4 ms·

Do you understand ecosystems? And what kind of content should I expect the "Fund for Environmental Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists"? D

Do you understand ecosystems? And what kind of content should I expect the "Fund for Environmental Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists"? Do you think there isn't an environmental slant to this? This is not a general interest story - it is intended to make you think that cattle, even wild cattle, are damaging to the environment. The most irritating element to this I find, is the presumption that mere impact on soil, water quality, etc is a bad thing! Who says? Breaking up soil also creates a more diverse environment. Eg some trees require fires to reproduce - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte "Change" is not a bad thing, per se. It is the hybris that gets me. Environmental researchers presume to know what the ideal environment is - that an ecosystem is somehow in stasis - never changing. This is to say that they would 'preserve' an environment, but they don't know what they are preserving it to! Because, environments aren't things one preserves! Environments aren't a precious book, or ancient treasure - that needs care. Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists.

defrost 3y ago
Hubris, not "hybris". As in the unconscionable hubris of someone presuming to know what environmental researchers think, imagining them to collectively believe in an 'ideal' environment, etc. The link I gave specifically looks at the changes made by an over abundance of introduced feral species to an environment that had been in a particular balance for some 50,000 years. The introduction of cattle reduced biodiversity, etc. Thus answering the question posed above for one locale at least.
- verisimi 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris > Hybris may refer to: > Hybris or hubris, exaggerated self pride I don't think you know as much as you think. Whether that's spellings, ecosystems, or what happened 50,000 years ago. But you think you do. Thereby exemplifying hybris.
flir 3y ago
> Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists. Tell it to the cane toads (...grey squirrel, kudzu, rabbit, signal crayfish, zebra mussel, water thyme...) Incidentally, check out these nutters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Socie... The past is truly a foreign country.
- verisimi 3y ago
  I'm sure that there have been changes on account of species being introduced to some environment by people. I'm not disputing that. I would love for those things not to have happened. But, I'm not sure that the purported "cure" is better. Environmentalists are, well, a bit mental. They would move people off the land, kill thousands of animals, allow animals to suffer for the sake of some cause that they say is important. Eg, I know of farmers that now graze their cattle indoors, despite having acres of ground - because they gain special income to protect a species of orchid on their fields. This is suffering for cows that do not see the light of day. And this is despite the orchids surviving on the same farm for decades with the cattle. All I see in that case, is very real suffering being created (the cows are living highly unnatural lives, on grain, without light), in the name of environmentalism. I think that environmentalism, like every single other domain in this reality, is in thrall to money and power. If there is an angle that can further empower 'money and power' it will be used. The environmental reasons are a fantastic lever for this - anyone who disputes the stories that are given are automatically wrong, a sinner. It seems impossible for most people to see that helping the environment is nothing to do with actually helping the environment for 'money and power' - it is just a reason given to justify making laws that mandate higher energy expenses, new cars, new housing, increased taxes, etc, etc. Don't forget that private jets are exempt from environmental restraints. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opportunity-eu-commissioner-rules-out-private-jet-ban https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opp...
  - flir 3y ago
    So the farmers had three choices: 1) Don't take the set aside money 2) Take the set aside money and don't keep cows 3) Take the set aside money and keep cows in sheds They chose (3) and the environmentalists are to blame? Ok, I guess. That must be some orchid, to require cattle to be kept off the land year-round, rather than just in the flowering season. How do they keep the land from returning to scrub? Mow once a year for hay/silage? In my limited experience farmers apply set aside to the least-useful bits of the farm, not the whole farm.
bannedbybros 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

defrost 3y ago

Hubris, not "hybris". As in the unconscionable hubris of someone presuming to know what environmental researchers think, imagining them to collectively believe in an 'ideal' environment, etc. The link I gave specifically looks at the changes made by an over abundance of introduced feral species to an environment that had been in a particular balance for some 50,000 years. The introduction of cattle reduced biodiversity, etc. Thus answering the question posed above for one locale at least.

verisimi 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris > Hybris may refer to: > Hybris or hubris, exaggerated self pride I don't think you know as much as you think. Whether that's spellings, ecosystems, or what happened 50,000 years ago. But you think you do. Thereby exemplifying hybris.

flir 3y ago

> Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists. Tell it to the cane toads (...grey squirrel, kudzu, rabbit, signal crayfish, zebra mussel, water thyme...) Incidentally, check out these nutters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Acclimatization_Socie... The past is truly a foreign country.

verisimi 3y ago
I'm sure that there have been changes on account of species being introduced to some environment by people. I'm not disputing that. I would love for those things not to have happened. But, I'm not sure that the purported "cure" is better. Environmentalists are, well, a bit mental. They would move people off the land, kill thousands of animals, allow animals to suffer for the sake of some cause that they say is important. Eg, I know of farmers that now graze their cattle indoors, despite having acres of ground - because they gain special income to protect a species of orchid on their fields. This is suffering for cows that do not see the light of day. And this is despite the orchids surviving on the same farm for decades with the cattle. All I see in that case, is very real suffering being created (the cows are living highly unnatural lives, on grain, without light), in the name of environmentalism. I think that environmentalism, like every single other domain in this reality, is in thrall to money and power. If there is an angle that can further empower 'money and power' it will be used. The environmental reasons are a fantastic lever for this - anyone who disputes the stories that are given are automatically wrong, a sinner. It seems impossible for most people to see that helping the environment is nothing to do with actually helping the environment for 'money and power' - it is just a reason given to justify making laws that mandate higher energy expenses, new cars, new housing, increased taxes, etc, etc. Don't forget that private jets are exempt from environmental restraints. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opportunity-eu-commissioner-rules-out-private-jet-ban https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/02/another-missed-opp...
- flir 3y ago
  So the farmers had three choices: 1) Don't take the set aside money 2) Take the set aside money and don't keep cows 3) Take the set aside money and keep cows in sheds They chose (3) and the environmentalists are to blame? Ok, I guess. That must be some orchid, to require cattle to be kept off the land year-round, rather than just in the flowering season. How do they keep the land from returning to scrub? Mow once a year for hay/silage? In my limited experience farmers apply set aside to the least-useful bits of the farm, not the whole farm.

bannedbybros 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]