4 ms·
That's a very US-centric viewpoint. I mean, New Zealand didn't have any land-dwelling mammals except for the rat 500 years ago.
by timClicks 5y ago
That's a very US-centric viewpoint. I mean, New Zealand didn't have any land-dwelling mammals except for the rat 500 years ago.
- Aromasin 5y agoSame in the UK (barring the mammals point). The country was 60-80% temperate rainforest before human habitation, depending on what research you go by. I grew up in the countryside. I cannot tell you how impossible it is to convince someone, who is dead set on consuming animal products, that we could regenerate that land if only we got rid of the cattle/fodder though. It's always "that land can't be used for anything else" or "having animals grazing there is good for the land", and that is just demonstrably false in every way. It's baffling that there can literally be old growth forest just on the other side of the hill, and the farmers will be adamant that the land they're on would be useless and barren if it weren't for them - as they continue to staunchly cut back the hedgerows and mow their fields every few months. Having been part of forest regeneration efforts across the UK - from southern heathlands to rocky Welsh and Scottish outcrops, good for "nothing but sheep" - I can say with all certainty that every part of the country except the most extreme alpine regions is suitable for reforestation or some form of plantation dense rewilding. People are completely ignorant to how the country looked before we levelled it for grazing, viewing the 70% ecologically barren agricultural land (of which 80% of that is used for grazing or feeding cattle) as the norm and the 2.5% old growth forest as a more novelty, and something strangely "unique to that area". If you're from New Zealand, this video is especially poignant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc