Who mentioned immigration, Divergence?

>>You will see that it is quite possible to turn immigration on and off like a tap<<

Wasn't me.

"...folk who think that we can simply turn our population numbers on and off like some kind of existential bathtap"

Ah, you did.

>>Approximately two thirds of our population growth is coming from immigration<<

So in one stroke of your keyboard, you turn an observation on population in general into a debate on immigration. Complete with a "14 point plan", eight of which concern themselves with immigration.

>>You are the one who is confused if you think that high population growth is compatible with addressing resource shortages.<<

I don't, so I am not confused.

>>The idea that wilderness areas will be preserved in the face of human need is laughable.<<

Apart from the judgmental adjective "laughable" , this is exactly the point I was making. What we have - and it is a valid and highly pertinent discussion - is a range of opinions as to what represents human need. I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything and everything that might damage a tree or two, or cause another insignificant sub-species to find somehwere else to live, is not policy.

It's just "look at me, I have a cause that I fight for" fanaticism.

"I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything and everything that might damage a tree or two, or cause another insignificant sub-species to find somehwere else to live, is not policy."

We don't all see things the same way but I find it astonishing that someone can persist with the case for the continual destruction of the planet's forests. Fact is no matter how you want to spin it, there is an ever-growing destruction of vast areas of the world's forests (as per the previous mentioned UN report).

To minimise that very real scenario as the destruction of 'one or two trees' and only 'one species' (it is always only one species that adds up to numerous), is a gross distortion and in no way represents the extent of damage to environments whether it be deforestation, pollution or untold damage from mining concerns particularly in the developing world where there is little in the way of regulation or governance.

I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything pro-environment in favour of economic interests is not policy.

Clearly there has to be a balance, and so far the balance is heavily weighted in favour of the anti-environment lobby.

anti-environment? This assumes an explicit agenda to destroy the environment. I don't think that is plausible. An indifference, or a differing set of priorities would fit much better.

I always dream of someone discovering an endangered tree frog that passes through some greeny's back yard, and ask said greeny if they will be happy to vacate their premises so as not to disturb the mating rituals of this endangered species.

I really don't understand why greenies don't think they are 'interfering with nature' when they 'save' endangered species. What if that species is supposed to be become extinct. What if we save an animal's habitat, and it destroys another's habitat in the same area. We're picking winners.

Whales decide to beach themselves, and humans decide to 'save' them, out of some kind of misplaced guilt. How do you know it's anything to do with us. What if those whales go on to eat some endangered species?

It's a Messiah complex, or some kind of ego feeding is all it is. I await for rats to suicide en masse and see how many people look to stop them.

Humans are part of nature. Now stopping humans from doing what is human (raping and pillaging from the environment) is actually interfering with nature too.

Sure, when it suits us we should protect our environment to maintain it for future use, like a good farmer. But anyone who puts the needs of animals over the needs of children deserves a bullet.

Lions eat Wilder-beast. Humans cage Chickens, and knock down trees. Beavers build Dams. We are part of nature. Even the Greenies and their guilt.

I suppose it comes down to defining what is natural for humans, and then that has to be protected just as much as what is natural for lions. Nature is as nature does, and humans just happen to use a lot of resources.

Thanks, Houellebecq, that was rather nicely put.

>>It's a Messiah complex, or some kind of ego feeding is all it is. I await for rats to suicide en masse and see how many people look to stop them.<<

I call it the little fluffy baby seal syndrome. The tendency is always to save the prettier creatures, isn't it.

And pelican, I am in total agreement with you on this point...

>>I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything pro-environment in favour of economic interests is not policy.<<

...but in equally total disagreement on this...

>>...so far the balance is heavily weighted in favour of the anti-environment lobby<<

It is extremely rare for a project involving unoccupied land, whether for mining, holiday resort or simple home-building, to lack an objection based upon the potential to damage "the environment".

The scope for objection on the basis of "this must be preserved" is massively broad. It could be flora or fauna - I even witnessed, personally, an objection to a tree being felled on the basis that it was under that very tree that the objector had lost his virginity.

This observation of yours deserves greater scrutiny, by the way:

>>no matter how you want to spin it, there is an ever-growing destruction of vast areas of the world's forests<<

Indeed there is, pelican.

So, since you have brought the subject up, would now be a good time to discuss the illegal mining of gold in South America, and its consequent destruction and pollution?

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0808.htm

http://agmetalminer.com/2011/03/08/illegal-gold-mining-activities-in-peru-and-colombia-spur-mercury-contamination/

It will put the few acres of Tasmania into perspective. And shine a spotlight on the raw basics of the battle between people's livelihoods, and nature.

In the modern industrialized world, we often feel insulated from nature and confident that our technology can give us mastery over the natural environment. We forget all too easily that we too are animals, ultimately as dependent on the environment for our survival as any other species. All over the world, and especially in the less developed societies, the pressure of the human population and its technologies is devastating natural ecosystems. This pressure takes many forms - urbanization and highway construction, transformation of virgin land into famland, chemical pollution of fresh water, dredging and landfill in coastal areas, uncontrolled hunting and poaching, especially of African wildlife, deliberate and accidental poisoning of wildlife with pesticides; disruption of natural predator-prey relationships; strangulation of millions of birds and fish with discarded styrofoam pellets, plastic bags and other synthetic flotsam, dam construction and irrigation, and massive deforestation. Biologists estimate that there are over 30 million species on earth. Of these only about 1.6 million have been classified. The rest - plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, and even some mammals - are still almost complete mysteries to us. They have never been named, catalogued or studied, yet many are becoming extinct before we even know of their existence. As I stated in my earlier post - to some observers, the disappearance of other species as a result of human activity is of no particular consequence. To others is represents the height of human hubris in that we're making ourselves the ultimate arbiters of which species may survive and which may be obliterated and as I also stated earlier - there are many practical reasons why human society should protect other life forms and the habitats such as rain forests - in which they live.

'To others is[sic] represents the height of human hubris in that we're making ourselves the ultimate arbiters of which species may survive and which may be obliterated'

Nope, that IS the greenies. Those that don't care are treating all species as expendable, it's the greenies that are picking winners by saving beached whales, and preventing some species from becoming extinct.

'disruption of natural predator-prey relationships'
That IS the greenies, humans are a natural predator.

Natural is as natural does. If the environment is worth saving because it's 'natural', then humans, being part of the environment are included in that umbrella, so any action humans take is automatically validated.

BTW: Paragraphs make posts more readable. Everyone knows you're Foxy, how about going back to the more readable style.