'Elimination' predicted for ash trees

So who were you referring to?
If you did not mean people on this thread, why put it on this thread?

Hysterical may not be the best word, but it is obvious to me what Thatbags means, and it is relevant to the conversation. Let's not be too picky over a word.

Let's lighten up folks.

Ah. Found it pompa. I also don't understand why things have got so heated on this thread.thatbags knows her stuff around the natural world.

thank you anya, ana and roses for raising a on a grey morning.

Thank you, pompa and jane10. Without looking back, the comment(s) I had in mind when I referred to slight hysteria were those of Monty Don. I was particularly surprised at the comments coming from him because I would have expected him to understand how extinction is such an integral part of Life On Earth. Perhaps that expectation was unreasonable. I don't know. On the other hand, I suppose he's an entertainer and a publicist in his field, so that may explain what I regard as the over-emotionality of his comments on ash dieback. I don't see any reason to feel guilty for regarding such comments as over-emotional, nor for saying so in a non-personal way. My remark was not a criticism so much as a realisation. It's not wrong not to know something (in this case, the 'history' of extinctions).

For myself I seek to achieve a completely objective relationship to reality in the natural world. While, being a mere ape, I don't always succeed, it remains my goal.

To get back to ash dieback and beetle infestation, to be honest, if a species cannot defend itself against what the natural world throws at it, then I'm not sure trying to save it by human interference is necessarily the best thing we can do. Please note that I've said I'm not sure. It's never a clear black/white or right/wrong subject. If enough people with the resources and energy to save such a species wants to get together and have a go, then I say good luck to them. Meanwhile it is not wrong of other humans to spend their time and energy trying to defeat pathogens that attack and spoil human lives instead.

So long as we are not the cause of an extinction, getting emotional about the decline of a single species is something I would try to avoid. However, I'm not sure it's automatically right (ethical) to get emotional about an extinction we think we have caused. This is because I believe that, on the whole, human beings are not deliberately trying to be destructive of nature; they are just trying to diminish the effects of what the totally indifferent natural world throws at them and to enhance their own lives as best they can. In short, we are, like all other species, just trying to survive in the best and most comfortable way for us. I do not see that as wrong. And I celebrate that we are the only species, as far as I'm aware, that is now self-consciously trying to help other species survive as well. To have got to that stage is an achievement in human development, not a failure.

Monty Don seems to me a model of understatement. Hysterical would have been the last emotion I would attach to him.

I am also not sure that you are entirely correct in your developing argument.

Species extinction is normal - yes

Species extinction is normal at times of natural disasters such as cooling or warming or other such disasters is normal - yes.

Species extinction as a result of the human species activities is not normal so here I part company with your argument.

The human species has been blessed or damned with a cognitive ability denied to all other species. Only we can understand the consequences of our actions.

I am pleased that in your last sentence you recognise that there is a recognition my us that we need to try to save other species. This shows that your argument is not entirely reductionist.

And by employing and extending our understanding of potential extinctants ( think I made that up but you get the drift?) we are developing new scientific techniques and arming ourselves better against combating future events, which might impact more seriously.

Good last post thatbags and humankind ( at least some countries) are now much more environmentally aware, look how clean our rivers now are for instance.Plus what Ana says above.

I had to look up reductionist/ism. I think the difference in our views of humanity are more likely to spring from different premises, ww. One that I hold, and I suspect you don't, is that other species cause environmental destruction as well. Have you ever seen footage of an elephant pushing over a tree, roots and all, so that it can get at the uppermost branches? The elephant is not doing this in order to be destructive; it's doing it in order to eat, to survive. I think most human activities until recent times, and even now, really, are also essentially about survival. The vast majority of the human population does not have much leisure time to sit back and ponder the inadvertent negative effects it might be having on its environment, e.g. by farming. Those who do have time are doing exactly that: pondering negative effects of human behaviour and trying to do something about it that is positive.

There is also an argument, though I don't think it will hold much sway with some posters (it doesn't hold complete sway with me, but I know what it's getting at) that we shouldn't be thinking in terms of negative and positive when it comes to nature. Nature doesn't give a damn, one way or another, about anything. We are the beings who care.

Yes but my point is that the elephant does not have the cognitive ability to understand the consequences of its actions. Humans do. Therefore where there is clear evidence that as a result of our actions which have arisen as a result of our cognitive ability e.g. various species or "nature" e.g. air quality is suffering than we should intervene in order to lessen this impact.

To attach emotion to "nature" like whether it cares or not isn't really right. We are part of a system that functions and interacts. Cause and effect is really all you can attach to it.

During the 18th century and the enlightenment we were sure that we had the ability to control "nature" - look at Capability Brown, but we have moved on from that to understanding that the natural system in all its complicated glory is both tougher than us but also can be destroyed by us with little understanding of cause and consequence.

That is why I cannot reduce the argument to one that sees extinction of the species simply a by-product of human action with little thought as to the consequences.

Monty Don is the calmest , most laid back presenter on telly , I think he is great , he loves nature and knows what he's talking about.

We agree on one thing at least. To paraphrase: I don't "see the extinction of species simply as a by-product of human action with little thought as to the consequences" either. Nor have I ever argued such.

My point was also that the elephant doesn't (at least we assume it doesn't but there is new research about the 'consciousness' of other intelligent animals; further than that plain fact I don't know) have the ability to understand the consequences of its actions, plus that humans have this ability, or rather the ability to surmise what the consequences might be (we're often wrong) but that not all humans have the resources to do anything about those surmises. Most humans still have to put most of their effort into simply surviving. That's why some of the largest efforts in the last century, and now, were to improve food production so that people weren't starving. And then there is the fighting of pathogens that try to kill us and reduce our efficiency, just as the pathogens currently attacking ash trees are apparently trying to kill their hosts.

I think some people still think we have the ability to control nature.

Strangely enough though even the elephant argument isnt that straightforward

I have a terrier who this morning managed with consequent chaos to my greenhouse to kill a mouse. Now we could see this as "natural" but in fact human actions has bred this breed to behave in this way. Mind you he has no bloody cognitive ability to understand the consequences of his actions and my trashed greenhouse!

Well, no. No argument about anything so complex is straightforward.

Have 'fun' sorting your greenhouse.

Yes I am off to do just that whilst he's out for his morning constitutional. Pots everywhere, birds fat balls everwhere with the box they were in totally destroyed - I guess the mouse was in that - poor little thing.

I think we possibly agree a lot more than we disagree thatbags.

I live in an upland farming area- surrounded by farm and farmers, many are great friends, and we talk a lot. Manure heaps abound and the regularly muckspread right up to our property- we have cows all around. Fortunately 2 fields as buffer zone around- our fileds are the only fields in the area which still contain all the natural pasture flowers, and is a feast for the eyes, and a delight for the horses. Most of the area around has been turned to so called 'improved' grassland and the very name makes me upset- should be disallowed by the Trades Description Act!

Our massive forests are on upland limestone (our area is a bit like the Yorkshire Dales to Peak District) are a mix of different spruce species, beech and ash (both great for fire wood which our council sells tons of and use in our public central heating system for public buildings)- the loss of ash would be a disaster for our area. Our ancient fileds around our property also has about 20 mature ash trees, and I do hope they survive
Didn't the intitial outbreak come from imported ash species? Perhaps we should be a lot more careful about imports.

OMG, I've only been out for a couple of hours, it's going to take me the rest of the morning to catch up.

What about the fact that farmers were paid to destroy hedges and are now being paid to replant them?
Nothing objective about that.

Although I studied environmental science and know a bit about ecology, etc., in no way is my feeling for plants, trees, birds and insects objective, and I would not want it to be.
It possibly is in other animals, but not in humans.

Is the Ash the tree with the spinny things with bobbly bits on one end that fly everywhere?

www.livescience.com/6200-doomsday-seed-vault-stores-500-000-crops.html

The vault contains crop seeds
There has been one withdrawal:

www.livescience.com/52291-first-withdrawal-doomsday-seed-vault.html

Here you are Wilma
treedoctor.anr.msu.edu/ash/ashtree_id.html
and yes, they are single keys which spread all over the garden then grow.

The sycamore also has keys that helicopter everywhere.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201603/medium-507773-ash-keys.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201603/medium-461697-sycamore-seeds.jpg

The ash keys (clue in name!) are like a bunch of single keys hanging together from the twig.

Sycamore seeds hang in pairs from the twig, head-to-head with the wings sticking out sideways.

That's a better picture, thanks Elegran
Now that next door's female ash has been chopped down we won't get ash trees growing all over our garden.
Sycamore seeds whirl around like helicopters.