]!

ps....i agree with 'some' of your views regards governments/cons/etc...to a point! Let's face it....the general public really wouldn't want to know about the potentially 'extreme' measures that wud be needed in order to have a significant impact on the environment. Not exactly a 'vote winner' eh?! That's why..obviously...there's so much 'pussy-footing' about...it seems to me...[i could be wrong....always willing to change my views n all]....!

 

[ColonelBlimp]

Brown and Obama's green energy campaign has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies, job creation, an attempt at shoring up crippled economies and the continuation of a rampant consumerist energy dependent society.

Yeah, of course, but what has that got to do with conservation?

I, like username, would appreciate your alternatives to this eminently iniquitous arrangement.

 

[s. james]

In the 'long run', everybody needs a job to do. What the guy's name is...the species...isn't really as important has whether the job gets done. On an island, the jobs...the niches...are replaced much more slowly. Eventually, if all niches aren't filled, the whole island is 'anemic' in a way, not able to take advantage of opportunities presented to evolve new niche species. Somebody will eventually chew up dead/dying trees, distribute tree seeds, pollenate flowers, eat dead animals, etc. When is the only real question.

:t: Thanks.

 

[lashinala]

Oh...almost forgot the kicker...everywhere is an island. It might be bordered in asphalt or gravel or houses or water...but everywhere is an island. It's just as treacherous for a box turtle to cross a street as it is a fledgling albatross to cross sea water with tiger sharks.

 

[John o'Sullivan]

Good evening Colonel,

It's got everything to do with conservation because it is the conservation argument that is being used to push forwards a range of policies that have got nothing to do with real conservation but are to do with consumption and stealth taxes.

The conservation debate is being used for a whole range of nefarious reasons by the establishment to preserve the consumerist capitalist status quo (as well as for example to influence attitudes towards other cultures/religions and nationalities) .

The underlying belief systems that could be used to push forward real conservation action are manipulated and contaminated in order to push forward other agendas. Most of the public and many environmentalists swallow the superficial ineffective policies and fool themselves that what they are doing is somehow making a difference. They then don't act in ways that would really make a difference. They also don't pressurise the governments into meaningful action. The conservation agenda as pushed forward by the establishment becomes the opium that prevents meaningful action and stunts intelligent thought and debate.

This establishment dominated conservation debate leads to e.g. Green energy policies that are anything but green and a complacent approach by the public to the overall real destructive action that is taking place. Conservation agencies buy into the lunatic facade by taking grants and engaging in ridiculous actions that are essentially pointless. This includes gimmicky introductions and re-introductions and stupid culls of introduced species. Much more important however is the complicity of the conservation agencies with the global economy. Instead of protesting and looking for meaningful action they build their stupid little local reserves e.g. Goldcliff and ignore the fact that this means that in another part of the world much more important habitat is lost.

Conservation therefore becomes part of the overall problem rather than anything to do with a real solution.

People have asked me a few times what I would do to produce meaningful change one of the first things I would do is change the terms of the debate. I would also for example look for a complete ban on Tobacco worldwide. If governments were truly interested in conservation this is the sort of action that they would be looking at. The worlds population is going up to 9 billion by 2050. All available agricultural land should be used for essential foodstuffs. We cannot waste space on non-essential crops particularly unhealthy ones. The establishment however don't really care about the rest of the natural world, they don't really care about the poor and disadvantaged (particularly if they are foreign), they don't really care about conservation, they don't really care about ethics.

They care about money and power and themselves.

There isn't a hope in hell of doing any of the things that might promote meaningful room for the rest of the natural world as the people who have the power to bring about change have absolutely no intention of changing their behaviour or the behaviour of the countries they represent.

There are undoubtedly examples of actions taken by conservationists that are locally effective even if these actions are at times only effective in the immediate short term.

Overall however we do not have and we won't have action that will really make a difference. Even places like Australia that seem robust and sustainable may not be once the climate changes and the population of the world maxes out.

 

[username]

I understand where your coming from...[in the main]!...John 'O'....and agree with 'some' of your views. For sure...governments....the 'establishment'...often only offer 'token' gestures towards conservation..[globally]...but wot do you expect?...[perhaps nothing]!
Folk 'get in power' thru telling people wot they want to hear most of the time....nothing new there! I know you would like to change the terms of 'the debate'...but that ain't seriously gonna happen....is it?...[human nature being what it is]! So no 'real' viable alternatives then....it seems?! Of course humans only take issues seriously when the proverbial shite hits the fan....which i'm sure it will in due course....'then' the debate may change...but..of course..by then it might be too late.....[time for me to light up another fag then]......

 

[lashinala]

John o,
u bring up many good points, but consider foodstuffs...we can feed everyone on Earth, and people will still starve. Sometimes people just don't want a handout, or despots run a country, or they don't like the price (real food vs. edible food-like nutritional supplements), or maybe theres money in not teaching people to eat right (a learned behavior).
As far as politicians, as i've said b4.....vote. Like evolution...use small imperceivable steps to adapt.

 

[bitterntwisted]

true, but on an evolutionary scale, niche diversity is more important than species diversity. Given time, something WILL eventually come along.

But what if all niches get filled by variants of crows, rabbits, and gulls, and we lose the hoatzin, platypus, and manatee? Biodiversity is not just the number of phenotypes but the distance between those phenotypes.

However much adaptive radiation occurs in the wake of anthropogenic extinctions, the level of biodiversity regained is a function of the diversity of surviving lineages.

Graham

 

[lashinala]

Correct. So you and I may agree on who gets to 'stay and play' and who has to 'go home' (forever)...hopefully more will see it that way. Uniqueness alone should not (and does not) guarantee survival...and cuteness, don't get me started.
Corralling animals (and plants) into a confined space obviously isn't the answer...we've created islands where species get 'picked off' slowly over time...isolates vs. samples...and everybody and their mother wants to trudge through wilderness to 'witness' the last ones for themselves before they go, spreading disease with our sweaty shoes and spit and coughing...as if their presence will be offset by offering money.
Find a policy to corral humans? How well did/does that work for native Americans?

 

[Qingcol]

In an act of reciprocal altruism or selfishness, probably the latter preferring to watch large numbers of Shearwater to Rats, that have been accidently introduced to an island of breeding Shearwater, by culling the Rats do I help to weaken the Shearwater genotype, in as much as any mutation that resulted in a strategy for combating the predator would not necessarily be selected for, or would the surge of extra numbers created by my intervention provide the opportunity for more beneficial mutation in the long run?
If the species of Shearwater happens to be endemic and we protect them from Rats or any other threat as long as we have the resources or inclination to do so, is that altruism or selfishness?
I make no attempt to judge in fact I would enthusiastically help in the Rat cull, but dwell long and hard on my decision.

 

[fugl]

If the species of Shearwater happens to be endemic and we protect them from Rats or any other threat as long as we have the resources or inclination to do so, is that altruism or selfishness?.

Why would you care which of these terms you applied to your action? They're just words, albeit ethically-loaded ones.

 

[s. james]

variants of crows, rabbits, and gulls

Sounds good to me, I like them, I'm all for a load of new crow and gull species (not by 'splitting' tho!).

(... pure selfishness tho!)