4 ms·
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
by 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 agoAlso, "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 agoWell 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.