3 ms·

> and we did destroy all the habitats in the process. The deforestation of the UK is a lot older than I think many people realise. I used to have a really goo

> and we did destroy all the habitats in the process. The deforestation of the UK is a lot older than I think many people realise. I used to have a really good link but can’t locate it now, https://treesforlife.org.uk/forest/deforestation/ https://treesforlife.org.uk/forest/deforestation/ is a less detailed timeline which looks to convey a similar story. > The peak for Scotland's woodlands was about 5,000 years ago, when tree cover and diversity was at its greatest extent. > "natural changes in climate, and around 4,500 years ago" and "The treeline became lower" > By the time the Romans arrived, over half of our native forests had been lost > By the 18th century, woodland cover reached its all time low I’m not sure how I feel about lambasting other countries for deforestation after we’ve done ours. Perhaps we should offer to return ours to its natural state to set a good example……..

stuaxo 8y ago
Lead by example is the ideal - you have some homegrown expertise to export too.
kaybe 8y ago
In the case of Europe that would actually lower biodiversity. The land has been cultivated for so long, and mostly with low intensity, that nature has adapted pretty well. There are many plants and animals living in the hedges, stone walls/hills, grazed fields etc that wouldn't be there otherwise. (And even completely new bioms, like heath land [0].) The land cultivation left plenty of space and weeds for them. But then, the same was true for the Amazon, which was not the untouched wild forest that the West considered it at all, with millions of people living there and changing the land before contact [1]. One theory is even that the forest is as big as it is due to this history [2]. The relationship of nature and humans over cultures and times is quite interesting and relevant, I think. In western culture, there is this historical dichotomy (dating back to at least the Greeks if not Mesopotamia), of humans being completely separate from nature, and their civilized, ordered but distructive, maybe even evil character, and the wild and noble wilderness, pristine and innocent, on the other side. (Consider also the views on indigenous populations during the age of colonialism.) This is not a view held in all cultures, and this plays heavily into this kind of discussion under the surface. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath#Anthropogenic_heaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath#Anthropogenic_heaths [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest#Human_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest#Human_activi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

stuaxo 8y ago

Lead by example is the ideal - you have some homegrown expertise to export too.

kaybe 8y ago

In the case of Europe that would actually lower biodiversity. The land has been cultivated for so long, and mostly with low intensity, that nature has adapted pretty well. There are many plants and animals living in the hedges, stone walls/hills, grazed fields etc that wouldn't be there otherwise. (And even completely new bioms, like heath land [0].) The land cultivation left plenty of space and weeds for them. But then, the same was true for the Amazon, which was not the untouched wild forest that the West considered it at all, with millions of people living there and changing the land before contact [1]. One theory is even that the forest is as big as it is due to this history [2]. The relationship of nature and humans over cultures and times is quite interesting and relevant, I think. In western culture, there is this historical dichotomy (dating back to at least the Greeks if not Mesopotamia), of humans being completely separate from nature, and their civilized, ordered but distructive, maybe even evil character, and the wild and noble wilderness, pristine and innocent, on the other side. (Consider also the views on indigenous populations during the age of colonialism.) This is not a view held in all cultures, and this plays heavily into this kind of discussion under the surface. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath#Anthropogenic_heaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath#Anthropogenic_heaths [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest#Human_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest#Human_activi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta