|
Post by bugart on Mar 19, 2019 22:11:37 GMT -8
One easy way to fix all the issues on Earth, remove 3/4 of the population, now your torment you who goes and who stays, hard one!!!!
What most of the western population fail to realize is, with out insects we are stuffed and every insect/ Butterfly had a special host plant, 99.9% don't know it because they are not taught the fact
Most people grow flowers for the reward, what about growing host plants for the reward of more Butterflies and every thing gets better from there, because we stop using pest sprays and so on and so froth
Bob Kroll
Cairns Australia
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Mar 20, 2019 5:16:29 GMT -8
One easy way to fix all the issues on Earth, remove 3/4 of the population, now your torment you who goes and who stays, hard one!!!! Bob Kroll Cairns Australia Actually that is the easy one, only primitive humans who still live deep in the forest of Amazon and Papua should stay, maybe also native people to very far north.They are existing within the nature without causing a harm.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Mar 20, 2019 5:20:13 GMT -8
I wish the Greens would put the cash where their mouths are. The left wing has money- social media and news moguls, Hollywood, rich politicians. If they really cared about the environment they'd do as JS suggests, and buy land.
Tree huggers get a lot of news for spiking trees and living in trees. Why not get the money and buy the land?
The best approach would be to form a church, since they pay no taxes. Then buy land.
In our area the growing trend is Land Trusts. Lots of beautiful property donated just in the last ten years- prime micro ecosystems, unique areas. Great to see. Oddly enough, most of the donated property is coming from right-leaning people; the lefties hold property for sale to developers.
In NY, significant money is made from hunting and fishing licenses, and by law a good portion of it is to be be re-invested into fish & wildlife preservation. Unfortunately, a lot of it is squandered on employment of political acolytes (again, left-wing big government types) when it could be used to buy land.
The good thing about land trusts and the like is how they embrace research. We all know what a PITA it is to get permits to conduct studies on state and federal land. I have yet to see a land trust committee that doesn't jump at the chance to have a survey/ study of the property.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by beetlehorn on Mar 20, 2019 11:39:30 GMT -8
I would vote to not buy anything from Nestle, especially bottled water. If enough people refused to buy their product in the name of conservation, perhaps then they would do things differently!
|
|
|
Post by LEPMAN on Mar 20, 2019 13:40:41 GMT -8
Remember that most companies and industries use water in one form or another... not just nestle, but also Coca-Cola etc.
|
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on Mar 20, 2019 17:09:10 GMT -8
One of the largest user of water in Franklin County, Kentucky is not the City of Frankfort, it is Jim Bean Distillers. They make Bourbon and lots of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Mar 20, 2019 18:36:05 GMT -8
Left is bad, right is good. On the other side, they say the exact opposite. Pointing fingers does not do much in terms of fixing things. Nature certainly do not care, it just pay the price and in the end, it all come back to us. There is this (left? right? you decide what side they are on) company called Nestlé. They manage to virtually suck the life out the ground on both public and private lands, while draining wet meadows and forests, causing habitat changes and soil to compact and seasonally dry out. Habitat change follows and we wonder why Speyeria is getting increasingly rare and finally disappear over wast areas. Or draining of wetlands for farmland development for great monocultures, chocking the surrounding remaining wetlands with excessive use of fertilizers, artificial or animal waste. Some left propaganda (or right?): Nature takes the blow, no matter. Jan Globalization, huge, huge, huge mistake, few get enormous profits when most suffer the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Mar 21, 2019 6:54:13 GMT -8
Left is bad, right is good. On the other side, they say the exact opposite. <snip> Jan One of the great culture shocks of my first forays into Europe was that the particular left/mid/right collection of pet issues did not line up. I fully expected that left / right would have the same set of complaints...it would make sense, correct? That, of course, was a long time ago, and I've had the (sometimes sad) opportunity to reflect on the values/issues of left/right. Hunters to me are the most confusing lot, at least in USA. * Hunting shows preach the wonder of the great outdoors, how important it is, and what a great difference it makes to get children outdoors. I agree. And, the hunters' money is channeled through US GOV back into the environment (to a degree). Yet, hunters generally don't care about new home construction, or Land Trusts, or other environmental issues. It makes no sense. * Hunters, having guns, one would think to defend the US 2nd Amendment recognizing that the right to own arms cannot be infringed. But they don't. They think their hunting guns will never be impacted, even after they have. Perhaps it's being short-sighted, or ignorant. But in any event, their actions (and lack thereof) don't make sense. USFWS is another one: * Typically left-leaning. * One might expect USFWS personnel to support research, even by amateurs. But they don't. They don't participate here, they don't make things easy for research in USA or abroad. * The left tends to be more reactive to laws and situations with which they disagree, while the right tends to complain but do nothing. * Juxtapose that with the tendency of the left to support big government, I suspect they are a confused lot, with personal views and interests overrun by support for "their" government, and their jobs. USA in general seems very confused. * Both far left and far right are concerned about the actions of US GOV, and in many cases the specific concerns overlap. But there is no cooperation. * One would expect pet issues be divided by keeping status quo vs. change, or by protecting rights (all rights) vs. eliminating rights, but instead these rights are divvied up, often illogically. Granted, religion (or lack thereof) has a big factor in this. In my observation, the stances taken on certain issues have a long history of divide which often makes no sense, but there is momentum, and thus it stays. Sometimes it changes- it was the Democrats that wanted to retain slavery and now 150 years later, it's these Democrats that push the rights of the blacks. But for the most part, this division is what it is, promulgated by politicians. Circling around again, so much of this division of issues doesn't make sense, particularly when compared with other countries/ cultures. Sometimes theirs don't make sense to me either. I wonder how many people ever step back and really look at what the believe in, and question if it really makes sense or if they believe it because their voting bloc tells them to. Chuck
|
|
|
Post by beetlehorn on Mar 21, 2019 14:38:24 GMT -8
Today I drove by the area I mentioned in the introduction, and took some pictures. As you can see there is nothing left but dirt in the same place where there were stately Tulip Poplars, Hickories, Oaks and Maples. In the distance you can see where housing development has already taken over, and even further down there is more development. I would estimate the entire are to be some 1500 acres. The picture only shows a small section, about 10 acres or so. I know it is not the large scale destruction like we see in the Amazon or Pacific Northwest, but this kind of fracturing and chipping away at isolated ecosystems throughout the country, day by day, month after month, and year after year, is what is so devastating. I see this everywhere I go, and I'm afraid some day soon all we will see is subdivisions and shopping malls as far as the eye can see.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Mar 21, 2019 20:16:51 GMT -8
That day has already arrived in many areas. I grew up in rural New jersey in the 50s and 60s. Lots of farms, woodlands, fields and quiet. Went back last August 2016 for my 50th Class Reunion. That whole region was unrecognizable. Endless strip malls and subdivisions. Couldn't even tell anymore where one town ended and the next began. All my boyhood butterfly places were gone. Meadows full of Fritillaries, swallowtails, Baltimore Checkerspot, many hairstreaks and so much more...all gone.
|
|
777
Full Member
Posts: 113
Country: United States
|
Post by 777 on Mar 21, 2019 21:16:30 GMT -8
I am not looking forward for the distant future. The lack of forests and other natural habitats would make me less motivated to do anything. I detest urban areas so much that I’d rather die than live in them for the rest of my life. Luckily, I live in a rural area with lots of forests, but I’m afraid that it will turn into a big town when I’m much older.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Mar 21, 2019 22:19:23 GMT -8
I am not looking forward for the distant future. The lack of forests and other natural habitats would make me less motivated to do anything. I detest urban areas so much that I’d rather die than live in them for the rest of my life. Luckily, I live in a rural area with lots of forests, but I’m afraid that it will turn into a big town when I’m much older. And where exactly do you want to work once you have grown up? I pity those that don't look forward to the future. If you like forests that much just move to a rural area, there is an unfathomable amount of it in the US available. Just don't expect much going on there or having good schools/health care network/culture available.
|
|
777
Full Member
Posts: 113
Country: United States
|
Post by 777 on Mar 22, 2019 4:11:03 GMT -8
I am not looking forward for the distant future. The lack of forests and other natural habitats would make me less motivated to do anything. I detest urban areas so much that I’d rather die than live in them for the rest of my life. Luckily, I live in a rural area with lots of forests, but I’m afraid that it will turn into a big town when I’m much older. And where exactly do you want to work once you have grown up? I pity those that don't look forward to the future. If you like forests that much just move to a rural area, there is an unfathomable amount of it in the US available. Just don't expect much going on there or having good schools/health care network/culture available. I live close to a small town, and there are jobs there that I am considering. I’m not looking forward for the future for loss of forests and other things that affect the environment, but I do look forward for the future for other aspects. I love the place where I live because of the kind people, fond memories, and pine forests. It would be a shame to have to leave it someday because of it becoming nothing but strip malls and subdivisions like how other people described formerly forested areas.
|
|
|
Post by beetlehorn on Mar 22, 2019 5:39:02 GMT -8
At one point or another, there will be so much loss of natural habitat and fracturing of ecosystems, that there will be a tipping point. As stated before, many places are already there. Will the people in local communities get together and organize some kind of conservation program, or perhaps make a complete turn around and actually implement some form of habitat restoration? Or will these kinds of efforts be totally ignored to the point where nothing is left to conserve, or restore, due to the fact that there are no resources left to rebuild from? It would be a test of the human race's sense of humility, and willingness to save our natural earth.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Apr 2, 2019 12:28:45 GMT -8
At one point or another, there will be so much loss of natural habitat and fracturing of ecosystems, that there will be a tipping point. As stated before, many places are already there. Will the people in local communities get together and organize some kind of conservation program, or perhaps make a complete turn around and actually implement some form of habitat restoration? Or will these kinds of efforts be totally ignored to the point where nothing is left to conserve, or restore, due to the fact that there are no resources left to rebuild from? It would be a test of the human race's sense of humility, and willingness to save our natural earth. Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Nauru, the list goes on. Of course, massive regions of northeastern USA and California as well. The loss of ecology on land is nothing. Fish stocks are destroyed in not a few, small places you've not been, but virtually everywhere. The Grand Banks are cleaned out; pelagics like swordfish and sharks are at a minimum. Small communities or organizations do try to restore ecological damage, but it's only a token effort. Most people- particularly urban people- are strictly consumers; electricity and food magically appear, so they have time to moan about stupid stuff, not the death of the Brazilian rain forest. The damage can be undone, mostly by lack of resource abuse and time. During the Solomon Islands civil war (1998-2003) the jungle came back with a vengance. In two years one couldn't recognize former yards or navigate roads. In NY and Pennsylvania circa 1900 virtually every tree was cut down. It's taken 100 years, but the forests have returned where not molested. Don't fret, our house of cards will fall. Just a hiccup in communications networks, electricity, or food production and it's all over. The earth will recover. Chuck
|
|