8 ms·

If I ever get rich enough to do so, I'm going to buy some land somewhere - perhaps old farming land that's no longer profitable, and just let it return to natur

If I ever get rich enough to do so, I'm going to buy some land somewhere - perhaps old farming land that's no longer profitable, and just let it return to nature. Let the trees and bushes grow, let the insects, birds and whatever else breed there. I'm beginning to think that's one of the best things one could do for the planet right now.

CalRobert 7y ago
Land can be surprisingly cheap depending on where you look. Ag land in Ireland, at least, can be a couple grand an acre if you buy in bulk (and it's not good grazing land, but this can be great for reforesting).
jacquesm 7y ago
In Canada it's $1k/acre and sometimes even lower. But for your plan to have maximum effect you'd have to do some research what land would be best suited because of biodiversity and climate.
- MycroftJones 7y ago
  Where is this 1k/acre land in Canada? Is it in a place where you can do these following things? a) build a house b) buy it an acre at a time c) grow a reasonable crop d) be within reasonable distance to a city and the markets thereof In Canada particularly, climate is an issue for growing crops. Wheat takes 100 days to mature. The growing season in the prairies is 110 days. If the climate drops 1 degree Celcius you lose 10 days off your growing season. If your growing season is delayed by cold or flooding, you don't get a crop that year. In the prairies it takes about 10 acres to sustain 1 cow year round. Throughout Canada there are all kinds of restrictions about how many houses and people you can have on your land. The concept of "starter house" and "starter farm" doesn't exist anymore. There is the nobility, and there are the serfs. We just don't call them that.
  - dharma1 7y ago
    I think the OP wanted to return the land to its' natural state, not farm it or build on it
atoav 7y ago
Planting trees on it would even help more (if it is a climate zone where that is realistic). I heard an Interview with the founder of the ecosia search machine yesterday, and they are looking for tree planting initiatives constantly..
- korpiq 7y ago
  For that, I'd be interested in Paulownia trees for their fast growing speed, and thus (I assume) faster CO2 reduction rate. 1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_tomentosa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_tomentosa is also rapid to spread, which may turn out too rad for local flora or neighborhood politics thereof, while 2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_elongata https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_elongata seems not to spread on its own and thus may need active help for that. You'll end up with a lot of soft wood from these relatively fast (10 years?). That should be used in some way that does not release the CO2 back. I have no studies nor experience in biology nor gardening and all of this is only based on what I've been reading on the internet.
  - abgfm 7y ago
    The most appropriate trees for an area are the local ones and with a view to Climate Change, the local species with good adaptability to climate change characteristics (need less water, can rezist temperatures variations, etc.). Pawlonia is being pushed/marketed heavily on the internet due to some superficial/mercantile characteristics (fast growth, big foliage), but besides that, in the agroforestry/agroecology academia, Paulonia is known to be just a marketing buzz, and a relatively dangerous one.
- leg100 7y ago
  No, it would not; the parent comment is correct. Leave nature to determine what will grow best on the land, including the types of trees that take root. Only then will you end up with the optimal biodiversity and ecosystem.
  - atoav 7y ago
will_pseudonym 7y ago
If you end up doing that (and are in the United States), I would encourage you to look into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). "The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat." [0] [0] https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-...
korpiq 7y ago
There are organisations varying from grassroots to global where you can participate in such purchases with nominal sums, and end up with small parts of land in your name, collectively owned with other participants, or probably something in between. Here is one (that I know about because my employer currently offers an option to use some of our open source contribution rewards for that): https://www.helsinkifoundation.org/ https://www.helsinkifoundation.org/
- std_throwaway 7y ago
  What happens if I need my money back?
  - sixstringtheory 7y ago
    What do you mean “my” money? When you spend it, it’s no longer yours. You have land now in this line of reasoning.
    - std_throwaway 7y ago
      Can I sell this land to someone else if I need money? Is the use of that land for the new owner restricted or can it be repurposed for agriculture or other uses?
      - 9dev 7y ago
        You haven't understood the purpose of projects like these at all, have you?
        nitrogen 7y ago
        I think what they are saying is that the land isn't really in your name if you can't sell it later.
      - threwawasy1228 7y ago
        As a serious answer for anyone reading this who might be curious, even though the the above comment is probably not asking seriously. Most of these situations the land is placed in a thing called a 'land trust', at least that is the structure I see most often. These are generally then set out with an elected governing board, and a set of bylaws and rules about the lands. Often these rules can require a voting majority of everyone who placed in money on the land to make decisions about the land. Usually there is a minimum amount of land you personally must purchase in the larger purchase to constitutes a "share" like 1 acre. If someone has a change of heart later down the line the trust actually is a very hard entity to get around even if you are on the board of a small 5-10 person land trust. There have been examples of such boards being flipped and sold, but more often than not what you encounter is: one of the board members is interested in selling off the land and is utterly unable to because of how the trust is structured. They can be pretty robust. The only difference between buying land and creating your own trust and foundations like this is, the foundation ultimately controls all the board seats of land trust generally.
DanBC 7y ago
My current favourite youtube channel is "Crime Pays But Botany Doesn't". He swears a lot. But he appears to know a lot about botany and a fair amount about geology. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3CBOpT2-NRvoc2ecFMDCsA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3CBOpT2-NRvoc2ecFMDCsA I thought you might enjoy this video about "kill your lawn" and native Illinois prairie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz9I2YwmV8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz9I2YwmV8M
- sak5sk 7y ago
  This is awesome. Thanks for pointing it out, subbed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
baxtr 7y ago
That's super interesting. I had the same idea. I was thinking if there is a case in the current financial environment to just collect money from VCs, corporations etc and then buy land and make it "human-free". If you look at Chernobyl the results are very promising despite the radiation... see for example: http://theconversation.com/chernobyl-has-become-a-refuge-for-wildlife-33-years-after-the-nuclear-accident-116303 http://theconversation.com/chernobyl-has-become-a-refuge-for...
- riffraff 7y ago
  why would a VC put money in this? It's not like it promises any form of return on the investment. As a charity cause, sure, but that is not something that the current financial environment encourages particularly.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Current? I don't think the financial environment has ever (or can ever) encourage giving money away.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    > why would a VC put money in this? Perhaps because they have much more money than they personally need and are wise? Surely there are some wise VCs out there.
Gravityloss 7y ago
There are also ecosystems around old fashioned farming. Let's say cows on pasture, flies, wagtails and swallows. Bird nesting places in willows growing in ditches. Human - nature interaction can reach a sort of equilibrium. Probably one could do something similar with modern technology. Talk to biologists.
gravelc 7y ago
I would disagree with passively 'letting land return to nature'. If you did this in Australia (where I'm from), and likely other places too, you'd end up with a haven for invasive species, which actively damage surrounding ecosystems. Land needs to be actively managed - if you want it in its natural state, it needs time, money, and effort. In my (biased) opinion, the best thing we can do for the planet is to spend more on research, so we can understand and counter problems. Spending on agricultural science is falling world-wide, just when it's needed the most. That isn't good.
- notacoward 7y ago
  Also, "natural" is kind of suspect. Nature evolves on its own, even without human involvement. Returning a piece of land to its state from a hundred years ago necessarily means not leaving it in the state it would have reached without us. Treating "natural" as a near-synonym for both "past" and "good" is almost Luddite in its implications.
  - galangalalgol 7y ago
    Well said. We say natural and mean a state sans-man, but our effects are so widespread for so long, there is no way to be confident what such a state would be.
tim333 7y ago
In the UK you can get a grant for doing that in certain ways. Not big money but it all helps I guess. My dad was doing this one until he had health problems https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/organic-land-management-unimproved-permanent-grassland-ot2 https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/organic-la...
ausbah 7y ago
Lobbying to protect national parks might be a better roi.
tren 7y ago
World Land Trust is a good option, you can "buy" land per acre to protect it in perpetuity. I think we need to protect what we have and then look at rewilding as a second step. If we continue clearing wild areas (e.g the Amazon rainforest) more quickly then we replant, it seems like we're pissing into the wind.
notacoward 7y ago
You can't "let it return" any more. Land left alone will gravitate toward a state that's anything but natural, as the already-unnatural mix of species both within the land and in its surroundings assert themselves. Where I live, the most likely outcome is a patch of poison ivy. Other places, kudzu. Still others, a haven for invasive beetles or snakes or small carnivores. Returning land to a natural state takes work and know-how, not just passive ownership.
- your-nanny 7y ago
  I call bullshit on this notion of natural and unnatural. You mean return the land to some imagined pristine prior state, which in the North American context means managed landscapes, because the NA landscape was managed in lots of ways by native inhabitants. This pristine wilderness is just an imagination of white settlers. You are not going to rid the South of Kudzu. The only thing you can do is facilitate a ecological equilibrium in which Kudzu is now a part. Ecosystems change. Species move. We assume a constant that is likely imaginary. I also think you are overemphasizing the harm.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > You mean return the land to some imagined pristine prior state I'm not sure if "you" there was supposed to mean me or GP, but I had already explicitly challenged the concept of "natural" before you showed up (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20668387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20668387). Be careful of putting words in others' mouths, and especially of flinging terms like "bullshit" at others. Some might conclude that your own jeremiad better deserves that label. > The only thing you can do is facilitate a ecological equilibrium in which Kudzu is now a part. In the specific case of kudzu, perhaps. More generally, it's much more complex than that. "Only minor changes from how it is now" is as broken as "like it was 100 years ago" and for much the same reason. Other outcomes have proven possible, many times. Invasive species have been eliminated, once-native species reintroduced (locally of course). We might not know exactly what does and does not constitute a "natural" state after hundreds (or thousands) of years of human influence, but there's no reason to assume that the state resulting from passive neglect would be optimal in any sense. By many measures, such as species diversity or health/longevity, it's often objectively worse than alternatives. > I also think you are overemphasizing the harm. Interesting, since I didn't actually predict any harm. I predicted outcomes which you yourself categorize as harmful, even as you advocate for (in)action which makes them inevitable.
gdubs 7y ago
Ecosystem and habitat restoration involves more than just letting the land go fallow. If you just let it go, you could end up breeding a ton of invasive species which will choke off beneficial natives. If you’ve ever been to the Pacific Northwest, you’ll see Himalayan Blackberry everywhere, smothering all other plants and trees. The healthy middle ground is something like the native Americans maintained - a kind of “gardened wild”. It requires active management to nudge nature towards a healthy, sustainable state. Pragmatic, spot treatments of chemicals can be useful in this scenario — it’s the endless acres of monuculutes, airdropped with chemicals, that cause the kinds of problems we’re seeing from agricultural chemicals. If this is something anyone is interested in pursuing — buying land to “re-wild” it — check out your local natural resource conservation program.
- JimiofEden 7y ago
  Slightly off-topic: Nature conservation is very likely the proper term, but I really like imagining the idea of modern day druid rings to describe these sorts of efforts.
OrgNet 7y ago
around here there are so many invasive species that aren't native that it might be a good idea to not let those grow (mainly vines)
thaumaturgy 7y ago
This is exactly what your national and state parks systems do, along with all manner of other protected wilderness. The wonderful thing about the system that's already in place is that you can contribute to it without being wealthy, just by visiting any of them for a day and paying the entrance fee. As an additional perk, you get to visit all of that protected wilderness, while other people have maintained it for you, and you get to increase the total visitation numbers which in turns helps to keep this and other protected wilderness secure for the future. Go out and enjoy your local public lands.
- cardamomo 7y ago
  +1 for parks and protected wilderness! If we want public lands to play a large part in turning around our worldwide ecological crisis, I think we need to devote more resources, money, and land to the issue. I am intrigued by endeavors, like the Half-Earth Project (https://www.half-earthproject.org/ https://www.half-earthproject.org/), that seek to restore ecologies on a very large scale.
- justinator 7y ago
  Wish funds were distributed like that. I recall a certain 4th of July parade - with tanks, that was funded using visitation monies. https://www.outsideonline.com/2399402/trump-fourth-of-july-party-2.5-million-national-parks https://www.outsideonline.com/2399402/trump-fourth-of-july-p...
maelito 7y ago
Same goal for me. In theory, no need to be rich to do this in France, non constructible areas are almost cheap... But the farmer corporations have a preemption right to buy all these lands.
bahmboo 7y ago
Good thoughts, but no need to wait, Nature Conservancy: https://www.nature.org/en-us/ https://www.nature.org/en-us/ As others have pointed out it's not enough to let the land alone, it needs at least minimal stewardship.
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
The (startup) company I work for is planning to do this actually. We won't be able to rewild a huge swathe of land but it is a start.
- morequietly 7y ago
  Can you share any more info on your company? I've long been interested in companies that work in this area, but I have seen few startups in the space. If not, no problem. Thanks!
  - ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
    We are rewilding not as the main operation, but are using some of our profits to rewild. We work in the energy sector. We began debating which good cause to give a portion of profits too, and ended up with the decision to purchase land and re-wild it. (Directly, not via an eco-charity)

CalRobert 7y ago

Land can be surprisingly cheap depending on where you look. Ag land in Ireland, at least, can be a couple grand an acre if you buy in bulk (and it's not good grazing land, but this can be great for reforesting).

jacquesm 7y ago

In Canada it's $1k/acre and sometimes even lower. But for your plan to have maximum effect you'd have to do some research what land would be best suited because of biodiversity and climate.

MycroftJones 7y ago
Where is this 1k/acre land in Canada? Is it in a place where you can do these following things? a) build a house b) buy it an acre at a time c) grow a reasonable crop d) be within reasonable distance to a city and the markets thereof In Canada particularly, climate is an issue for growing crops. Wheat takes 100 days to mature. The growing season in the prairies is 110 days. If the climate drops 1 degree Celcius you lose 10 days off your growing season. If your growing season is delayed by cold or flooding, you don't get a crop that year. In the prairies it takes about 10 acres to sustain 1 cow year round. Throughout Canada there are all kinds of restrictions about how many houses and people you can have on your land. The concept of "starter house" and "starter farm" doesn't exist anymore. There is the nobility, and there are the serfs. We just don't call them that.
- dharma1 7y ago
  I think the OP wanted to return the land to its' natural state, not farm it or build on it

atoav 7y ago

Planting trees on it would even help more (if it is a climate zone where that is realistic). I heard an Interview with the founder of the ecosia search machine yesterday, and they are looking for tree planting initiatives constantly..

korpiq 7y ago
For that, I'd be interested in Paulownia trees for their fast growing speed, and thus (I assume) faster CO2 reduction rate. 1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_tomentosa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_tomentosa is also rapid to spread, which may turn out too rad for local flora or neighborhood politics thereof, while 2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_elongata https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_elongata seems not to spread on its own and thus may need active help for that. You'll end up with a lot of soft wood from these relatively fast (10 years?). That should be used in some way that does not release the CO2 back. I have no studies nor experience in biology nor gardening and all of this is only based on what I've been reading on the internet.
- abgfm 7y ago
  The most appropriate trees for an area are the local ones and with a view to Climate Change, the local species with good adaptability to climate change characteristics (need less water, can rezist temperatures variations, etc.). Pawlonia is being pushed/marketed heavily on the internet due to some superficial/mercantile characteristics (fast growth, big foliage), but besides that, in the agroforestry/agroecology academia, Paulonia is known to be just a marketing buzz, and a relatively dangerous one.
leg100 7y ago
No, it would not; the parent comment is correct. Leave nature to determine what will grow best on the land, including the types of trees that take root. Only then will you end up with the optimal biodiversity and ecosystem.
- atoav 7y ago

will_pseudonym 7y ago

If you end up doing that (and are in the United States), I would encourage you to look into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). "The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat." [0] [0] https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-...

korpiq 7y ago

There are organisations varying from grassroots to global where you can participate in such purchases with nominal sums, and end up with small parts of land in your name, collectively owned with other participants, or probably something in between. Here is one (that I know about because my employer currently offers an option to use some of our open source contribution rewards for that): https://www.helsinkifoundation.org/ https://www.helsinkifoundation.org/

std_throwaway 7y ago
What happens if I need my money back?
- sixstringtheory 7y ago
  What do you mean “my” money? When you spend it, it’s no longer yours. You have land now in this line of reasoning.
  - std_throwaway 7y ago
    Can I sell this land to someone else if I need money? Is the use of that land for the new owner restricted or can it be repurposed for agriculture or other uses?
    - 9dev 7y ago
      You haven't understood the purpose of projects like these at all, have you?
      - nitrogen 7y ago
        I think what they are saying is that the land isn't really in your name if you can't sell it later.
    - threwawasy1228 7y ago
      As a serious answer for anyone reading this who might be curious, even though the the above comment is probably not asking seriously. Most of these situations the land is placed in a thing called a 'land trust', at least that is the structure I see most often. These are generally then set out with an elected governing board, and a set of bylaws and rules about the lands. Often these rules can require a voting majority of everyone who placed in money on the land to make decisions about the land. Usually there is a minimum amount of land you personally must purchase in the larger purchase to constitutes a "share" like 1 acre. If someone has a change of heart later down the line the trust actually is a very hard entity to get around even if you are on the board of a small 5-10 person land trust. There have been examples of such boards being flipped and sold, but more often than not what you encounter is: one of the board members is interested in selling off the land and is utterly unable to because of how the trust is structured. They can be pretty robust. The only difference between buying land and creating your own trust and foundations like this is, the foundation ultimately controls all the board seats of land trust generally.

DanBC 7y ago

My current favourite youtube channel is "Crime Pays But Botany Doesn't". He swears a lot. But he appears to know a lot about botany and a fair amount about geology. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3CBOpT2-NRvoc2ecFMDCsA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3CBOpT2-NRvoc2ecFMDCsA I thought you might enjoy this video about "kill your lawn" and native Illinois prairie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz9I2YwmV8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz9I2YwmV8M

sak5sk 7y ago
This is awesome. Thanks for pointing it out, subbed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

baxtr 7y ago

That's super interesting. I had the same idea. I was thinking if there is a case in the current financial environment to just collect money from VCs, corporations etc and then buy land and make it "human-free". If you look at Chernobyl the results are very promising despite the radiation... see for example: http://theconversation.com/chernobyl-has-become-a-refuge-for-wildlife-33-years-after-the-nuclear-accident-116303 http://theconversation.com/chernobyl-has-become-a-refuge-for...

riffraff 7y ago
why would a VC put money in this? It's not like it promises any form of return on the investment. As a charity cause, sure, but that is not something that the current financial environment encourages particularly.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Current? I don't think the financial environment has ever (or can ever) encourage giving money away.
- feanaro 7y ago
  > why would a VC put money in this? Perhaps because they have much more money than they personally need and are wise? Surely there are some wise VCs out there.

Gravityloss 7y ago

There are also ecosystems around old fashioned farming. Let's say cows on pasture, flies, wagtails and swallows. Bird nesting places in willows growing in ditches. Human - nature interaction can reach a sort of equilibrium. Probably one could do something similar with modern technology. Talk to biologists.

gravelc 7y ago

I would disagree with passively 'letting land return to nature'. If you did this in Australia (where I'm from), and likely other places too, you'd end up with a haven for invasive species, which actively damage surrounding ecosystems. Land needs to be actively managed - if you want it in its natural state, it needs time, money, and effort. In my (biased) opinion, the best thing we can do for the planet is to spend more on research, so we can understand and counter problems. Spending on agricultural science is falling world-wide, just when it's needed the most. That isn't good.

notacoward 7y ago
Also, "natural" is kind of suspect. Nature evolves on its own, even without human involvement. Returning a piece of land to its state from a hundred years ago necessarily means not leaving it in the state it would have reached without us. Treating "natural" as a near-synonym for both "past" and "good" is almost Luddite in its implications.
- galangalalgol 7y ago
  Well said. We say natural and mean a state sans-man, but our effects are so widespread for so long, there is no way to be confident what such a state would be.

tim333 7y ago

In the UK you can get a grant for doing that in certain ways. Not big money but it all helps I guess. My dad was doing this one until he had health problems https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/organic-land-management-unimproved-permanent-grassland-ot2 https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/organic-la...

ausbah 7y ago

Lobbying to protect national parks might be a better roi.

tren 7y ago

World Land Trust is a good option, you can "buy" land per acre to protect it in perpetuity. I think we need to protect what we have and then look at rewilding as a second step. If we continue clearing wild areas (e.g the Amazon rainforest) more quickly then we replant, it seems like we're pissing into the wind.

notacoward 7y ago

You can't "let it return" any more. Land left alone will gravitate toward a state that's anything but natural, as the already-unnatural mix of species both within the land and in its surroundings assert themselves. Where I live, the most likely outcome is a patch of poison ivy. Other places, kudzu. Still others, a haven for invasive beetles or snakes or small carnivores. Returning land to a natural state takes work and know-how, not just passive ownership.

your-nanny 7y ago
I call bullshit on this notion of natural and unnatural. You mean return the land to some imagined pristine prior state, which in the North American context means managed landscapes, because the NA landscape was managed in lots of ways by native inhabitants. This pristine wilderness is just an imagination of white settlers. You are not going to rid the South of Kudzu. The only thing you can do is facilitate a ecological equilibrium in which Kudzu is now a part. Ecosystems change. Species move. We assume a constant that is likely imaginary. I also think you are overemphasizing the harm.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > You mean return the land to some imagined pristine prior state I'm not sure if "you" there was supposed to mean me or GP, but I had already explicitly challenged the concept of "natural" before you showed up (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20668387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20668387). Be careful of putting words in others' mouths, and especially of flinging terms like "bullshit" at others. Some might conclude that your own jeremiad better deserves that label. > The only thing you can do is facilitate a ecological equilibrium in which Kudzu is now a part. In the specific case of kudzu, perhaps. More generally, it's much more complex than that. "Only minor changes from how it is now" is as broken as "like it was 100 years ago" and for much the same reason. Other outcomes have proven possible, many times. Invasive species have been eliminated, once-native species reintroduced (locally of course). We might not know exactly what does and does not constitute a "natural" state after hundreds (or thousands) of years of human influence, but there's no reason to assume that the state resulting from passive neglect would be optimal in any sense. By many measures, such as species diversity or health/longevity, it's often objectively worse than alternatives. > I also think you are overemphasizing the harm. Interesting, since I didn't actually predict any harm. I predicted outcomes which you yourself categorize as harmful, even as you advocate for (in)action which makes them inevitable.

gdubs 7y ago

Ecosystem and habitat restoration involves more than just letting the land go fallow. If you just let it go, you could end up breeding a ton of invasive species which will choke off beneficial natives. If you’ve ever been to the Pacific Northwest, you’ll see Himalayan Blackberry everywhere, smothering all other plants and trees. The healthy middle ground is something like the native Americans maintained - a kind of “gardened wild”. It requires active management to nudge nature towards a healthy, sustainable state. Pragmatic, spot treatments of chemicals can be useful in this scenario — it’s the endless acres of monuculutes, airdropped with chemicals, that cause the kinds of problems we’re seeing from agricultural chemicals. If this is something anyone is interested in pursuing — buying land to “re-wild” it — check out your local natural resource conservation program.

JimiofEden 7y ago
Slightly off-topic: Nature conservation is very likely the proper term, but I really like imagining the idea of modern day druid rings to describe these sorts of efforts.

OrgNet 7y ago

around here there are so many invasive species that aren't native that it might be a good idea to not let those grow (mainly vines)

thaumaturgy 7y ago

This is exactly what your national and state parks systems do, along with all manner of other protected wilderness. The wonderful thing about the system that's already in place is that you can contribute to it without being wealthy, just by visiting any of them for a day and paying the entrance fee. As an additional perk, you get to visit all of that protected wilderness, while other people have maintained it for you, and you get to increase the total visitation numbers which in turns helps to keep this and other protected wilderness secure for the future. Go out and enjoy your local public lands.

cardamomo 7y ago
+1 for parks and protected wilderness! If we want public lands to play a large part in turning around our worldwide ecological crisis, I think we need to devote more resources, money, and land to the issue. I am intrigued by endeavors, like the Half-Earth Project (https://www.half-earthproject.org/ https://www.half-earthproject.org/), that seek to restore ecologies on a very large scale.
justinator 7y ago
Wish funds were distributed like that. I recall a certain 4th of July parade - with tanks, that was funded using visitation monies. https://www.outsideonline.com/2399402/trump-fourth-of-july-party-2.5-million-national-parks https://www.outsideonline.com/2399402/trump-fourth-of-july-p...

maelito 7y ago

Same goal for me. In theory, no need to be rich to do this in France, non constructible areas are almost cheap... But the farmer corporations have a preemption right to buy all these lands.

bahmboo 7y ago

Good thoughts, but no need to wait, Nature Conservancy: https://www.nature.org/en-us/ https://www.nature.org/en-us/ As others have pointed out it's not enough to let the land alone, it needs at least minimal stewardship.

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago

The (startup) company I work for is planning to do this actually. We won't be able to rewild a huge swathe of land but it is a start.

morequietly 7y ago
Can you share any more info on your company? I've long been interested in companies that work in this area, but I have seen few startups in the space. If not, no problem. Thanks!
- ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
  We are rewilding not as the main operation, but are using some of our profits to rewild. We work in the energy sector. We began debating which good cause to give a portion of profits too, and ended up with the decision to purchase land and re-wild it. (Directly, not via an eco-charity)