Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Holistic Farming
Wilding
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Danllan" data-source="post: 5893430" data-attributes="member: 8735"><p>Agreed, but, by any measure, we've not achieved anything even approaching one here, yet...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not over fond of Oscar Wilde but he did, on occasion, have a fine turn of phrase and when he wrote that a cynic knew the '<em>price of everything and the value of nothing</em>' he was certainly right. Your post appears to make some assumptions, a couple are easily rebutted and the others clearly based on a 'value judgement' which is, of course for each of us to make for ourselves.</p><p></p><p>Firstly, feeding the world is <u>not</u> a problem. We can do it already. In fact at the current rate of production we could feed a world population at least 30% bigger than today's. The corollary is obvious: that we <u>can</u> afford to <u>reduce</u> the amount of land being farmed, so 'wilding' could well be done pretty much anywhere. Get rid of <u>unnecessary</u> food waste and then come back to us on these ones. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite24" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs Up (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></p><p></p><p>It is to your credit that you recognise the species rich ecological value of scrubland, and that you admit it, although you make an error in your placing it solely as a 'stage' between one ecosystem and another; there is good evidence that peripheral scrub is a stable ecosystem in its own right.</p><p></p><p>Here then is, I guess, the nub of the matter for one side of the argument: is there an <u>objective</u> value to having areas that are not under the thumb of man? I can argue that there is, and can do so in entirely rational terms starting with climate-change control and pollinators, and then extending the list very greatly.</p><p></p><p>But I will be honest enough to admit that there is an entirely subjective reason for my wanting nature to be harmed less. I think it of immeasurable value in itself, intrinsically, without reference to humanity and, quite apart from the enormous pleasure I receive from it, I would not want to be the one explain to my children why I knew what had been and was being done, yet did nothing.</p><p></p><p>And <u>that</u> is the nub for me. Hitherto we, as a species, had a very improper understanding of the way of things, and I believe that compared to what we will know in a few more centuries we still currently know very little. But it is enough. It is enough to reveal to us the enormous damage already done and, even now, actively being done to nature.</p><p></p><p>It is on that basis that I believe we should do as little harm and as much good as possible. So, by all means remove the agricultural subsidy from such projects, it is entirely disingenuous to provide it. But, having done that, I am very happy to see as much and more given to such schemes as environmental rewards, or merely as agricultural 'conscience money', if you will.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Danllan, post: 5893430, member: 8735"] Agreed, but, by any measure, we've not achieved anything even approaching one here, yet... I am not over fond of Oscar Wilde but he did, on occasion, have a fine turn of phrase and when he wrote that a cynic knew the '[I]price of everything and the value of nothing[/I]' he was certainly right. Your post appears to make some assumptions, a couple are easily rebutted and the others clearly based on a 'value judgement' which is, of course for each of us to make for ourselves. Firstly, feeding the world is [U]not[/U] a problem. We can do it already. In fact at the current rate of production we could feed a world population at least 30% bigger than today's. The corollary is obvious: that we [U]can[/U] afford to [U]reduce[/U] the amount of land being farmed, so 'wilding' could well be done pretty much anywhere. Get rid of [U]unnecessary[/U] food waste and then come back to us on these ones. (y) It is to your credit that you recognise the species rich ecological value of scrubland, and that you admit it, although you make an error in your placing it solely as a 'stage' between one ecosystem and another; there is good evidence that peripheral scrub is a stable ecosystem in its own right. Here then is, I guess, the nub of the matter for one side of the argument: is there an [U]objective[/U] value to having areas that are not under the thumb of man? I can argue that there is, and can do so in entirely rational terms starting with climate-change control and pollinators, and then extending the list very greatly. But I will be honest enough to admit that there is an entirely subjective reason for my wanting nature to be harmed less. I think it of immeasurable value in itself, intrinsically, without reference to humanity and, quite apart from the enormous pleasure I receive from it, I would not want to be the one explain to my children why I knew what had been and was being done, yet did nothing. And [U]that[/U] is the nub for me. Hitherto we, as a species, had a very improper understanding of the way of things, and I believe that compared to what we will know in a few more centuries we still currently know very little. But it is enough. It is enough to reveal to us the enormous damage already done and, even now, actively being done to nature. It is on that basis that I believe we should do as little harm and as much good as possible. So, by all means remove the agricultural subsidy from such projects, it is entirely disingenuous to provide it. But, having done that, I am very happy to see as much and more given to such schemes as environmental rewards, or merely as agricultural 'conscience money', if you will. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Holistic Farming
Wilding
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top