3 ms·

> Nature is a far more capable custodian than environmental scientists. Tell it to the cane toads (...grey squirrel, kudzu, rabbit, signal crayfish, zebra muss

by 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.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I don't blame farmers for taking money. Who wouldn't take extra money? However, I do think it's a slippery slope, and that dependency on government handouts is not the way to run an independent business. What you have is governments using environmental reasons to justify taking this or that action. Ie, "the environment" as envisaged by academia and politics, is a political football. Re the story, and how much money the farmer was getting, I don't know. I simply asked why he didn't have cows out, and he explained about the payments, orchids, etc.
    - flir 3y ago
      I'd sell the land to someone who didn't care about orchids, and keep the sheds for milk production. I mean, who wouldn't take extra money? Oh! Or keep cows on the land and in sheds. I bet that returns more money than set aside does.
- drekk 3y ago
  It's a nice and simple world view I suppose to characterize environmentalists as (a bit!) mentally ill. I don't see how you can pass it for discussion here, though. I mean clearly environmentalists choose to exempt private jets and have never made any comments about how the wealthiest 1% is responsible for 40% of lifestyle CO2 emissions. They just twiddle their cartoon mustaches thinking of ways to make energy and homes more expensive for honest red-blooded god-fearing blue-collar workers. It has nothing to do with the political clout and acumen of the class that can afford flying in a private jet I suppose. The solution is really, painfully simple. Meat is subsidized by not factoring in environmental externalities. Price it accordingly. Factory farming didn't come about because of environmentalists. Those animals are suffering because people still think meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice. They're suffering because consumers want their flesh at the lowest possible price and we've abstracted out all the unpleasant business so it can be as inhumane as necessary to squeeze out a couple more lbs/$. Are we really going to act shocked when a player like Tyson swoops in and makes an economy of scale out of mammalian suffering? Nah, we'll blame environmentalists for the brutal and short lives of farmed chattel. As for how much damage cattle can do while grazing, the literature is out there for you to read https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-022-01633-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-022-01633-8
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I think most people are mentally ill. Living one's life in models and ideas, ideas that are mis-characterisations of natural reality, despite the evidence of one's own experience, is especially hard to take. My point about the exemption of private jets, is that the environment is a political control lever. Its about power. Talking about killing the earth is merely a convenient mechanism to help the medicine go down. The earth will not be any better at the end of this process. We will get lots of TV programs about how the earth is being saved etc. Do you remember hearing about how the water in Venice improved during lockdowns? That sort of thing. So will pay much more, in loss of freedom and cash, but we will get TV programs to tell us it was worth it. Carbon taxes - the means of pricing externalities - are a further governmental control structure. So, you have government saying 'such-and-such is a problem' and the fix is 'extra taxes'. Don't forget in my example, the farmer is already subsidised by the government. With subsidies and control for "externalities" - how one can say that free market forces have anything much to do with the produce we get, I don't know! PS - I think your trust in governance and academia - as seems evident in your comment - is misplaced. Everything operates on money - what studies are undertaken, where money is invested, what information is publicised. The well is already poisoned - we are all simply being washed in the media spin. Recognising the truth or reality of our situation will not come from a study or a politician.
pigeons 3y ago
Beavers.

by flir 3y ago

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.
- verisimi 3y ago
  I don't blame farmers for taking money. Who wouldn't take extra money? However, I do think it's a slippery slope, and that dependency on government handouts is not the way to run an independent business. What you have is governments using environmental reasons to justify taking this or that action. Ie, "the environment" as envisaged by academia and politics, is a political football. Re the story, and how much money the farmer was getting, I don't know. I simply asked why he didn't have cows out, and he explained about the payments, orchids, etc.
  - flir 3y ago
    I'd sell the land to someone who didn't care about orchids, and keep the sheds for milk production. I mean, who wouldn't take extra money? Oh! Or keep cows on the land and in sheds. I bet that returns more money than set aside does.
drekk 3y ago
It's a nice and simple world view I suppose to characterize environmentalists as (a bit!) mentally ill. I don't see how you can pass it for discussion here, though. I mean clearly environmentalists choose to exempt private jets and have never made any comments about how the wealthiest 1% is responsible for 40% of lifestyle CO2 emissions. They just twiddle their cartoon mustaches thinking of ways to make energy and homes more expensive for honest red-blooded god-fearing blue-collar workers. It has nothing to do with the political clout and acumen of the class that can afford flying in a private jet I suppose. The solution is really, painfully simple. Meat is subsidized by not factoring in environmental externalities. Price it accordingly. Factory farming didn't come about because of environmentalists. Those animals are suffering because people still think meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice. They're suffering because consumers want their flesh at the lowest possible price and we've abstracted out all the unpleasant business so it can be as inhumane as necessary to squeeze out a couple more lbs/$. Are we really going to act shocked when a player like Tyson swoops in and makes an economy of scale out of mammalian suffering? Nah, we'll blame environmentalists for the brutal and short lives of farmed chattel. As for how much damage cattle can do while grazing, the literature is out there for you to read https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-022-01633-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-022-01633-8
- verisimi 3y ago
  I think most people are mentally ill. Living one's life in models and ideas, ideas that are mis-characterisations of natural reality, despite the evidence of one's own experience, is especially hard to take. My point about the exemption of private jets, is that the environment is a political control lever. Its about power. Talking about killing the earth is merely a convenient mechanism to help the medicine go down. The earth will not be any better at the end of this process. We will get lots of TV programs about how the earth is being saved etc. Do you remember hearing about how the water in Venice improved during lockdowns? That sort of thing. So will pay much more, in loss of freedom and cash, but we will get TV programs to tell us it was worth it. Carbon taxes - the means of pricing externalities - are a further governmental control structure. So, you have government saying 'such-and-such is a problem' and the fix is 'extra taxes'. Don't forget in my example, the farmer is already subsidised by the government. With subsidies and control for "externalities" - how one can say that free market forces have anything much to do with the produce we get, I don't know! PS - I think your trust in governance and academia - as seems evident in your comment - is misplaced. Everything operates on money - what studies are undertaken, where money is invested, what information is publicised. The well is already poisoned - we are all simply being washed in the media spin. Recognising the truth or reality of our situation will not come from a study or a politician.

pigeons 3y ago

Beavers.