Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[8ball]

The problem you have identified is merely that “natural” does not actually mean “not artificial”.

"Natural" is mostly just a word used in advertising.

 

[kabbes]

"Natural" is mostly just a word used in advertising.

Quite. So objecting to grazed pastureland being described as “natural” on the grounds that if things had been different for the last 2000 years it might have been forest instead is a particularly fruitless endeavour, no?

 

[8ball]

Quite. So objecting to grazed pastureland being described as “natural” on the grounds that if things had been different for the last 2000 years it might have been forest instead is a particularly fruitless endeavour, no?

No, I think it's fair enough to distinguish what is basically a production area from an untouched (or, more likely, lightly managed) wilderness.

 

[kabbes]

No, I think it's fair enough to distinguish what is basically a production area from an untouched (or, more likely, lightly managed) wilderness.

It’s still “natural” in the generally accepted use of the word. More importantly, planning authorities have accepted this particular style of landscape in this particular place (ie grazed landscape in Exmoor) as being defined to be natural, on the grounds that it has been that way for hundreds of years. Since the word is best understood as a philosophical (and legal) concept rather than a scientific one, that seems good enough.

 

[8ball]

It’s still “natural” in the generally accepted use of the word. More importantly, planning authorities have accepted this particular style of landscape in this particular place (ie grazed landscape in Exmoor) as being defined to be natural, on the grounds that it has been that way for hundreds of years. Since the word is best understood as a philosophical (and legal) concept rather than a scientific one, that seems good enough.

I wouldn't agree. A lot of city folk are quite surprised to find out how much of what they consider "unspoilt countryside" is actually an industrial zone shaped by humans (albeit an economically crap one in some cases).

I agree about the word "natural" being used a bit messily much of the time, but I think you understood well enough what SpookyFrank meant.

 

[kabbes]

I wouldn't agree. A lot of city folk are quite surprised to find out how much of what they consider "unspoilt countryside" is actually an industrial zone shaped by humans. I think you understood well enough what SpookyFrank meant.

It's all shaped by humans. And when you say "industrial", you are using the word in a sense most people would not recognise. Ancient pasturing is not industrial even in the sense of modern agri-business, let alone true industrialisation. I would also point out that "industrialisation" has its own particular meaning with reference to landscape character, and pastureland is not included in that meaning.

I do indeed understand what SpookyFrank meant because I have spent the last 10 years wrestling with the finer points of landscape characteristics and definition and I have had to think very deeply about this in order to be cross-examined about it in a Public Inquiry. It's not as straightforward as saying only things totally untouched by humans count as natural. That would rule out the protection of anything.

Exmoor National Park's landscape character assessment is here: http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov....2/Lansdcape-Character-Assessment-document.pdf

I decided to take a look to see what is actually claimed to be "natural", since the central issue seems to be that people think things are natural when they are not, and I am not particularly familiar with Exmoor specifically. In truth, a lot (including heathland and woodland) is described "semi-natural", although there is also reference to natural coastland, natural wildlife and natural woodland. You can see for yourself in the document, though, how they approach the classification of "natural". It's not about things being wilderness.

 

[8ball]

It's all shaped by humans. And when you say "industrial", you are using the word in a sense most people would not recognise. Ancient pasturing is not industrial even in the sense of modern agri-business, let alone true industrialisation.

Ah, more words, more problems...

I decided to take a look to see what is actually claimed to be "natural", since the central issue seems to be that people think things are natural when they are not, and I am not particularly familiar with Exmoor specifically. In truth, a lot (including heathland and woodland) is described "semi-natural", although there is also reference to natural coastland and natural woodland. You can see for yourself in the document, though, how they approach the classification of "natural". It's not about things being wilderness.

I wouldn't call something natural myself if overgrazed for aesthetic reasons, or used for agricultural production. Then there would be some gradations over which I'd be open to persuasion. We're just quibbling over the use of an ambiguous word, though.

I get it that the national parks people etc. will need to deal with certain gradations and specifics, when dealing with the description of something as "natural", but you've already admitted you get what SpookyFrank meant, so I'm still not sure what your actual point is.

 

[kabbes]

I get it that the national parks people etc. will need to deal with certain gradations and specifics, when dealing with the description of something as "natural", but you've already admitted you get what SpookyFrank meant, so I'm still not sure what your actual point is.

This was my point, in the form of a Socratic question:

Define “natural” with respect to a landscape.

 

[8ball]

That’s not actually making any kind of point.

 

[kabbes]

That’s not actually making any kind of point.

Any claim of a point beyond that is all in your head.

 

[Saul Goodman]

No, it isn't. (in reply to thread title)

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's all shaped by humans. And when you say "industrial", you are using the word in a sense most people would not recognise. Ancient pasturing is not industrial even in the sense of modern agri-business, let alone true industrialisation. I would also point out that "industrialisation" has its own particular meaning with reference to landscape character, and pastureland is not included in that meaning.

I do indeed understand what SpookyFrank meant because I have spent the last 10 years wrestling with the finer points of landscape characteristics and definition and I have had to think very deeply about this in order to be cross-examined about it in a Public Inquiry. It's not as straightforward as saying only things totally untouched by humans count as natural. That would rule out the protection of anything.

Exmoor National Park's landscape character assessment is here: http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov....2/Lansdcape-Character-Assessment-document.pdf

I decided to take a look to see what is actually claimed to be "natural", since the central issue seems to be that people think things are natural when they are not, and I am not particularly familiar with Exmoor specifically. In truth, a lot (including heathland and woodland) is described "semi-natural", although there is also reference to natural coastland, natural wildlife and natural woodland. You can see for yourself in the document, though, how they approach the classification of "natural". It's not about things being wilderness.

City folk in 'all knowledge, no wisdom' shocker.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

City folk in 'all knowledge, no wisdom' shocker.

The kabbes ?

You know he lives in what is a de facto national park, yeah?

 

[8ball]

Any claim of a point beyond that is all in your head.

Fair enough, will make a mental note to ignore such tedious pedantry in future.

 

[lazythursday]

I don't really care if upland sheep farming is '''natural" or not - what seems clear is that it is not necessarily the best use of the land, environmentally or economically. And that's before looking at its carbon footprint, which is pretty enormous.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I don't really care if upland sheep farming is '''natural" or not - what seems clear is that it is not necessarily the best use of the land, environmentally or economically. And that's before looking at its carbon footprint, which is pretty enormous.

And also involves mutilating sentient beings and stabbing them in the neck.

 

[8ball]

Preaching thread —————>

 

[kabbes]

And also involves mutilating sentient beings and stabbing them in the neck.

My gosh, does it? I’d thought it was all fluffy clouds and meringue.

 

[NoXion]

Growing crops involves the deliberate use of chemical weapons against other organisms for the crime of seeking food. This includes "organic" farming.

 

[NoXion]

If you eat food, you support the gassing of small animals. Ban agriculture now!

 

[DotCommunist]

I don't really care if upland sheep farming is '''natural" or not - what seems clear is that it is not necessarily the best use of the land, environmentally or economically. And that's before looking at its carbon footprint, which is pretty enormous.

it was stolen from the people so that rich men could graze sheep there and textile fortunes of the industrial revolution could be made. Inclosures acts. And one day we mean to have it back, the land, the fortunes wrested from the immiseration of an entire class. And thats just recompense, the justice bit comes later. *cracks knuckles* then we'll be talking about neck stabs

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Growing crops involves the deliberate use of chemical weapons against other organisms for the crime of seeking food. This includes "organic" farming.

I'm not sure about the US, but what you can use on your land if you manage an organic farm in the UK is incredibly tight!

 

[NoXion]

I'm not sure about the US, but what you can use on your land if you manage an organic farm in the UK is incredibly tight!

According to the second link there are 24 substances EU-approved for use in organic farming. They're described as having "no identified toxicity", although I assume that just means "no identified toxicity to humans" while still being effective against pest organisms, otherwise they'd be pretty useless as pesticides.

In any case, regardless of whether chemicals are used or not, pest management involves using various methods to deny animals access to food. This idea that we can grow big fields that are unnaturally dense with nutrient-rich plant life and somehow *not* have the local wildlife devour it all without some kind of pest management, is a complete fantasy. Even if absolutely no pesticides were used in organic farming, it uses more land to grow the same amount of crops, thereby denying more living space to other organisms.

 

[Pickman's model]

According to the second link there are 24 substances EU-approved for use in organic farming. They're described as having "no identified toxicity", although I assume that just means "no identified toxicity to humans" while still being effective against pest organisms, otherwise they'd pretty useless as pesticides.

In any case, regardless of whether chemicals are used or not, pest management involves using various methods to deny animals access to food. This idea that we can grow big fields that are unnaturally dense with nutrient-rich plant life and somehow *not* have the local wildlife devour it all without some kind of pest management, is a complete fantasy. Even if absolutely no pesticides were used in organic farming, it uses more land to grow the same amount of crops, thereby denying more living space to other organisms.

given the collapse in insect populations and many bird populations i think the denial of food proving quite effective

 

[UnderOpenSky]

According to the second link there are 24 substances EU-approved for use in organic farming. They're described as having "no identified toxicity", although I assume that just means "no identified toxicity to humans" while still being effective against pest organisms, otherwise they'd be pretty useless as pesticides.

In any case, regardless of whether chemicals are used or not, pest management involves using various methods to deny animals access to food. This idea that we can grow big fields that are unnaturally dense with nutrient-rich plant life and somehow *not* have the local wildlife devour it all without some kind of pest management, is a complete fantasy. Even if absolutely no pesticides were used in organic farming, it uses more land to grow the same amount of crops, thereby denying more living space to other organisms.

A lot more organic crops are lost to pests though for just the reasons you mention.

Good organic farming also is managing eco systems, so that you don't get massive build up of certain pests which are more endemic to mono cultures of factory farming.

We massively under use the farm land we have in the UK, partly because we pay bloody subsidies just for owning the stuff, so we definitely have scope for increased productivity.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Also if we don't do something about current farming practices we won't have any bloody soil left.

 

[NoXion]

A lot more organic crops are lost to pests though for just the reasons you mention.

Good organic farming also is managing eco systems, so that you don't get massive build up of certain pests which are more endemic to mono cultures of factory farming.

We massively under use the farm land we have in the UK, partly because we pay bloody subsidies just for owning the stuff, so we definitely have scope for increased productivity.

Also if we don't do something about current farming practices we won't have any bloody soil left.

That may be so, but "current farming practices" also includes the production of over-priced organic food grown less efficiently on more land. If "food security" is a concern, which I assume it is by the emphasis on growing food here on UK farmland rather than importing it, then organic farming is as much out of the question as monoculture.

 

[Infidel Castro]

...If memory serves that in terms of environmental impact a person who subsists on poultry, along with vegetables and grains, has a similar impact on the environment as a vegan...

The obvious difference being that a vegan has a negligible impact on chickens, so the two positions aren't as equal as all that.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

That may be so, but "current farming practices" also includes the production of over-priced organic food grown less efficiently on more land. If "food security" is a concern, which I assume it is by the emphasis on growing food here on UK farmland rather than importing it, then organic farming is as much out of the question as monoculture.

We certainly aren't looking at food security the way land is currently managed, although I agree its important.

Better land usage can be very productive, although more labour intensive. Maybe not as productive as a shed load of chemicals, but that isn't sustanable for many reasons.

At one point all towns and cities in the UK would be surround by market gardens. These are all gone. Built on. But can grow a lot, especially with modern varieties and technologies like poly tunnels. My other half manages to get a hell a lot out of half an acre and it's certainly opened my eyes.

 

[lazythursday]

There are some really interesting experiments / projects going on around using technology to grow food hyper efficiently on a small scale, especially in urban environments - so called 'food computers'. This seems to me to be much more of a potential way forward than the anti-technology wing of the permaculture/organic movements. But there are likely a range of ways to reduce the carbon impact of agriculture and/or maintain food security - but surely all of them involve a big reduction in animal agriculture, given the figures.