3 ms·

Just leave areas alone and let nature do its thing.

Retric 3y ago
Across hundreds of years this is largely pointless, but people aren’t worried about that kind of timescale. In the short term planting trees in areas they can thrive can make a signifiant short term impact.
smt88 3y ago
There are entire countries that were deforested, and it's essentially impossible for nature to repopulate those forests. Human intervention destroyed the ecosystem and there is immediate and ongoing harm to that destruction. It's idiotic to suddenly decide to "let nature do it's thing" now when billions of people are threatened by climate change.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  You realize nature populated the forests in the first place. Birds carry seeds. It is not impossible.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Over millions of years. If the soil the trees need has washed away they won't grow anytime soon. Some places you can plant a native tree and it will grow. Other places something is lost and it won't grow anymore. Places can be very tiny areas in the case of a desert.
    - hosh 3y ago
      And there are ways to remediate wastelands! It would take a very long time though if we just "left it alone". I think there's a false dichotomy about what "human intervention" means, because as a civilization, we think of human intervention as forces that act upon the ecosystem from the outside. Not all cultures and civilizations sees it that way. I think we think that way in modern times because we see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem rather than a part of the ecosystem. It's pretty common to hear people say, "there's nothing there", even if it is a lush, wildland (or close enough to it). As an example, there are ancient, abandoned perennial food forests that were created by the inhabitants. These work with natural processes so that yields useful to humans are byproducts of the healthy ecosystem, and they can carry on even when humans stop tending them.
- hosh 3y ago
  Oh, I think something will regrow there even if humans die off. It's more likely that the planet will continue to live, and some other intelligent lifeform arises as a successor. This isn't really about saving the planet. Over a large enough timescale, the planet will recover just fine -- as a living system, the global ecology can and does regenerate. Instead, what we're fighting for is a place for humans within the global ecosystem. "Human intervention" need not be destructive. It has been destructive because we came to see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem, rather than being part of the ecosystem. There have been cultures, to one degree or another, see themselves and conduct themsleves as part of the ecosystem, and tended the lands as such. Wastelands can be remediated. In India, there are people working with marginalized castes and ethnic groups to restore wastelands. It's not something that works over a single season, but it is something that starts yielding stuff useful to humans within a single generation. The work that these people do ends up restoring land from bare rock eroded by poor land management practices. These were land no one wanted, and now they are both productive (yielding something useful) while at the same time, a fertile, active ecosystem beyond the human-centric view of the world. There doesn't have to be a dichotomy between "human intervention", and "leaving nature alone". We're a part of the natural ecosystem -- how could we really ever "leave it alone"?
abeppu 3y ago
That only makes sense if you're willing to commit to it. "Leave areas alone and let nature do its thing" can't just mean "don't run deliberate tree-planting efforts with short-sighted planing". Actually leaving stuff alone and letting nature work would involve us retreating from the area, not developing the land, not spraying insecticides and herbicides, not introducing invasive species, not polluting the ground water, not putting extra particulates into the air, _certainly_ not continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere. So the "just" part of" just leave areas alone, is asking quite a lot. That's not to say it's wrong ... but it's more ambitious than e.g. net-zero goals. In some sense, it's exactly 2x as ambitious as E. O. Wilson's "Half-Earth" proposal.
- bluGill 3y ago
  The existence of invasive species make even that plan questionable. A lot of trees are dead because of invasives that are still, so even if you plant it, it will die again. There are a lot of trees and invasives. Sometimes if we plant trees and give them a few years of active removal of the invasives they will grow strong enough to out compete the invasive, but if you don't remove the invasive they will be chocked out and die. However only sometimes.
  - hosh 3y ago
    "Invasive" are another idea I think are widely misunderstood by the public. I think it is more about how many ecological relationship something has with other species within the local ecosystem. Something without a lot of interactions would just take resources and contribute nothing back to the ecosystem would degrade an ecosystem until there are adaptations to include that species within the ecosystem. Contribution could be food for other species. They might provide habitat. Maybe they help spread seeds, or distribute nutrients for plants. And yes, yields for humans too. By that understanding, I would say that the modern human is probably the most successful invasive specie across many ecosystems. And it isn't that, I am advocating that we get rid of the humans within those ecosystems, but find ways for humans to participate within that local ecosystem. Once those relationships are established, it is better for that local ecosystem to have humans than to not have humans.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
The cheapest effective solution, but sadly perhaps not fast enough, and definitely not optimal if you're trying to create rather than just preserve habitats. The way things are going we're going to need to learn how to construct artificial reefs to survive as a species, and quite possibly also artificial game habitats. Planting trees is just one part of that.
- hosh 3y ago
  It can be pretty fast if you work with the natural feedback loops. Permaculture design principles, "use small, slow solutions". This is an accidental grove out along the CAS canal project. The bearm made unintentionally by the canal designers captured monsoon rains and accumulated organics for a grove to naturally spring up there. https://youtu.be/jf8usAesJvo https://youtu.be/jf8usAesJvo The more impressive (deliberate) projects involve turning barerock wastelands into productive lands using these principles. There is a big difference between human intervention that sets us apart from the ecosystem (in which we act upon the ecosystem) and human intervention where we work as a participant of the ecosystem (in which we participate within the ecosystem). We can and should use technology, but it is a different paradigm and a different way of seeing.
hosh 3y ago
There is a big difference between human intervention that sets us apart from the ecosystem (in which we act upon the ecosystem) and human intervention where we work as a participant of the ecosystem (in which we participate within the ecosystem). We can and should use technology, but it is a different paradigm and a different way of seeing. Some of the things the permaculture folks have been quietly doing for over 50 years have yielded some impressive results. They go far beyond what you'd hear about in the mainstream, and we're only seeing some of it trickle in (such as the ideas of restorative and regenerative agriculture or agroforestry).
- fuzztester 3y ago
  Right. A good short video about how forests harvest maximum sunlight, and how many other things that are good for the environment as a whole, happen effortlessly in them, due to all of which they keep getting better over time: Watch "Permaculture - from forest to farm | Clea Chandmal | TEDxBITSGoa" on YouTube https://youtu.be/KI3haUOkP-I https://youtu.be/KI3haUOkP-I
devindotcom 3y ago
it doesn't really work that way, unfortunately invasives can take root and replace entire forests before native plants can take root. it's a huge problem in post-wildfire areas.

Across hundreds of years this is largely pointless, but people aren’t worried about that kind of timescale. In the short term planting trees in areas they can thrive can make a signifiant short term impact.

smt88 3y ago

There are entire countries that were deforested, and it's essentially impossible for nature to repopulate those forests. Human intervention destroyed the ecosystem and there is immediate and ongoing harm to that destruction. It's idiotic to suddenly decide to "let nature do it's thing" now when billions of people are threatened by climate change.

ipaddr 3y ago
You realize nature populated the forests in the first place. Birds carry seeds. It is not impossible.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Over millions of years. If the soil the trees need has washed away they won't grow anytime soon. Some places you can plant a native tree and it will grow. Other places something is lost and it won't grow anymore. Places can be very tiny areas in the case of a desert.
  - hosh 3y ago
    And there are ways to remediate wastelands! It would take a very long time though if we just "left it alone". I think there's a false dichotomy about what "human intervention" means, because as a civilization, we think of human intervention as forces that act upon the ecosystem from the outside. Not all cultures and civilizations sees it that way. I think we think that way in modern times because we see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem rather than a part of the ecosystem. It's pretty common to hear people say, "there's nothing there", even if it is a lush, wildland (or close enough to it). As an example, there are ancient, abandoned perennial food forests that were created by the inhabitants. These work with natural processes so that yields useful to humans are byproducts of the healthy ecosystem, and they can carry on even when humans stop tending them.
hosh 3y ago
Oh, I think something will regrow there even if humans die off. It's more likely that the planet will continue to live, and some other intelligent lifeform arises as a successor. This isn't really about saving the planet. Over a large enough timescale, the planet will recover just fine -- as a living system, the global ecology can and does regenerate. Instead, what we're fighting for is a place for humans within the global ecosystem. "Human intervention" need not be destructive. It has been destructive because we came to see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem, rather than being part of the ecosystem. There have been cultures, to one degree or another, see themselves and conduct themsleves as part of the ecosystem, and tended the lands as such. Wastelands can be remediated. In India, there are people working with marginalized castes and ethnic groups to restore wastelands. It's not something that works over a single season, but it is something that starts yielding stuff useful to humans within a single generation. The work that these people do ends up restoring land from bare rock eroded by poor land management practices. These were land no one wanted, and now they are both productive (yielding something useful) while at the same time, a fertile, active ecosystem beyond the human-centric view of the world. There doesn't have to be a dichotomy between "human intervention", and "leaving nature alone". We're a part of the natural ecosystem -- how could we really ever "leave it alone"?

abeppu 3y ago

That only makes sense if you're willing to commit to it. "Leave areas alone and let nature do its thing" can't just mean "don't run deliberate tree-planting efforts with short-sighted planing". Actually leaving stuff alone and letting nature work would involve us retreating from the area, not developing the land, not spraying insecticides and herbicides, not introducing invasive species, not polluting the ground water, not putting extra particulates into the air, _certainly_ not continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere. So the "just" part of" just leave areas alone, is asking quite a lot. That's not to say it's wrong ... but it's more ambitious than e.g. net-zero goals. In some sense, it's exactly 2x as ambitious as E. O. Wilson's "Half-Earth" proposal.

bluGill 3y ago
The existence of invasive species make even that plan questionable. A lot of trees are dead because of invasives that are still, so even if you plant it, it will die again. There are a lot of trees and invasives. Sometimes if we plant trees and give them a few years of active removal of the invasives they will grow strong enough to out compete the invasive, but if you don't remove the invasive they will be chocked out and die. However only sometimes.
- hosh 3y ago
  "Invasive" are another idea I think are widely misunderstood by the public. I think it is more about how many ecological relationship something has with other species within the local ecosystem. Something without a lot of interactions would just take resources and contribute nothing back to the ecosystem would degrade an ecosystem until there are adaptations to include that species within the ecosystem. Contribution could be food for other species. They might provide habitat. Maybe they help spread seeds, or distribute nutrients for plants. And yes, yields for humans too. By that understanding, I would say that the modern human is probably the most successful invasive specie across many ecosystems. And it isn't that, I am advocating that we get rid of the humans within those ecosystems, but find ways for humans to participate within that local ecosystem. Once those relationships are established, it is better for that local ecosystem to have humans than to not have humans.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

The cheapest effective solution, but sadly perhaps not fast enough, and definitely not optimal if you're trying to create rather than just preserve habitats. The way things are going we're going to need to learn how to construct artificial reefs to survive as a species, and quite possibly also artificial game habitats. Planting trees is just one part of that.

hosh 3y ago
It can be pretty fast if you work with the natural feedback loops. Permaculture design principles, "use small, slow solutions". This is an accidental grove out along the CAS canal project. The bearm made unintentionally by the canal designers captured monsoon rains and accumulated organics for a grove to naturally spring up there. https://youtu.be/jf8usAesJvo https://youtu.be/jf8usAesJvo The more impressive (deliberate) projects involve turning barerock wastelands into productive lands using these principles. There is a big difference between human intervention that sets us apart from the ecosystem (in which we act upon the ecosystem) and human intervention where we work as a participant of the ecosystem (in which we participate within the ecosystem). We can and should use technology, but it is a different paradigm and a different way of seeing.

hosh 3y ago

There is a big difference between human intervention that sets us apart from the ecosystem (in which we act upon the ecosystem) and human intervention where we work as a participant of the ecosystem (in which we participate within the ecosystem). We can and should use technology, but it is a different paradigm and a different way of seeing. Some of the things the permaculture folks have been quietly doing for over 50 years have yielded some impressive results. They go far beyond what you'd hear about in the mainstream, and we're only seeing some of it trickle in (such as the ideas of restorative and regenerative agriculture or agroforestry).

fuzztester 3y ago
Right. A good short video about how forests harvest maximum sunlight, and how many other things that are good for the environment as a whole, happen effortlessly in them, due to all of which they keep getting better over time: Watch "Permaculture - from forest to farm | Clea Chandmal | TEDxBITSGoa" on YouTube https://youtu.be/KI3haUOkP-I https://youtu.be/KI3haUOkP-I

devindotcom 3y ago

it doesn't really work that way, unfortunately invasives can take root and replace entire forests before native plants can take root. it's a huge problem in post-wildfire areas.