UK Biodiversity is now down to 53%..one of the lowest in the World. (1 Viewer)

[Steviewonder]

The world average is 75 %...and that is below the 90% needed to avoid an ecological recession.

This study comes from the Natural History museum.

They blame the former Industrial revolution..conveniently ignoring the current Elephant in the room,which is our ever-growing Human population,leading to our intensive farming methods using pesticides and destroying hedgerows,which are certainly destroying our insect and Birdlife.

 

[mjh73]

Population is an easy go to as it transfers the need to act onto younger and future generations.
However consumption is at least compounding, if not driving the problem.
If we could wind back our rapacious consumption of more than we need we could make a big change now, whereas population needs generations to change.
Growth is already slowing significantly in many western countries, and negative in a decent handful.

I'm not convinced population growth = intensive and harmful farming methods. I think farming economics is much more complex. The difficulty in achieving a cost that enables profitability in the face of supermarket bargaining power is more likely to be driving consolidation to drive efficiency and environmental issues taking a poor second place to squeezing the maximum yield out of ever Hectare.

 

[Maffong]

The world average is 75 %...and that is below the 90% needed to avoid an ecological recession.

This study comes from the Natural History museum.

They blame the former Industrial revolution..conveniently ignoring the current Elephant in the room,which is our ever-growing Human population,leading to our intensive farming methods using pesticides and destroying hedgerows,which are certainly destroying our insect and Birdlife.

I'd argue that the elephant in the room is being addressed very adequately. The industrial revolution was the main reason for steep population growth worldwide. It furthermore increased per capita income, which I'd argue was at least as important as population growth (and nowaday is probably even more important) as it led to far higher consumption rates of natural resources than before and has led an extremely unsustainable overconsumption.
By the way, in many (most?) so-called first world countries the population size has been stagnating for several decades now, yet use of natural resources is still increasing.

 

[Farnboro John]

Population is an easy go to as it transfers the need to act onto younger and future generations.
However consumption is at least compounding, if not driving the problem.
If we could wind back our rapacious consumption of more than we need we could make a big change now, whereas population needs generations to change.
Growth is already slowing significantly in many western countries, and negative in a decent handful.

I'm not convinced population growth = intensive and harmful farming methods. I think farming economics is much more complex. The difficulty in achieving a cost that enables profitability in the face of supermarket bargaining power is more likely to be driving consolidation to drive efficiency and environmental issues taking a poor second place to squeezing the maximum yield out of ever Hectare.

You can't sell what people don't want, so unless there are actual shortages or changing climate (another population-caused thing) enables growing different crops to access a different market sector, the only reason for growing more is more people wanting to eat the same amount.... unless of course you want to argue that obesity is driving farming growth, which frankly I don't believe.

And you are underselling population change: all you need is the entire coming generation to pop out no more than one child and the future breeding population will at least halve. It's the quick answer, and the best way to achieve it is to "baby shame" grandparents who boast of large families and to incite youngsters to selfishly party their lives away without giving themselves the millstone of raising kids. Take it from me, youngsters, you will have a lot more fun and get bigger lists.

John

 

[Chosun Juan]

As well as population growth, over consumption, and landscape use destruction of environment - you need to add the all important financial system itself ...... people destroying the world for 'profit'.



Chosun 🙅‍♀️

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

As well as population growth, over consumption, and landscape use destruction of environment - you need to add the all important financial system itself ...... people destroying the world for 'profit'.



Chosun 🙅‍♀️

I don't think any of these, on their own or combined, adequately explain the disregard for wildlife.

And, the people who 'make a profit' aren't the only people to not think about much outside of their immediate existence, not by a long chalk.

 

[Farnboro John]

I don't think any of these, on their own or combined, adequately explain the disregard for wildlife.

And, the people who 'make a profit' aren't the only people to not think about much outside of their immediate existence, not by a long chalk.

Well, somebody when I was entering teenage made the mistake of telling me that intellectually I was in the top 5% of people. Using that alleged ability, I quickly worked out it meant 95% of people were more stupid than I was. Consequently the world-wide stupidity of humans doesn't surprise me, to this day. And that's all you need to understand, to realise why we are in such a situation in the first place and extremely unlikely to get out of it in the second.

There is no good news.

John

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Well, somebody when I was entering teenage made the mistake of telling me that intellectually I was in the top 5% of people. Using that alleged ability, I quickly worked out it meant 95% of people were more stupid than I was. Consequently the world-wide stupidity of humans doesn't surprise me, to this day. And that's all you need to understand, to realise why we are in such a situation in the first place and extremely unlikely to get out of it in the second.

There is no good news.

John

I wouldn't say it's human stupidity, John, but we do tend to herd towards and behind ideas.

I would say the issue we have, came out of the age of enlightenment, science and Liberalism; placing human beings at the centre of the universe. Most of what they thought about human beings is demonstrably wide of the mark as seen through the way we actually are two to three hundred years later. The inevitable conclusion has been a mess including: not minding our own business, Consumerism, and somewhere in there you have the Anglo-American philosophy of championing our immediate existence above all else (when it suits).

We probably will get out of it, not in my lifetime, however; and more out of necessity than empathy. Ideas and social norms change according to the problems of the age.

 

[Farnboro John]

I wouldn't say it's human stupidity, John, but we do tend to herd towards and behind ideas.

I would say the issue we have, came out of the age of enlightenment, science and Liberalism; placing human beings at the centre of the universe. Most of what they thought about human beings is demonstrably wide of the mark as seen through the way we actually are two to three hundred years later. The inevitable conclusion has been a mess including: not minding our own business, Consumerism, and somewhere in there you have the Anglo-American philosophy of championing our immediate existence above all else (when it suits).

We probably will get out of it, not in my lifetime, however; and more out of necessity than empathy. Ideas and social norms change according to the problems of the age.

I'd say you are completely wrong. You find humans (at the expense of all else) much closer to the centre of existence in Asian societies (China in particular) of those that have extricated themselves from subsistence living across the nation. It is reflected in their completely amoral attitudes to the animal kingdom - de-finning sharks and throwing the helpless animals back, farming bears for gall bladders, pursuing the annihilation of tigers and rhinos and pangolins for quack remedies. Those attitudes only persist in marginal areas of the West such as the Faeroes and in individuals who believe themselves beyond law, usually due to wealth.

Western societies of the Enlightenment have considerable movements of protection towards nature but are hampered in many aspects of their struggle by pro-human morals. I'd say that's different and maybe better but democracy will never win as long as the majority of people are stupid and ultimately selfish (and blind to where that leads). Which means doom is inevitable.

John

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I'd say you are completely wrong. You find humans (at the expense of all else) much closer to the centre of existence in Asian societies (China in particular) of those that have extricated themselves from subsistence living across the nation. It is reflected in their completely amoral attitudes to the animal kingdom - de-finning sharks and throwing the helpless animals back, farming bears for gall bladders, pursuing the annihilation of tigers and rhinos and pangolins for quack remedies. Those attitudes only persist in marginal areas of the West such as the Faeroes and in individuals who believe themselves beyond law, usually due to wealth.

Western societies of the Enlightenment have considerable movements of protection towards nature but are hampered in many aspects of their struggle by pro-human morals. I'd say that's different and maybe better but democracy will never win as long as the majority of people are stupid and ultimately selfish (and blind to where that leads). Which means doom is inevitable.

John

I wouldn't say people are stupid, but we are pack animals.

The Enlightenment and associated Liberalism encompasses far more than 'protection towards nature', and actually that is barely related to the Enlightenment and certainly not exclusive to Liberalism.

My point is that as a direct result of that age we have ever-increasing encroachment into other people's and other species space.

 

[Farnboro John]

ot in any way Liberals)I wouldn't say people are stupid, but we are pack animals.

The Enlightenment and associated Liberalism encompasses far more than 'protection towards nature', and actually that is barely related to the Enlightenment and certainly not exclusive to Liberalism.

My point is that as a direct result of that age we have ever-increasing encroachment into other people's and other species space.

But where is your evidence that peoples other than Western have gone through the Enlightenment rather than cherry-picked technologies from it (which is not the same thing)? The majority of people are not Enlightened Westerners (and certainly not in any way Liberals) and because of that your point will not stand the tiniest bit of analysis. The difficulties in which the ecosystem that is the planet finds itself are to do with the innate nature of humanity: selfish, boorish, power-hungry, anthropocentric and within that entirely tribal.

Nothing to do with Western Liberalism or Enlightenment.

And in a world where people with access to Western science read their horoscopes and don't believe in vaccines, there is a shortage of evidence that people aren't literally terminally stupid.

John

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

But where is your evidence that peoples other than Western have gone through the Enlightenment rather than cherry-picked technologies from it (which is not the same thing)? The majority of people are not Enlightened Westerners (and certainly not in any way Liberals) and because of that your point will not stand the tiniest bit of analysis. The difficulties in which the ecosystem that is the planet finds itself are to do with the innate nature of humanity: selfish, boorish, power-hungry, anthropocentric and within that entirely tribal.

Nothing to do with Western Liberalism or Enlightenment.

And in a world where people with access to Western science read their horoscopes and don't believe in vaccines, there is a shortage of evidence that people aren't literally terminally stupid.

John

I'm not a moral relativist, John, but at the same time I'm not really interested in comparing what we do with China. I think we should be looking at ourselves first and foremost, not least because China doesn't exist in a vacuum.

This country is a product of Western Liberal Democracy. Liberalism won the argument a long time ago to the extent that we don't really have any conservative politics in this country as it stands today. The problem with Liberalism, is that it has expansion at the core of the philosophy: it was pursued aggressively back in the day and remains with us today, albeit not so aggressive.

The idea that human beings can and must save other human beings is central to Liberalism. The problem being that we are not necessarily reasonable, which is not what the Enlightenment thinkers claimed and used as a basis for their ideas, and what we end up doing is essentially trying to make them like us. Again, this is a fundamentally flawed human centric view of the world which extends to nature: we delude ourselves into thinking we know best and consequently believe we can just take over everything and with our expert guidance everything will work out fine.

In the event we had accepted our place in the world, just another animal species, and respected what was around us and left well alone; we wouldn't be seeing the destruction of wildlife that we see today including the obsession with putting a building on any spare blade of grass going and the ferocious reclaiming of land for our benefit regardless of the consequences. All of that is a product of liberal ideals bound up with expansion and progress.

Don't get me wrong, I would class myself as a liberal, but a pragmatic liberal rather than being wedded to dogma and ideology; but there is no getting away from the fact that Liberalism is a double edged sword which encompasses the best and worst aspects of human nature.

So, we remain in the age of expansion, we've repackaged it and called it something different; but we're forming gangs, still, and challenging other parts of the world. All of this requires resources.

 

[Farnboro John]

You'll never save the world by insular self-flagellating navel contemplation and the major problems are not down to the UK or even Western Europe. So your ignoring of China will inevitably result in world ruin.

Merry Christmas,

John

 

[Mysticete]

I mean, what would you suggest be done about China?

We can change laws in our own countries or in our regions, but we have very little control of what happens somewhere like China (Or India, or etc). I am not saying you are making this argument, but I do often times see folks say "Well China is doing X, so we shouldn't do anything or worry about environmental issues related to our own country". Which doesn't seem like it is going to improve the world.

 

[Farnboro John]

I mean, what would you suggest be done about China?

We can change laws in our own countries or in our regions, but we have very little control of what happens somewhere like China (Or India, or etc). I am not saying you are making this argument, but I do often times see folks say "Well China is doing X, so we shouldn't do anything or worry about environmental issues related to our own country". Which doesn't seem like it is going to improve the world.

You are right I'm not. I think it is incumbent on those who care to do something about it. China's influence in the world is economically based. So do what you can to influence their economy. Don't buy Chinese (at all if you can manage it.) Fight proposals to have Chinese involved in projects in your area. Avoid companies that have Chinese investment (and let them know why.)

Don't go to China because if you do you legitimise the regime. I don't care if you do need their endemics. Make them pariahs, isolate them, cut off the basis for their power.

John

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

You'll never save the world by insular self-flagellating navel contemplation and the major problems are not down to the UK or even Western Europe. So your ignoring of China will inevitably result in world ruin.

Merry Christmas,

John

The OP mentions issues that we have here in our back garden. That said, I've no idea why China should be brought into this particular discussion. We have a problem because of the way we think, and the way we think is pretty stunted when it comes to respecting what is around us, particularly other wild species. I suppose we're not bad at caring for other human beings, not great by the way, but then that is forced upon us because we're a crowded island and so compelled to provide some sort of support for one another otherwise we just couldn't make a peaceful and prosperous society work. When it comes to respecting our wildlife, however, we're not doing a very good job (which is pointed out in the OP).

 

[Farnboro John]

The OP mentions issues that we have here in our back garden. That said, I've no idea why China should be brought into this particular discussion. We have a problem because of the way we think, and the way we think is pretty stunted when it comes to respecting what is around us, particularly other wild species. I suppose we're not bad at caring for other human beings, not great by the way, but then that is forced upon us because we're a crowded island and so compelled to provide some sort of support for one another otherwise we just couldn't make a peaceful and prosperous society work. When it comes to respecting our wildlife, however, we're not doing a very good job (which is pointed out in the OP).

Well, it just sort of grew from what I perceived as an over-emphasis on guilt about Western wrongness (in which I very much don't believe) as opposed to where do we go from here (at which I believe the West is getting very slowly better though hampered by vested interests and wealth-holders) and I agree aspects of my posts could also be perceived as "whataboutery". However, the truth is that nothing less than global responses will do and anthropocentricity is not the planet's friend. We as a species need to stop worrying about our species and start worrying about all the others. All the evidence is that humans as a species are as hard to kill as a cockroach.

Hence my mention and hatred for the amoral Chinese with their quack medicine annihilating large animal species for less than no reason. I see them as a much more important problem for the world than any of the issues in Britain with its general lack of endemic wildlife.

John

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Well, it just sort of grew from what I perceived as an over-emphasis on guilt about Western wrongness (in which I very much don't believe) as opposed to where do we go from here (at which I believe the West is getting very slowly better though hampered by vested interests and wealth-holders) and I agree aspects of my posts could also be perceived as "whataboutery". However, the truth is that nothing less than global responses will do and anthropocentricity is not the planet's friend. We as a species need to stop worrying about our species and start worrying about all the others. All the evidence is that humans as a species are as hard to kill as a cockroach.

Hence my mention and hatred for the amoral Chinese with their quack medicine annihilating large animal species for less than no reason. I see them as a much more important problem for the world than any of the issues in Britain with its general lack of endemic wildlife.

John

We're all in it together. The average person on the street couldn't care less about wildlife, and they are at the very least equally committed to the consumer lifestyle. We probably should disabuse ourselves of the notion that 'the wealthy' are the root of all evil.

 

[Swampy Sam]

From my perspective on this. I'm a construction worker in Florida and the mass migration of people from other states moving here is insane. I have lived in a pretty small town and now we are destroying several wooded areas around for housing developments . I have been in this work for almost 30 years and haven't ever seen anything like this. What do you do ? You can't stop it. It breaks my heart to see it .Being a birder. I don't understand why they at least leave some trees between the houses. Nope the just come in and level acres then start building. It's all about money. That's it.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

From my perspective on this. I'm a construction worker in Florida and the mass migration of people from other states moving here is insane. I have lived in a pretty small town and now we are destroying several wooded areas around for housing developments . I have been in this work for almost 30 years and haven't ever seen anything like this. What do you do ? You can't stop it. It breaks my heart to see it .Being a birder. I don't understand why they at least leave some trees between the houses. Nope the just come in and level acres then start building. It's all about money. That's it.

We see the exact same thing here. But, money is merely a currency, medium, whatever you want to call it. The real problem is the way we think and we're all in on it: whether that's the property developers, the estate agents or the average person on the street. Most of us simply can't conceive of anything outside of our immediate existence involving bricks, fridge magnets and ice cream.