Muir Environmental wrote:
>
> "> Let's also remember that it's not the farmers (on their own) that are
> > clearing native vegetation in "the country". They are doing it on
> > behalf of all of us, who demand a constant supply of produce, with a
> > wide variety. We're all responsible."
>
> Yes, thats true.
>
> Most of us, for example, eat bread, pastry products, etc. or other produce
> made from farming products. Many of us wear jumpers in winter (that often
> include wool off the sheep's back), or sleep under woollen (or part
> woollen) blankets, etc. etc. There are many examples. And, of course, our
> computers comprise components, etc. based on resources we mine; at least
> some of our furniture is made of timber, and many of our houses, etc. have
> timber components, etc. etc.
>
> We are all responsible and aren't really being honest with ourselves if we
> believe its someone else's responsibility, especially the farmers alone, or
> the miners alone, or whatever.....
>
> I seem to be commenting on potentially contentious issues lately...
>
> Regards
>
> Jenn Muir
>
> ----------
> > From: M. Scott O'Keeffe <>
> > To: Nigel Sterpin <>
> > Cc: birding-aus <>
> > Subject: Re: birding-aus Wildlife Corridors in Suburbia
> > Date: Friday, 6 August 1999 17:29
> >
> > Nigel Sterpin wrote:
> > >
> > > I hear people complaining about the destruction that farmers are doing
> > > to native bushland, yet what about us city folk?
> > > My point about the Elm trees is that we talk about 'corridors' and
> > > their importance, yet what about our own backyard in Suburbia?
> > > Is it possible that someone could provide a 'scientific' explanation
> > > as to what benefit to nomadic birds/animals native plants in Suburbia
> > > would provide (ie: in simple terms moving East-West or North-South) if
> > > they were in place of exotics currently occupying certain areas???
> > > Uroo, Nigel Sterpin
> > > email:
> >
> >
> > Let's also remember that it's not the farmers (on their own) that are
> > clearing native vegetation in "the country". They are doing it on
> > behalf of all of us, who demand a constant supply of produce, with a
> > wide variety. We're all responsible.
> > --
> > "Beware of Half-truths... you may have the wrong half"
> >
> > M. Scott O'Keeffe
> > Centre for Conservation Biology
> > University of Queensland
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
> >
> > Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
> > quotes)
All of us eat food. And since I have met no complete carnivores, all of
us will be eating plant material. Unless we have gone to some lengths
to ensure that the plant material we eat was produced using some
ecologically superior method, most of it will have come from monoculture
(or close to). And these monocultures can only be planted after the
original vegetation has been cleared. I'm afraid I don't buy the claims
made by some that a vegetarian diet always results in less environmental
harm. The first land to be cleared for cropping is always the most
fertile, which also tends to coincide with areas supporting highest
biodiversity. Beef production and consumption has a huge impact on the
environment. Chick peas? Soy beans? Ever seen a field of either? My
back yard supports a bigger biodiversity.
A respondant to my original comment tried to claim that I have been
making excuses for farmers. Rubbish. I am trying to point out that the
"raves" of late read like environmental westerns, complete with good
guys and bad guys. That kind of analysis is simplistic and counter
productive. I'm not excusing those farmers who use destructive land
management practices. But I am a bit tired of having them pointed out
as a means of making one group look good by making another group look
bad. I could almost say "grow up". We should be treating the huge
environmental problems we have with the seriousness they deserve, rather
than wasting time on simplistic name calling. The view from the moral
high ground is pretty much the same, though the air may be a little more
rarified. We need to begin by recognising that solutions to these
problems are always a community responsibility. While that is so, if we
wish to be both effective, and honest, individual action is also
required. While no individual should have to take all the
responsibility for having created a problem, or all the responsibility
for solving a problem, everyone has to take a
Its very easy to point an accusing finger at a hungry African clearing a
bit of bush to get just enough to eat while down the road, huge fenced,
irrigated farms use all the best land to grow flowers (harmless,
surely... after all, they're a natural product...) which are air lifted
out to the Dutch flower markets. Yes, tree clearing is destructive. An
ecological disaster. Any real solution to this kind of problem will not
consist of calling the person cutting the tree the bad guy, and waiting
for this bad guy to mend his ways. Progress will be made by attacking
the problem, and involving both parties (and lots of others as well) in
"doing" the solution.
--
"Beware of Half-truths... you may have the wrong half"
M. Scott O'Keeffe
Centre for Conservation Biology
University of Queensland
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
