Yes Foxy, I almost entirely agree.

But our out-of-sync attitude to the environment goes way back before our ability to do much about it.

In fact, you could argue that it has always been there, and that all the hunter-gatherers around the world would have populated and tried to subdue the Earth if they could have.

I could even argue that this out-of-sync ethos is a fundamental part of the natural world, and that it is absolutely necessary in order to counter all the factors that keep the numbers of each species in check.

Actually the sort of sentiments expressed in Genesis that I highlighted really are just basic ecological principles. ALL living things strive to expand and overcome limiting factors. Always have and always will.

Well… except maybe for the next wave of humans, after the forthcoming global crash event.

Dear Ludwig,

I just wanted to add - it is important today that
our governments (State and Federal) make efforts
to protect the threatened and endangered species
in this country. It is towards that end that the
establishment of a system of national parks,
wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and other
areas are so important and need to be preserved and
maintained. These areas are admired by the world,
(our Great Barrier Reef) for their awesome grandeur,
and the flora and fauna they protect.

We need to look after our designated wilderness
areas, to be kep forever wild.

There is constant pressure on these areas by economic
interests that claim the Federal government is
"locking up" land needed for logging, mining, oil
exploration or recreational facilities.

There is another argument for protecting these areas.
It has nothing to do with any social benefits to
ourselves. And that is - the breath-taking
diversity of species which has evolved in delicate and
precarious balance over many millions of years. Most
of the plants and animals with which we share the
earth have been here a great deal longer than we have.

For a fleeting moment in planetary history, our technology
has given us domain over them. In awe, respect, and
humility, we might just let them be.

Foxy, the setting aside of national parks and other reserves is all very well. But if we are just going to continue to expand our population and turn bushland into urban sprawl, then we aren’t going to get very far.

National parks are not necessarily preserving our ecological values or endangered species very effectively. They are prone to insufficient management regimes, where weeds and feral animals thrive and fire regimes change. In many instances a relatively light grazing regime, and a private approach to weed and feral animal control on leasehold or freehold land, can actually better for the environment than a national park.

And as our absurd growth-at-all-costs political directive continues, the budget will become ever-more stressed, and there will be less funding and management for national parks!

Sure, we need a mosaic of reserves, grazing country, intensive agricultural country and urban areas.

But what we really need to do, with much greater importance, is to stabilise the population and concentrate on developing a sustainable society.

If we can do this, the natural environment will stop being converted to humanised landscapes, and we will have a lot greater financial ability to properly manage national parks, and endangered species and ecosystems.

Dear Ludwig,

I'm glad that you agree.

Read my earlier posts.

Come on folks, you seem to be forgetting that the Oz we inherited is not in any way natural. It was an artifact of centuries of aboriginal burning. Please explain why this artifact is better than another resulting from centuries of our modification.

Each landscape developed is going to advantage some & disadvantage other animals, so what. That is the history of the planet. There is very little of Oz that is as it was 30,000 years ago, & what ever we do now will have stuff all effect on how the place will look in another 30,000 years.

Having spent quite a bit of time exploring, [or searching for], some very large WW11 bases in thickening jungle in the islands, I know damn well it is mans constructions that are "fragile" . Nature is many things, but fragile is one thing it most definitely is not.

Spot on, Hasbeen,
The remains of the 'Titanic' are still there because Nature at that depth is not very active but a coastal wreck can disappear in a few short years.
Likewise on land, even in relatively dry areas, I've had difficulty in finding mine workings only a bit over a hundred years old.