19 ms·

Disappointing, and another in a string of humans destroying things of natural beauty. A few years ago, the Wanaka tree in New Zealand was severely damaged due t

Disappointing, and another in a string of humans destroying things of natural beauty. A few years ago, the Wanaka tree in New Zealand was severely damaged due to tourists climbing on it. As an aside, I think it's quite interesting what various countries consider "ancient." A tree that's not even 200 years old wouldn't be considered especially old on the west coast of the US, but a building that's 100 years old would; in the UK, it's often the reverse. (I fully understand why this is the case, given the relative ages of the countries and their levels of deforestation, but it's a fun curiosity anyway.)

Fluorescence 3y ago
> I think it's quite interesting what various countries consider "ancient." A tree that's not even 200 years old wouldn't be considered especially old It's not famous for it's age but because it's appearance and location made it a loved landmark despite it's youth. Our oldest tree is the Fortingall Yew which is up to 5000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortingall_Yew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortingall_Yew
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  But the title says ancient.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    From a human point of view
    - MiguelX413 3y ago
      Clearly not necessarily if so many humans disagree.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    The title isn't even coming from England.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    I'm not saying that it's actually ancient, and neither I nor the original commenter was talking about the tree, or what it's famous for. Anyone who read the article already understands what it's famous for. I'm saying that the previous comment did not claim the tree was famous for it's ancientness. Their remark simply remarked upon what the title said, and by implication, anyone who would write it. They aren't talking about the tree, or what it's famous for. They are talking about the title author.
- peterpost2 3y ago
  >our oldest tree That's in Scotland not in England.
  - Fluorescence 3y ago
    I responded to a post about cultural perceptions of tree age IN THE UK and I can do without the petty nationalism, thanks.
bloak 3y ago
www.ancienttreeforum.org.uk says: "Ancient trees are those which have reached a great age in comparison with others of the same species." "A birch tree could be considered as ancient at 150 years old, for example, but an oak tree would not be thought of as ancient until it’s at least 400 years old." I'm not sure everyone would understand the expression in that way, though. (As already discussed in the Wikipedia talk page, now that this tree has been felled, someone should count the rings and tell us exactly how old it was!)
ivix 3y ago
It's not the reverse. Nobody in the UK was calling this tree ancient.
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
Aljazeera is based in Qatar - an environment not known for trees. The native Sidra tree only lives for 50-100 years. So in that context 300 is fairly ancient. https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/doha-climate-change-conference-november-2012/statements-and-resources/the-sidra-tree https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/doha-...
theshrike79 3y ago
The sad thing is that we know what and where the oldest tree in the world is, but it's deliberately kept secret so that idiots don't intentionally go cut it down for the lulz/views/likes/just because

Fluorescence 3y ago

> I think it's quite interesting what various countries consider "ancient." A tree that's not even 200 years old wouldn't be considered especially old It's not famous for it's age but because it's appearance and location made it a loved landmark despite it's youth. Our oldest tree is the Fortingall Yew which is up to 5000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortingall_Yew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortingall_Yew

Brian_K_White 3y ago
But the title says ancient.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  From a human point of view
  - MiguelX413 3y ago
    Clearly not necessarily if so many humans disagree.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  The title isn't even coming from England.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I'm not saying that it's actually ancient, and neither I nor the original commenter was talking about the tree, or what it's famous for. Anyone who read the article already understands what it's famous for. I'm saying that the previous comment did not claim the tree was famous for it's ancientness. Their remark simply remarked upon what the title said, and by implication, anyone who would write it. They aren't talking about the tree, or what it's famous for. They are talking about the title author.
peterpost2 3y ago
>our oldest tree That's in Scotland not in England.
- Fluorescence 3y ago
  I responded to a post about cultural perceptions of tree age IN THE UK and I can do without the petty nationalism, thanks.

bloak 3y ago

www.ancienttreeforum.org.uk says: "Ancient trees are those which have reached a great age in comparison with others of the same species." "A birch tree could be considered as ancient at 150 years old, for example, but an oak tree would not be thought of as ancient until it’s at least 400 years old." I'm not sure everyone would understand the expression in that way, though. (As already discussed in the Wikipedia talk page, now that this tree has been felled, someone should count the rings and tell us exactly how old it was!)

ivix 3y ago

It's not the reverse. Nobody in the UK was calling this tree ancient.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

Aljazeera is based in Qatar - an environment not known for trees. The native Sidra tree only lives for 50-100 years. So in that context 300 is fairly ancient. https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/doha-climate-change-conference-november-2012/statements-and-resources/the-sidra-tree https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/doha-...

theshrike79 3y ago

The sad thing is that we know what and where the oldest tree in the world is, but it's deliberately kept secret so that idiots don't intentionally go cut it down for the lulz/views/likes/just because