back to article Nature ISN'T fragile nor a bossy mother-in-law - top eco boffin

The Green movement needs to rethink its philosophy from the ground-up. That's according to Peter Kareiva, a leading conservation expert and chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy, the world's biggest environmental group. It must abandon the idea that nature is "feminine" and in particular that it's "fragile", he said, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Tzael

    Best interests? Whose interests?

    The Nature Conservancy - take a guess who its main funders are... Take a guess how many lobbyist scandals it has been involved in...

    When you know the history behind the organisation (don't rely on a heavily moderated Wikipedia article) is it any wonder they're feeding BS to the public?

    PS On top of the huge wedges of cash they get from private firms they also have access to a large chunk of US tax payers' contributions. They got access to those funds using funding and lobbying from their main funders, in an effort to make the organisation appear to be more credible.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Best interests? Whose interests?

      So hang on a minute:

      They are bad because they are funded by Lobbyist?

      Yet in the same paragraph, you say that they are also bad because they are funded by private firms AND by the Tax Payer.

      I wonder what is your definition of a Lobbiyst, and which is in your eye the "proper" way for any of these organizations to be funded.

      1. Tzael
        FAIL

        Re: Best interests? Whose interests?

        I never said they were funded by lobbyists. I said they got access to government funding (grants) because of lobbying by the corporations who provide the majority of The Nature Conservancy's income.

    2. Aaron Em
      Facepalm

      Re: Best interests? Whose interests?

      So instead of "a heavily moderated Wikipedia article" I should...rely on the argument by bald-faced assertion of a random El Reg commentard whom I don't know from Adam's off ox? Gotcha.

    3. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Best interests? Whose interests?

      Not you again!

      http://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/1347841

      We're going to have to start giving out Prizes.

    4. Stephen Sherry
      WTF?

      Re: Best interests? Whose interests?

      Tzael, you're making everyone have to hear that the dynamic between individuals who are on the black and white sides of the fence, and the quiet majority in between that don't know what information to believe. As not many people seem to exercise critical thinking, and just believe the easiest thing that allows them to go back to drinking beer, even if it is to tell anyone who brings up little facts that bring a whole argument into question to shut up. So Shut Up, you're making me think and it makes me... just kidding :P You're also arguing with a lot of people who don't know the difference between radiation therapy based chemicals, and the chemicals formed by an uncontrolled meltdown... which the further away from Japan they are, the more nothing is happening and everything is under control, or could never be as bad as it is. Let's build more nuclear plants, eh? We're not being poisoned fast enough? Does my bringing up these questions make me an environmental nut? Whole swaths of society have been over generalized to the point that when people start any kind of debate, it turns into a competition of debasement. But that's just my opinion, what do I know?

  2. Ru
    Meh

    "enhance those natural systems that benefit the widest number of people"

    Right, excellent! It really is as easy as that. Someone buy that man a drink.

    Now, how does one know, a priori, a) which natural systems those are and b) what they actually comprise? Here's an easy answer for you: one cannot. Natural systems are complex, to say the least, and we simply don't understand, therefore to act cautiously and seek to preserve rather than selectively ignore and hope for the best is the most sensible approach, surely?

    That said, there's no reason why a pragmatic approach to ecology needs to be a punishment for humans, as so may extreme greenies seem to believe. I'm all for fracking and nuclear power, because the alternatives are so much worse, but I do feel very strongly that many current industrial and agricultural policies are going to cause significant long term damage. Sure, nature will carry on, because it has survived a snowball earth and massive volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes and a few too many pesticides aren't going to kill it off right now. That doesn't mean it'll still be quite so useful to us all in a hundred years time.

    1. lurker

      Re: "enhance those natural systems that benefit the widest number of people"

      Spot on. No (sensible) person thinks that nature is going to 'die', although it is beyond doubt that humanity is capable of (and has had great success at) 'weakening it' by reducing biodiversity.

      It is however quite plausible that we could alter it sufficiently to cause ourselves as a high-in-the-food-chain species major problems.

      And that's assuming you don't consider the loss of species at a shocking rate as an innately bad thing - whereas I suspect that most people do consider this bad, and would rather not have to explain to their grandchildren why there are no more tigers, whales or bees.

      Sure we may be able to survive in an ecosystem without tigers, whales or bees. But if we can avoid it, surely it's better not to find out.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "When people believe that a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do, it's actually the humans who suffer"

    Satellite imaging suggests otherwise.

    By "humans who suffer" basically he means "some people can't just do whatever they like without any consequences". Well, boo hoo. Welcome to Real Life™ You're confusing wants with needs.

    Actual suffering caused by protecting the environment than, you know, we live in is pretty well non-existent.

    1. Spearchucker Jones
      FAIL

      "Actual suffering caused by protecting the environment than, you know, we live in is pretty well non-existent."

      The "than" in these kindof obfuscates your position. I'm going to assume you mean "that".

      So, I think you're mistaken. There's that video of a little doctor's shack in Africa that has wonderful, renewable and EXPENSIVE energy in the form of a solar panel on the roof. Said panel produces enough electricity to run the refrigirtator, which keeps the medicine cool, or the light bulb, which means the doctor can work after dark.

      But not at the same time.

      Then compare, if you will, the number of deaths caused by nuclear power to the number of deaths caused by, say coal power. Or even wind power.

      The suffering is real.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Oh right

      Those DDT bans didn't affect malaria rates in third world countries at all did they, and the new carbon regimes wouldn't retard living standard improvements in those same third world countries either would it?

      He must have been talking just about "first world problems" because life is peachy everywhere else.

      1. David Hicks

        Re: Oh right

        WOW! A DDT Troll on the register! I thought you guys were extinct!

        You know mosquitos developed resistance to that, right?

        1. Bill Neal
          Trollface

          Re: Oh right DDT resistance

          "DDT can still be effective against resistant mosquitoes,[98] and the avoidance of DDT-sprayed walls by mosquitoes is an additional benefit of the chemical.[96] For example, a 2007 study reported that resistant mosquitoes avoided treated huts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Mosquito_resistance

          1. David Hicks
            Devil

            Re: Oh right DDT resistance

            The point is that there are better ways to deal with the problem now, and that DDT is actually still in use where it is the best solution and doesn't pose an environmental hazard.

            That's why I called 'troll', and I was right.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: David

              My point was simply that we do not live in a vacuum and that the OP was being an ass with a comment like this:

              "humans who suffer" basically he means "some people can't just do whatever they like without any consequences". Well, boo hoo.

              We should not pretend that our actions and decisions have no impact outside our comfortable little first world bubbles.

              Regarding DDT I think it's specious to claim no impact whatsoever from the Silent Spring backlash and Stockholm treaties - on the flip side I think it's also overstating things to blame millions of deaths on it. Truth is rarely straight black or white, although many argue it as such.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Oh right DDT resistance

              If the point is that, "there are better ways to deal with the problem now,," then why did you say, "You know mosquitos developed resistance to that, right?"

              Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to say, oh, I don't know, "There are better ways to deal with the problem now?"

              Or were you, in fact, posting from under the bridge yourself?

    3. Bill Neal
      Devil

      non-existant?

      Tell that to the people who are forced to pay outrageous prices for their shark fin soup!

    4. Charles Manning

      Satelite Images

      I call your bluff.

      Get onto Google Earth (http://maps.google.com/) . Zoom out to approx 1 inch = 200 miles and pretty much all the features you see are natural.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Excellent Article Andrew

    Good repost to the doom and end of the world sayers. These muppets always push for one agenda or law then whoops forget the law of untended consequences.

    Class example is mink farms, the idiotic tree huggers released farmed mink into the wild which proceeded to devastate the UK's rare vole population and other assorted species.

  5. Nick Ryan Silver badge

    The green movement did more damage to environmental causes with their rabid, blinkered hatred of everything nuclear than any other damage. How? Because in place of nuclear power stations, coal and oil ones were built which are much more damaging to the environment.

    As a result many countries, including the UK, are facing impending energy shortages and have no viable plan to ramp up energy production to keep up with demand.

    1. Tzael
      Coat

      Hah I don't know whether to upvote or downvote your post! You paint environmentalists with a broad brush stroke conveying a very negative impression - downvote deserved. Then you rightly point out that it is fear of nuclear power that has helped fossil fuel and highly inefficient renewables (i.e. wind power) to prevail - upvote deserved.

      Hmm, need a clincher - and for that I think it's best to point out that it;s the general public who have a fear of nuclear power, whereas most environmentalists I liaise with are keen to promote nuclear as a green source of energy. Downvote it is, sorry!

      1. Audrey S. Thackeray

        I had the same dilemma and ended up up-voting so it's all good.

    2. Some Beggar
      Thumb Down

      You're dividing your simplistic black and white world along the wrong line. Small 'c' conservatives and luddites are the main opponents to nuclear power, progressives and scientists have generally been in favour of it. The idea that this has any useful correlation with the 'green' movement is presumably based entirely on the fact that Greenpeace has the word 'green' in its name and is generally opposed to nuclear power.

      1. David Dawson

        What, pray tell, is a progressive?

        Binary world views are stupid.

        1. Some Beggar
          WTF?

          @David Dawson

          Progressive is the opposite of conservative/reactionary. It's a fairly common term. Is your version of Google broken or something?

          And I'm aware that binary world views are stupid ... that was essentially my point.

          What are you bibbling on about?

          1. David Dawson

            @Some beggar

            And I'm aware that binary world views are stupid ... that was essentially my point.

            -------

            It was?

            I was asking what you meant by progressive, given that it is by definition in opposition to a conservative, neither of which seem to have any relation to nukes. Ho hum

            1. Some Beggar
              WTF?

              I think you need to re-read what I wrote. Twice.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The green movement did more damage to environmental causes with their rabid, blinkered hatred of everything nuclear than any other damage. How? Because in place of nuclear power stations, coal and oil ones were built which are much more damaging to the environment."

      Sorry, in Andrew's world the coal and oil are not damaging the environment, so you lose, apparently.

  6. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do

    So humans are automatically bad.

    Leading to the conundrum that a dam built by a beaver is natural but one built by humans isn't; that a termite mound is natural but a city isn't; that a flight by an albatross is natural but a 747 isn't...

    If the people who espoused these views had the courage of their arguments, their only ethical response would be immediate suicide. Me, I'm a *natural* human, showing the same responses to stimuli as any other organism and equally breeding like mad (well actually, no, but you get the idea) and using as many resources as I can get my hands on.

    The difference is that I can suffer the angst about it later.

    Standing by for down-arrows...

    1. mark 63 Silver badge

      Re: a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do

      Neil, its all about scale and more specificly energy.

      Animal populations naturally level out at the resource levels the environment can sustain

      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do

        "Animal populations naturally level out at the resource levels the environment can sustain"

        Is that really so? How can then evolution be explained? Mother Nature seems to always want to find ways of getting access to more resources and energy every time it hits the stops. Humans are not an exception.

      2. James Micallef Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do

        "Animal populations naturally level out at the resource levels the environment can sustain"

        Yes, and humans are no exception to that rule. Luckily so far, technology has sustained our ability to support growing populations by increasing the resources available to us. Of course this could continue in the future (for example we better harness the available uranium / thorium resources via more nuclear technology, or further down the line utilise deuterium etc resources for fusion, and so on).

        The thing to keep in mind, though, is, there is never any guarantee that our technology advances will keep pace with the advances in resource requirements, and resource requirements are rising remarkably fast now because not only are populations rising but also resource use per capita is rising even more steeply.

        One side of this argument should realise that future resource availability (eg oil) is not guaranteed, and they'd better have some sort of plan to keep future resource availability in mind, not just take what they can now and screw the future. The other side should realise that simply obstructing any and every measure for new development will eventually block the development of new resources.

        The trick, as always, is in the balance

        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Re: a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do

          James - "Yes, and humans are no exception to that rule"

          If that was true we'd have died out a long time ago - we wouldn't be here.

          Overcoming natural constraints is what makes humans different.

      3. Bassey

        Re: a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do

        "Animal populations naturally level out at the resource levels the environment can sustain"

        And HOW do those "animal" populations level out their resource levels? By using too much and then suffering the consequences in terms of population loss.

        You have just rather wondefully made the EXACT point the article was making. Your only mistake was to use the word "animal" as if we are not one.

        1. mark 63 Silver badge
          Flame

          Re: a fragile "Mother Nature" is harmed by anything humans do

          ok ok , when i said

          "Animal populations naturally level out at the resource levels the environment can sustain"

          it may have siounded like an obvious ' nothing' statement

          I accept we humans will , by the proverbial "laws of nature" do the same thing

          But ,Bassey, i didnt get the impression that the point the article was making was that 3/4 of the current human population will have to die . I thought it was a cheery mesage of " carry on doing what the fuck you want, theres nothing to worry about"

          The current population is 20 times that that it was 200 years ago for one reason only - energy, specifically OIL .

          do the math

          read the book "The party'sover" by Richard Heisengberg - paying particular attention to the early chapters where he talks about the role of energy in animal ecosystems

  7. Audrey S. Thackeray

    Demise

    "In many circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to ecosystem function."

    "Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances," scientists now conclude. Well, some of them do.

    Sure. Of course this resilience doesn't mean our disturbances couldn't make us a formerly abundant species the demise of which would be inconsequential to 'nature'.

  8. mark 63 Silver badge

    In the grand sceme of things man is mainly bad for himself ,

    The earth abides

    Nature will hapily carry on without us

    I think the problem seems to be that the "plan" is to inhabit the small blue planet with an exponentially rising population currently at 7 billion

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      So

      What's so problematic about that plan?

    2. David Dawson

      Not exponential

      The best it can be said is that its linearly, but even thats in doubt for the future predictions.

      Still increasing, quite quickly of course, but after the initial population booms in many developing countries, population numbers are stabilising.

      Europes developed populations are now stable, and without immigration would be on a gentle decrease as our populations age.

      Education, medicine and decent jobs will give people in the rest of the world the confidence not to have loads of kids in the hope some of them will make it long enough to look after them in their old age.

      1. James Micallef Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Not exponential

        Yes, world population will eventually level off IF the whole world will reach the level of development currently achieved in 1st-world countries. UN projections are that global population will stabilise at around 9 bln.

  9. Tim of the Win

    Nature isn't fragile, but human beings are. The world will survive after we've wiped ourselves out, however we chose to do it. The long term needs of humanity are best served by making sure the planet stays in a relatively stable state that suits humans. Short term benefits to humans/economies are often directly opposed to the long term good of a human suitable eco-system.

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Long term needs

      The long term needs of humanity are best served by making sure we expand beyond just one planet, rather than relax and live comfortable on it. In that sense our short terms benefits are actually quite in line with the long term ones - achievement of the former creates incentives to a work towards the latter, before it's too late.

  10. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Interesting piece. It has strong echoes of how someone like Darwin saw nature. In excerpts of his journal published in "A Narrative of the Voyage of HMS Beagle" his descriptions of landscapes and natural scenes are surprisingly utilitarian, focusing very much of how the landscape could be used to man's benefit. Not at all what many modern environmentalists would expect.

    I think Kareiva is dead right that a more balanced view is needed. I have seen several efforts to set up reservations and protect species at the expense of the local population in Africa fail. Likewise I have seen other efforts in which the local population benefits be highly successful. Not really surprising when you think of it.

    1. ian 22

      But what is the "balanced view"?

      All that the ecomovement produced are nature preserves, museums for tourists to trundle through and marvel at what the world was in the Eocene. Does the balanced view mean simply smaller nature preserves?

      1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

        Re: But what is the "balanced view"?

        I simply mean that if each side demonize the other, we do not get anywhere.

        Making money is not evil in any way, nor is preserving nature. It is not wrong to hunt, or cut down trees, it is wrong to hunt creatures to extinction, and wantonly cutting down trees in such a way that whole forests disappear. A forest can be productive, and yet be a nature reserve (many are). If creating large nature reserves means chasing farmers off their land, you not going to make any friends. It causes resentment, and locals often start justifying poaching. If you make nature reserves that include sustainable farms, sustainable wood production, sustainable hunting and tourism, you get a win-win situation. Locals then tend to help track poachers, rather than be the poachers. You do not have to go to Africa for good examples. In the Netherlands many farmers contribute to care for the environment.

  11. Antony Riley
    Thumb Down

    I'd never say nature is fragile, but I'm not happy with the opinion that humans can't twist nature to serve them without unintended consequences. It's a very complicated and poorly understood system, and changing it often results in unforeseen consequences which often have a direct, negative impact on man:

    Salination of crop land in Egypt.

    Salination of crop land in California.

    Dust bowl in the US and Canada in the 30s.

    Soil erosion in the amazon rain forest due to deforestation.

    Soil erosion in southwest China due to human activities.

    I'd agree that nature will balance itself out in the end, but lets not forget that humans are a part of nature and we might be subject to balancing out.

    1. multipharious

      What's to balance?

      Mass extinction has happened before, and who knows...we might be in line. Or we might just make the planet a miserable mess to inhabit. That was the point of the article. We are not destroying anything, just potentially shitting all over our bed.

  12. AnonymousNow

    So today, really, the issue is not the environment, but about the rights of individuals to do what they want with it... and let's be clear, we are talking about the rights of the 1 percent in that respect and no one else. Yes, that's the real issue of the day. Hawking establishment "ethos" at the every time when the 99% are being destroyed by those "ethos." Time for some new blood at these organizations.

  13. Tom Reg
    Stop

    "Big Oil" - the "Green Industrial Complex"

    The companies installing wind turbines are by and large those same companies that the eco - nuts call 'Big Oil". They get to double the price of things like electricity, and make more money.

    We are now finishing with the Military Industrial Complex, having moved to the "Green Industrial Complex". Same profits, different verbiage.

  14. DJ Thoreau
    Megaphone

    Biosystematics is just complicated

    The problem with saying "Biodiversity for the sake of Biodiversity" is misguided, as to not understand the scope of the problem.

    In a nutshell, the problem is that biodiversity is just such a complex thing, and that in many places not that fully documented, especially at the smaller end of the scale (South Pacific Coleoptera, Nematoda for example) is that we simple don't know what's important. If we don't know what's there, we can't know what's important, so it's easier to just protect everything while it's being investigated (which given the time scales in Biosystematics might take centuries.

    Dominic

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If we all moved to mud huts and started burning cow shit for warmth the more fanatical greens still wouldn't be happy. They would then be kicking up a fuss and demanding we all start eating leaves.

    Then when they won that they would insist we gave up our huts and reverted to living in the trees.

    Just like religion, these dogmatic greens will always have some agenda more nutty than the last one.

    1. clean_state
      Mushroom

      dogmatisit on both sides

      In order to counter "dogmatic greens", we have Andrew and the boffin in this article asking us to "believe" in a robust nature that heals itself. And probably believe that Jesus can save us all anyway if the first hypothesis does not hold. The problem with beliefs shaping policy is that basically, they lead to decisions based on ignorance.

      I prefer the current "green dogma" that acknowledges our ignorance of certain fields and recommends caution there.

      We devote a large part of our land to sustaining humans, be it for food, dwelling or activity. This needs to continue because we need to preserve our species. However, with populations growing and land becoming scarce, we cannot afford to destroy land because moving to the next spot is not an option anymore. So yes to sustainable "farming" but no to destruction.

      And we also need to preserve other parts of the ecosystem from human touch because we do not know what the consequence of their alteration would be. We know that a patch of forest can regrow but what do we know about regrowth if we wipe out all forests ?

      1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: dogmatisit on both sides

        clean_state Your comment makes a strong argument against your beliefs.

        Population rates aren't rising, they're falling. Land isn't becoming scarce - as we live in urban areas, we use less land.

        Much more importantly, we make much better use of the land - India doesn't have famines - it exports rice. People don't die of famines any more, starvation is caused by regional conflict. We have enough land to feed everyone.

        All this is the result of prosperity - it came about by people ignoring arguments like yours about natural resource constraints - and doing inventing clever and useful ideas.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: dogmatisit on both sides

          More importantly, as James Watt (R. Reagan's Secretary of the Interior) said, the end of the world is nigh, so we might as well cut down all the forests anyway.

          'God has ordained it' seems a bit more profound than a 'greed is good' argument.

          OTOH how's that rapture thing coming along?

        2. Gorbachov

          Re: dogmatisit on both sides

          "Population rates aren't rising, they're falling."

          Not sure if that's what you meant but every day, and certainly for the next few decades, assuming BAU, there will be more and more people in this world. Add in the longer life-spans where people retire later in life (or never retire) and things are not looking good. Your sentence seems to be implying otherwise.

          "Land isn't becoming scarce - as we live in urban areas, we use less land."

          Wherever I look the price of good land keeps rising which suggests otherwise. I know China is trying to buy land left, right and center. Why do you think that is happening?

          "We have enough land to feed everyone."

          And yet the price of food keeps rising. Every year it takes a larger chunk out of our income. And if you think India is not facing major problems you are ill informed http://is.gd/AkzttY

          "All this is the result of prosperity - it came about by people ignoring arguments like yours about natural resource constraints - and doing inventing clever and useful ideas"

          Prosperity at a price. Americans & co have all the wealth but at the price of a 'work until you die' lifestyle. Well, You might get rich but you are far more likely to die first. The Chinese are following in their footsteps and sacrificing their poor and their natural environment for a 10% rise in GDP year after year.

          I agree that those that call themselves environmentalists are often full of unattainable ideals and a weird idea that a life without technology was somehow better. But I truly believe you are living in the same la-la land as them, just in a different neighborhood. But there's no need to argue, you have already won. If you look at what is happening in the world you can see that most people will never sacrifice convenience for a chance at a better future. Not until it's waay too late.

          1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

            Re: Re: dogmatisit on both sides

            Once again, you're repeating the philosophy (and rhetoric) Kareila criticises: that when humans do something good there must be a downside because we've harmed "Mother Nature". The downside will get us in the end. Stop, everybody!

            Scientific innovation and technology transfer (to make sure it spreads around) are making people healthier and have more choices. It's that simple.

            You are arguing that prosperity, good health, comfort, freedom, choices for women - all are bad. You think this is awful. The rhetorical device here is that there's a "price" - but you don't say what it is. We know what the costs are. We consider the benefits outweigh those costs.

            You don't really have offer evidence of irreversible costs, or quantify them - just rhetorical devices ("Waaay too late" - er, for what?) and hand waving.

            Example:

            "Wherever I look the price of good land keeps rising which suggests otherwise. I know China is trying to buy land left, right and center. Why do you think that is happening?"

            I can only guess what that means. Facts, figures needed please to make a convincing argument.

            "If you look at what is happening in the world you can see that most people will never sacrifice convenience for a chance at a better future."

            Yes, good - and why the hell should they sacrifice anything? Because you're shouting at them. Because you feel guilty about having these things yourself, so have to invoke an imaginary, ontological entity (Gaia) to make your case ethical somehow?

            I think everyone should have the choices we have - and the prosperity we have. You're not convincing me why we can have them and others shouldn't at all. To me it just sounds like guilt.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: dogmatisit on both sides

        "I prefer the current "green dogma" that acknowledges our ignorance of certain fields and recommends caution there."

        Pity they don't also acknowledge our ignorance of certain fields such as climate science too.

    2. multipharious

      burning cow shit throws a lot of soot

      and in any case you'll freeze to death when the next ice age comes rather naturally when the heliosphere shrinks

  16. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Animal populations

    "Animal populations naturally level out at the resource levels the environment can sustain"

    Only in the presence of adequate predation/mortality rates.

    Otherwise they vastly outrun their resources, crash, build up as resources recover and repeat the cycle.

    Running a "foxes and rabbits" simulation shows this quite neatly if you remove all the foxes.

  17. This post has been deleted by its author

  18. John Savard

    Basically Right and Tragically Wrong

    Up until now, it has indeed been true that Nature is very resilient. Human activities have resulted in the extinction of occasional species, which is a tragic loss, but they have not seriously threatened human survival.

    But our technological reach as humans keeps growing, and so do our numbers. We are starting to affect the environment on a global scale. The "ozone hole" which led to a need to ban CFCs was the first striking evidence of that to enter the public consciousness. Some of the early effects of global warming - polar bears threatened with interbreeding from grizzlies, the Great Barrier Reef threatened by ocean acidification, methane release from thawing permafrost - can be added to a list that also includes the fouling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean by garbage produced by humans.

    The radical environmentalists who had been crying "Wolf" before may not be the people to turn to advice even now, but that doesn't mean that the wolf hasn't finally arrived this time.

    Sensible and sober advice, from people who respect the environment without being fringe activists, can show us the way out - if we can find the right people to advise us. And of course that's difficult what with everyone with an agenda, whether it's radical environmentalists or corporate shills trying to present themselves as qualified. The mainstream scientific community, though not perfect, is still the best resource we have.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    got to agree that environmentalism needs to be more pragmatic

    I really dislike how environmentalism has become so misanthropic, even to the point of advocating population reduction at a pace that would make the depredations of Nazi Germany look merciful by comparison. And nature does need to be made to "work for people". After all, its people who actually can comprehend and appreciate nature. Wolves, trout and hawks don't have the mental aptitude to think "Wow, that's a great sunrise!" or "What pretty flowers". Essentially, without intelligent life to appreciate it, nature becomes so much empty real estate that is not providing inspiration/enrichment to anyone.

    That being said, I'd be happier if mankind were more careful in making changes to the environment.

  20. ian 22
    Thumb Down

    Nature isn't a bossy mother-in-law

    Ask any farmer, and he will tell you nature is a bitch on wheels with PMS!

    And if Mother is in a bad mood long enough, city folk will learn of it.

    Immediately after Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry claimed no global warming, Dallas was struck by unprecedented tornados, closely missing an important airport. Thank Jebus there is no global warming!

    Sorry lads,if Southern USian republican politicos deny global climate change you are clearly on the wrong side!

  21. Gannon (J.) Dick
    Stop

    Having it both ways

    "The Economic Man" does not grasp the Law of the Jungle. That is, "no grass, no lions", hold that down vote just a second, lion food eats grass, does it not ?

    Whether you are a Wall St. Master of the Universe, or simply a week-end Social Darwinist, you have to admit that playing the game by the simplest rules you can think of will not end well.

  22. h4rm0ny
    Mushroom

    What a stupid, stupid person.

    What a stupid, stupid person.

    First of all, the "Environmental Movement" is not whoever shouts about the environment loudest. There are many of us, who care a lot about the environment and actively do things to help protect it, who are NOT represented by the upper reaches of Friends of the Earth or supporters of Greenpeace's latest distortion of the facts. Just because a minority faction with a lock on the board of Friends of the Earth choose to think they represent the environmental movement when they misrepresent facts about, say, nuclear power, it does not mean they are representative of people who care about the environment. The author of this paper needs to reign in his rhetoric and think about who exactly he is criticizing. Am I wrong to care about how many species we are making extinct even now? Or to raise concerns about GM crops creating a vulnerable monoculture and putting the world's food supply in the hands of a few patent holders?

    Secondly, there are sadly almost endless counter-examples that disprove his idea that humans can't cause large scale harm. Countless species we've wiped out, areas of the earth we've cleared of significant life, lakes, rivers we've polluted. His argument that "Nature" carries about as much weight as someone trashing your house and smashing everything and then saying: "but the House is still standing." For someone who wants to get away from characterising "Nature", he certainly seems to want to treat it as a unified, robust entity, rather than the collection of species and cycles that it actually is. There's no such thing as "Nature". If you wipe out a species of bird or destroy a forest, all that means is that they are gone. Not that because "Nature" still exists elsewhere that nothing has changed.

    Thirdly, his idea that human convenience is the highest guiding principle when it comes to the environment is obnoxious and not very far-sighted. If we want to preserve standards of living and not destroy our environment, then the only logical behaviour is population control. Which we can achieve very effectively by educating and providing jobs for women. UK? Low birth rate. India? High birth rate. What logical consequence does he suppose there is to expanding forever along his guiding principle of 'whatever is best for humans'.

    Fourthly, his rhetoric is really, really flawed. Nonsense about "fragility of Nature is a relatively modern idea." Well so are bacteria, microchips and biotech. Does he suppose that recent consideration of something makes it false? I expect he would be one of the first to leap up and down on any environmentalist for having a Golden Age mentality, but he's pretty quick to appeal to the past himself. Sure, worrying about how we might damage the ecosystem might be relatively modern. But so is our capacity to do so on a massive scale.

    Speaking as an environmentalist who is pro-Nuclear, slighly skeptical about AGW (but very keen to get off fossil fuels for other reasons regardless) and very concerned with the damage we are doing through deforestation, species extinction and pollutions affects on our health (this is very bad time to be an infant in Beijing, health-wise), I have to say that yes, there are others in the environmental movement who annoy me when they try to claim a lock on it (e.g. FoE's anti-nuclear propaganda), but that doesn't mean this guy isn't talking rubbish. As far as I'm concerned, his piss-poor logic just puts him in the same category as the people he thinks he's condemning.

    1. ZweiBlumen

      Re: What a stupid, stupid person.

      Totally agree with this bit:

      Sure, worrying about how we might damage the ecosystem might be relatively modern. But so is our capacity to do so on a massive scale.

      It's the scale of things that's changed in the last 50 years.

    2. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: What a stupid, stupid person.

      Why is he talking rubbish? If I were you I'd give your arguments a good shake to see how well they stand up. To me, you've got a worldview that is based on several assumptions about constraints and innovation, which in practice, don't stand up.

      "If we want to preserve standards of living and not destroy our environment, then the only logical behaviour is population control"

      OK, you want coercion - control, the removal of choice from people. Fine. But increasing prosperity is the best known contraceptive there is - fertility falls to replacement levels (or below-replacement levels). That's a choice made by individuals - and why it's called "desired fertility".

      (By the way, "preserving a standard of living" aka a static economy is not a goal for anyone except a few cranks. High growth is the goal.)

      Basically you've lumbered yourself with an argument that ignores the reality that a) we can do more with less. b) we invent things all the time. The UK in the 1990s grew, and used fewer resources than it did in the 1980s. We have more forests now because we don't need to chop down trees for wood. We can leave uranium in the ground, because we have thorium.

      So your predictions of doom can only come true if we stop doing the basics we've always done - find better ways of doing things. And you say Kareiva is unrealistic, and misunderstands your philosophy? I think he understands your philosophy pretty well. He's really nailed it.

      1. h4rm0ny
        Pint

        Re: What a stupid, stupid person.

        Oddly enough, Andrew. I agree with most of your articles and I like them too. But first off, you have to appreciate that I consider myself an environmentalist - just as many, many other people do even though we argue violently against some of the people who *claim* to represent the environmentalist movement. I'm a bloody borderline AGW skeptic (I'm not denying, just not fully convinced we're as sure as we think) and I still support RSPB and get involved in various other environmental campaigns where I agree with them! So when the writer starts talking about "environmentalists this..." or "environmentalists that...", the first thing you should understand is that I consider him to be talking about ME. That's what I mean when I write that he needs to go back and have a little think about whether he's attacking who he thinks he's attacking. I would like to say to him: "you keep using this word environmentalist. I do not think it means what you think it means."

        Now regards the two bones you decided to pick with my post. You wrote:

        "OK, you want coercion - control, the removal of choice from people. Fine. But increasing prosperity is the best known contraceptive there is - fertility falls to replacement levels (or below-replacement levels). That's a choice made by individuals - and why it's called "desired fertility".

        If it were that or breeding to the point of societal collapse through exceeding the environment's ability to support ourselves, then yes, at that point I think we'd have to look at coercian. But the VERY NEXT SENTENCE after you cut off my quote, reads: "Which we can achieve very effectively by educating and providing jobs for women." You're actually incorrect when you say that it is "prosperity" that means reduced birth rates. Look at several rich Middle Eastern countries where there is a great deal of affluence and massive families. The actual factor is female empowerment. A more educated and employed female population both gives women opportunities to do something other than produce children and empowers women to say "no". To say that I am for population control at the barrel of a gun is like saying that I would kill someone who kept coming round my house uninvited. Yes - eventually as an absolute final ever resort I might whack them round the head with something, but before that point there would be dropping hints, dropping stronger hints, telling them I was busy, not answering the doorbell, calling the police, getting friends to chase them away, mocking them publically. As asking them not to come round normally works, just as female empowerment and reduction of infant mortality works, why immediately accuse me of wanting to resort to coercian when I've already stated my preference for an ethical and effective approach which we know works?

        You also wrote: "(By the way, "preserving a standard of living" aka a static economy is not a goal for anyone except a few cranks. High growth is the goal.)"

        That's another fragmented quote.

        "If we want to preserve standards of living and not destroy our environment..."

        We are currently subsisting off fossil fuels. That is logically not sustainable unless you think coal and oil are renewing themselves. The first thing we should be doing, and we need to be doing this now, is massively promoting nuclear power. Fukishima released no significant nuclear fallout in the grand scheme of things, but the media fallout is doing terrible damage. If we are to - yes - preserve our standards of living at the current rate, we cannot do it by living off fossil fuels forever. You want another example more bio-ey? We are currently destroying rain forest faster than it can be replaced (by us or unaided) so that we can grow soybeans to feed cattle for the American meat market. That is not sustainable. If the Americans want to continue to guzzle beef at the same rate they have been then they have to either start vat growing artificial meat, or they have to reduce their population until in balance. With other countries around the world aspiring to the same unhealthy diet as well, they can again only do this by a fall in population until equilibrium or better is achieved. I am unapologetic about raising population control. You say we should be focused on growth. Well I'm all in favour of that when it comes to wealth causing our living standards to rise, but logically if we keep growing in terms of population, our living standards will drop at some point. Logically.

        I'm going to leave this here now because I have work to do (sorry), but also because I think, I don't know which, that some phrase or element of what I wrote set you off on a pre-conception of who you were talking to. You comment:

        "So your predictions of doom can only come true if we stop doing the basics we've always done - find better ways of doing things. And you say Kareiva is unrealistic, and misunderstands your philosophy? I think he understands your philosophy pretty well. He's really nailed it."

        is odd when so much you wrote about what I think is actually at odds with what I do think (and wrote). Where am I a predictor of DOOM? I'm pretty optimistic about the future. If you gave me a baseball bat, access to parliament and a one day immunity to prosecution, I'd move that up to "very optimistic". But probably it was my rather rude title that triggered your preconception. Sorry, but I'm unapologetic about that as well. I DO think that his argument is stupid. My original post gives the reasons why. Fallacies like an Appeal to the Past and the ever seductive golden age mentality of our ancestors knowing best ('we never used to think we could damage the environment'), fallacies like saying "Nature" carries on when there is no such thing as "Nature". If a species is wiped out, it's still wiped out even if you point at another species that survived and say: "look 'Nature' still survives'.

        Basically, as far as I'm concerned, Kareiva's writings above can be lumped in with the brochure FoE sent me telling me why Wind Farms are good and nuclear is bad. Let the poor arguers on both "sides" go off into a room somewhere and shout at each other whilst the rest of us get on with looking after this planet the best we can.

        Peace - this is one of those rare columns of yours I disagree with. I think you must just have been in a snarky mood so I send you spiritual cupcakes and put it down to misunderstandings.

        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Re: What a stupid, stupid person.

          Thank you. Are those cupcakes organic? :)

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: What a stupid, stupid person.

            Absolutely. I worked bloody hard to become Middle Class and I'm going to bloody well shop at Waitrose if I bloody well want to. :)

  23. SleepyJohn
    WTF?

    Animals, of course, care deeply for their environment.

    From where comes the romantic notion that animals do not damage their environment? The modus operandi of an animal is to consume its immediate environment then starve or move on; any 'natural balance' is an accidental by-product of death or enforced migration. The only creature on this planet that I am aware of that makes the slightest attempt to consciously ameliorate its effect on the environment is, dare I say it, Man.

    I do not think we need headline-grabbing notions of 'Mother Nature's fragility' or 'bossy mothers-in-law' to see this; just a pair of eyes. We are all trying to survive, and Man's intelligence gives him the undoubted ability to avoid killing the 'golden goose' that gives him food and shelter. And for all his imperfections I think he is doing a better job than anything else on the planet. Not with an ideological 'silver bullet', but with an uneasy, but necessary coupling of the dreamers' dreams and the capitalists' capital.

  24. Hubert Thrunge Jr.
    Childcatcher

    ecomentalists : humans are the problem...

    I once had an interesting chat with a Eco-fundamentalist. She was almost frothing at the mouth at how the human race was destroying the planet, and how it must change NOW!

    I asked her one question - "do you have any children", she replied "yes - four".

    I pointed out to her that SHE was part of the problem that she describes, and that to save the planet from the human race, she should have set an example by having no children at all. She then went off into another rant that it was a womans right to have children..... I pointed out that it is NOT a right, it is a gift of nature, but if humans are the cause of nature's downfall, why did she create four more humans to speed it's destruction?

    Up to that point, she hadn't thought one bit about what she was doing in life, or indeed her part of the ecosystem.

    We have an affect on the planet. But unless we blow this rock to bits, or some how lose the atmosphere, it will survive beyond the human race, maybe not in the way that it was in 1923, but it'll still be here.

    It's called evolution.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It is a mistake to think the Earth is a perfectly balanced, harmonious, self-regulating unity, because it's not. Life has nearly destroyed itself in the past, such as during the Great Oxygenation Event. On the other hand, it is also a mistake to think that the planet can recover from anything we do to it. (It probably will, but on a geological/evolutionary time scale, not a human one.)

    Humanity is changing the world, and will continue to do so. What is important is that we be aware and conscious of the changes we make, and ensure that it will still be habitable for future generations.

  26. Peter Dawe

    Conflageration of ideas

    I hate it when "opinion formers" conflagerate independent ideas to make a false arguments.

    Yes, many Greens are misanthropic

    Yes, Nature is robust, as in some DNA based life forms will continue to inhabit earth for a very long time

    Yes, degradation of habitats have impacts on society

    Yes, mankind is having a major impact on the global eco-system

    Put these together and you always get.... "And do as I say!"

    This applies to all sides of all arguments!

  27. Karine

    I really enjoyed reading your article and overall wholeheartedly agree that a grand rethink is necessary in green spheres about the relationship between man (and woman) and nature and how to communicate with the public.

    What I strongly disagree is with your condescending views on the typification of nature as either the fragile female victim or castrating bitch. A word on me, I am the furthest thing from a raging feminist, having a firm belief that I AM equal to men and would never dream of burning my bras.

    In human history, as will teach you any books on symbols, mythology or anthropology, nature is part of the great feminine archetypes, as giving and sustaining life. The problem is not that nature is feminine, it is that feminine attributes and values are still repressed in our disconnected society overly based on masculine values. Communicating by reframing nature as being more masculine may be easier, but I fail to see how it will solve the core issue.

  28. Mips
    Childcatcher

    "Poverty is a death sentence"

    On the other hand life is a death sentance. Poverty is just how you get there.

This topic is closed for new posts.