Extinction - the facts

(I have two food intolerances - garlic (really bad) and soya. And I hate lentils. It would be very difficult for me to be a veggie!)

Excellent post Luckygirl. In a nutshell!

I agree with Avalon too. We're fortunate to have good local butchers who name the farms where the meat is raised and also to have an abattoir only a few miles away which believes in careful humane handling of the animals. Stress and fear means tough meat so it makes sense.

It's much better too to eat vegetables in season which haven't travelled half way around the globe. They taste so much better too especially if grown in your own garden.

If you eat meat make sure it is local and pasture fed. Do not buy intensively farmed meat as it is not only bad for the environment but bad for the animals too. Similarly do not use soy as substitutes unless you know its provenance. The rain forest is being destroyed by ranchers for more cattle and by farmers for soy. We need to watch the air miles on any food. Not eating unseasonal foods that are transported in is also important.

I've just seen the news about fires in the Brazilian rainforest. I just want to scream. I am beginning to feel there is no hope and I worry so much about the youngsters. As I've said, I try to do my small bit. I've decided never to buy furniture again but will buy 2nd-hand and we have cut our meat consumption so we hardly eat any now. I also leave my environmental magazines that I've read lying around when I can - such as on public transport, though I'm not using it at the moment. Yes let's keep this thread going in the hope that more people will join in.

My drive is gravelled without weed membrane. There is now a healthy growth of grasses and wild thyme which I don't remove or cut back . Some of the grass is feral barley from the field that used to occupy the site.
I have not cut my 'lawn' all summer.
One of my garden borders is made up of old field hedge thorn and ash with privet and ivy mixed in, all uncut , very tall, and a great haven for birds who especially like the blackthorn's prickly refuge.

I haven’t watched it. I am all too painfully aware of the issues, and don’t need reminding.

We do our bit as regards reusing and recycling, not to mention not buying a load stuff we don’t need - lots of our clothes are many years old and my kitchen is ancient - and we’ve never wasted food. We eat far less meat than we used to and avoid plastic as far as possible.

But I’m also painfully aware that some much bigger countries blatantly don’t give a stuff, so it’s hard not to feel helpless and that one’s own bit is like a grain of sand in the Sahara.

How about all these fires destroying the Amazon rain forest in Brazil? Listening to the news last night an environmentalist in Brazil said they were man made by farmers and ranchers to clear the land to grow soy and keep cattle. Their government aren’t doing much to stop it either.

I am not in the least blaming Attenborough, whose message is correct - simply pointing out the irony of someone who has made his living from flying round the world becoming the mouthpiece for environmental change. Nor am I blaming Greta T. Indeed the whole point of my post was to say that I am not blaming anyone at all!

So often the important message about biodiversity and about global warming is couched in terms that place nature at odds with us (and us at odds with nature), as if we ourselves are not part of that nature. There are not two things here, but simply one.

In nature often one species tries to dispose of another - mainly by eating it, but also killing it to defend territory - just as we do. Are grey squirrels to be blamed for swamping red by taking over their territory; are lions to be blamed for killing their prey; are cats to be blamed for killing birds? No - they are simply doing what comes naturally, as we as a human species have.

We have sought to kill bacteria and viruses; we have fought over territory; we have instituted agriculture, which has destroyed many habitats for other creatures that share this planet. All these things are simply part of nature, are what all creatures do - prioritise their survival. And, as we are part of nature, it is to be expected.

This huge shift that we now have to make from following our nature to going against that in order to ensure global survival is an unimaginable and revolutionary step.

My point is that it is not about blame, and that this needs to be removed from the message. When we are blamed, we tend to dig in our heels.

The equivalent of survival in human terms is profit and the accumulation of wealth, which in its turn brings health and well-being. Clearly it is not doing so for many fellow species, not for our fellow humans. But, make no mistake, if the disadvantaged humans in the world had the chance to get rich, they would surely take it: survival instinct at work.

In order to get out of this mess, we have to reign in our natural instincts. It is very hard indeed, hence the denials from the likes of Trump, who needs people to vote for him. Why would people reduce their own well-being when pursuing that is hard-wired? He is certainly not going to suggest they should as he would be out on his ear. And this applies to all national leaders. And so the problem persists.

The message needs to ditch the guilt and talk about our own self-interest; to get the message across that making sacrifices and changes is for us, not for some obscure species we have not even heard of - i.e. it is a survival mechanism, which we are naturally programmed to pursue. We are not trying to save the planet; we are trying to save US.

The message needs to be very strong indeed for humans to change - no other animal would give up its pleasures in order to save the planet. We, as fellow animals, are going to find this extremely hard. But we must do it.

Pointing the finger at Attenborough for travelling in a plane is surely shifting the blame and ascribing “guilt” which you are trying to avoid yourself? Yes we have the choice not to destroy wildlife, consume ever increasing stuff, pollute the air and the oceans, or not,. yet we choose the destructive path. Those who criticise Attenborough may also sneer at Greta Thunberg or XR as a form of cognitive dissonance -we know we should reduce , reuse, recycle and even refrain from doing many of the things we have become accustomed to, yet we are a selfish species that is able to exploit and abuse the natural world to the extent we face our own or future generations destruction but do not feel guilt.

I think it is worth remembering that we ARE nature too. People often speak as if there is nature and then there is us. We are simply a part of that natural system.

It is an interesting philosophical debate as to where we all fit in together; all species; all animals, including us. In the non-human sphere, survival of the fittest is the rule. And we assume that this does not apply to us - but it does. We too are part of that universal system: this is what humans have been doing since they evolved - fighting for their own survival. It is part of how nature works. It is what we are programmed to do.

But now we are faced with the paradox that following nature - following what we were born to do - has resulted in the danger that we will extinguish ourselves, and the rest of nature along with us.

What I conclude from this is that it would be good to ditch the guilt - we are guilty only of doing what we were programmed to do, which is to place our survival above all other, as all of nature does, and always has.

What we need to do now is to stand back and persuade ourselves to deprogramme and move in what is an "unnatural" direction.

These appeals for change should not be worded with the premise that we are all guilty of some crime, but rather that we are evolved creatures who can stand outside our nature and make changes because our intellect chooses for us to do so. Being told that we have the sense to stand outside our nature and do what is needed is far more appealing than the relentless guilt trip that is dinned into us; and into our children.

Ascribing guilt to others makes it very easy to duck out of the need to change.

I was not having a go at Attenborough, but it is a fact that his life has consisted of flying around the world in a way that most people do not. He is therefore maybe not the best mouthpiece for this important cause.

I do wish that the trend towards artificial grass could be reversed - in fact I wish the stuff could be banned altogether.

Grass is good at carbon capture, not on the scale of trees but it all plays a part, as well as encouraging insect life which provides food for birds.

MerylStreep You're right about the pollinators but my post was addressing the original comment that the OP was fearful for her grandchildren. Sorry if I was unclear

no one denies that reducing meat and dairy consumption would be the one thing that would have a beneficial effect on the planet.

I agree with Nfk's post. A return to mixed farming would be the ideal but it will take time and I'm afraid money talks.

Couldn't agree more Luckygirl and why isn't he speaking out about the positive effects of the recent lack of air travel and road traffic.

Since biblical times people have gone by the theory of ' keep calm and carry on'.

Air pollution has increased since the easing of lockdown as more people are getting in their cars and avoiding public transport. Also, many local councils are closing side roads and channelling traffic into ever more congested main roads.

NFK meat production uses far more land, water and produces far more carbon emissions than any veg production, this is without going into the ethics of the exploitation of sentient creatures. No one is expecting everyone to go vegan overnight, or at all, but no one denies that reducing meat and dairy consumption would be the one thing that would have a beneficial effect on the planet.

I can’t bear it. I can’t watch those programmes as I get too upset and i dwell on it.

I do all I can both in my personal life like wildlife friendly gardening -all plants planted with bees etc in mind etc as well as supporting all those fighting to prevent climate change and save our wildlife.

I try to ensure that there is pollen in the garden every single day of the year. Our winter clematis which lasts for months is always buzzing with buff tails.

We are now planning to buy an electric car, as lock down and how swiftly the air started to clear really made us think.

Vegansrock. The programme did make the point that some meat production is necessary. Meadowland, grazed meadowland is essential for biodiversity and carbon entrapment. A good meadow holds more carbon than a bad forest. Have you read Wilding by Isabella Tree? In many ways veganism could be as damaging to the environment as the present overeating of meat if we all became vegan. Instead of growing soya etc for animal feed it would be for human consumption. We just need to eat less meat. Considerably less, but not none at all. We need diversity.

LadyBella
I feel the same about my friends.

I don't want to frighten my grandchildren and to make them think there is little hope. I want them to be optimistic and look forward to a bright future. I will keep doing the small things I do working on the theory that every little helps though it's a drop in the ocean I realise. We have a wildlife-friendly garden with a pond and 3 holes in our fences for Hedgehogs (who visit regularly). The RSPB says if we make space for nature it will come and it is so true. We give what we can to environmental organisations and I volunteer at a local nature garden. I also email various bods about environmental issues. If we all do our small bit it does help. The future frightens me so I do enjoy reading about anything that is actually positive such as the thousands of trees that are being planted for the Northern Forest which apparently is going to stretch across a large part of the north of England. There is some good stuff going on but it isn't nearly enough - the world needs to wake up... not in 20 years time but NOW. What actually amazes me is that I consider my friends to be intelligent people but hardly any of them seem to have the slightest interest in the natural world. They appear to think it doesn't affect them. I find it hard to believe.

Unigran
I think you must have missed one of the most important pieces of the program. We are killing off the pollinators.
Why do we need pollinators = to pollinate the food that keeps us alive and healthy.

This is to everyone. When was the last time you had to clean your windscreen of insects. I can't remember ?
That's how bad it is in just a short time, relatively speaking.

If you're really interested in finding out what is going try reading Apocalypse Never by Michael Schellenberger. Very illuminating and has changed my views on a lot of things environmental and I'm an environmental chemist.

If farmers were to stop intensive farming and pasture feed their animals instead carbon emissions would be zero and we could eat meat and dairy without harming the environment so wouldn’t need oat milk.

Oat milk is much less harmful in terms of water, land use and emissions than dairy milk. It has as much protein and calcium as dairy milk .Plus we can grow oats in the U.K. Yes, it’s more expensive, but that’s because dairy farms have maximised the output from their animals - removed their calves immediately to be slaughtered if male, squashing all the animals together in industrial units, killed as soon as they stop producing, Forget the happy cow cartoons. Life is miserable for most dairy cows.