The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > True nature: revising ideas on what is pristine and wild > Comments

True nature: revising ideas on what is pristine and wild : Comments

By Fred Pearce, published 17/5/2013

New research shows that humans have been transforming the earth and its ecosystems for millenniums - far longer than previously believed.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Yes, and well argued.
At one time Australia was covered coast to coast, in verdant forest.
Native hunters and their fire sticks, changed that and gave us the arid interior we have now.
A problem further compounded by western flowing rivers, completely changing their courses and flowing east.
Native Indians farmed their forests, with a sharpened stick.
Naturally clear areas, were preferred? The stick was simply shoved into the ground and a pea and corn grain inserted in the hole.
As the corn grew, it provided support for the climbing pea.
Interestingly, the combination of a grain and a legume, provided a complete protein.
Many Indigenous populations have been selectively logging their forests for millennia, without harm to either flora or fauna.
In fact, there's plenty of supporting evidence that shows, regular selective harvesting, and grazing of the under-story, does a lot more good than harm.
Whereas, leaving it alone or locked up, is a recipe for disastrous wild fires, that destroy absolutely everything.
Conversely, the Mayan, clear felled their forests, and created a localised climate change, that turned their previously fertile and well watered forested farms, into a veritable desert, regularly beset with disastrous droughts.
And doesn't that story have a familiar ring?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 17 May 2013 9:52:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fred, a very interesting article. I find nothing to disagree with.

But I don’t think it points to a need to significantly change conservation priorities in Australia.

We know that a very large part of this continent consists of highly anthropogenically-influenced ecosystems, extending back perhaps 60 000, due primarily to Aboriginal burning practices. It is good to try and maintain these rather than let them change to a much more woody and less grassy nature, both in the interests of preserving the ecosystems that had come into dynamic balance with this anthropogenic factor and for productivity reasons with respect to grazing.

It is also good to strive to prevent new alien species from arriving and to put a lot of effort into preventing those which we know are major ecological and economic pests on other continents from getting a foothold here.

We have let widespread established weed species go. We know that they are here to stay. Even if we can find a species-specific pathogen, it is only likely to reduce the vigour of such species to some extent. The Cactoblastis moth – prickly-pear story really was a rare exception.

We have also declared many national parks that were grazing properties for a hundred years or more and which had consequently experienced a large degree of ‘denaturalisation’.

We are rightly paying particular attention to threatened species and ecosystems.

But there is one way in which we need to change our conservation priorities. And it is a huge factor, which is about as big as everything else put together. We need to direct our society in this country, and help direct the whole planet, towards a sustainable future, which necessitates stopping population growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 17 May 2013 10:09:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
About 10,000 years ago the land in the middle east was well-watered with forest cover. However, human activity turned much of the land into desert. Humans like pork. It is delicious meat, but pigs need water and shade. So God sent down an environmental impact statement saying one shouldn't eat pork. The religions of the desert peoples, Arabs and Jews, still follow that prohibition even if their communicants live in well-watered area. However, the worshipers of Jesus who mainly live in well-watered areas have chosen not to follow Jesus' religion and formed a new religion which allows them to eat pork. And so it goes.
Posted by david f, Friday, 17 May 2013 11:17:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a great article. Two in the one day, it's probably a record.

It does my heart good to know that there are researchers doing this "real" stuff, & even more importantly, getting it published. It may be the rapidly approaching death of the global warming scam, or the loosening hold of the greenies this false science has precipitated, but it is promising.

Unfortunately we still get rubbish like that of david f, talking as if it is all man, not time & orbits that change the planet. David when the middle east was forest, the Great Barrier Reef was a range of coastal hills. Captain Cook only left pigs in Oz after he ran into that reef, so I don't think you can blame man & pigs for everything.

The fact is we are very fortunate that our forbears turned the planet into a place more suitable for us to live. The most pristine places I have seen were not suitable habitat for us.

I spent some time, in the 70s looking for WW11 bases in the islands. In just over 30 years much had totally disappeared into that "fragile" jungle.

Luddy old mate, I have to disagree. Preserving this snapshot of evolution we call today is just arrogance to me. Why is this moment better than any other?

If you have some great love of some particular ecosystem you really admire, & wish to preserve, by all means go for it. BUY your own bit of it, & do your damnedest. But mate, leave me, my taxes, & most of all my property out of it.

I have my own priorities, & they don't include running a live museum.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 17 May 2013 12:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Of course it was not all man, but there is archaeological evidence that the desertification of the middle east was primarily due to man. I don't blame man and pigs for everything. It was the acts of man which made the middle east unfit for pigs. I blame pigs for very little although they do uproot vegetation.

Anaerobic bacteria were early inhabitants of the planet. Their waste product was primarily oxygen. The oxygen was poison to them so they have retreated to gangrenous tissue, tidal mud flat and other places where free oxygen is scarce. However, what was noxious garbage to them was the stuff of life to organisms such as us which breathe in oxygen.

Every organism is modified by and modifies the environment. Anaerobic bacteria has had much more effect than our species.
Posted by david f, Friday, 17 May 2013 12:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f.,

"....However, human activity turned much of the land into desert..."

How so?

Probably more likely to be variations in climate - monsoonal shifts and solar variations.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/09/2240138.htm#.UZWaJGdad0c
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 17 May 2013 12:52:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy