Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

Dave Allen wrote:

Hence it is a strawman - trying to make out that the people you're commenting on advocate a position that few of them do.

Oh, I see.

Dave Allen wrote:

That's the big picture.

I don't think I disagree with most you've written. Thanks for your input.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

We have been able to study primitive societies as they existed when Malinowsky and Mead were working in anthropology and they found matriarchal structures in all they studied. We have Pagan religions to extrapolate backwards from. The Great Mother stuff of Jung and Neumann et al.

It's hardly a damning body of evidence is it? Most pagan societies were patriarchal or tending towards some sort of equal opportunity vis a vis gender.

That isn't proof of a matriarchy.

Indeed, most pagan pantheons I can think of were headed by a male god and focussed on the other male gods and heros by and large in terms of the action. That seems to be the case whether you're talking about Greeks, Celts, Meso-Americans, Pagan Arabs, Pagan Africans, the Hindu pantheon, etc...

Quote:

A male priesthood can lead a matriarchal society. It's a bottom up process. (No pun intended.) One might see the veneration of the feminine in every pub and soft furnishing department.

One might, but it doesn't imply a matriarchy.

Historically it used to be that patriarchy was assumed throughout history by those with an academic interest in the subject.

However, some ancient cultures, particularly the celts, were shown to provide a more equal opportunity basis to their society. It was still male-centred in all practicalities, but there was nothing to prevent a driven woman assuming a male role - such as Boudicca.

But the fact that there were Boudiccas didn't stop there being Caractacuses or Vercingetorixs. Most leadership came from men - it was just that some women took charge from time to time.

So it wasn't as patriarchal as people used to assume. There followed a well publicised change in the opinion of historians who had to admit that their earlier vision of male-dominated history was overly simple.

However, the recieved wisdom has now swung the other way, and some layman historians tend to swallow this "once we were matriarchal" argument that has popularised in the wake of pointing out that some 'early' and prehistoric cultures allowed women equal opp's in a more or less limited sense.

Beyond that there is simply no proof of a system in which women governed men in the way that the common use of the word matriarchy implies. And the only evidence for such a system is scant and heavily skewed by the bias of those who present it.

For example, some of those presenting the evidence claim that statues and pictures of women imply matriarchy.

But how is that proof? To illustrate: In renaissance Italy many painters produced what are now considered the most iconic images of women to many - all those pictures and sculptures of Venus and Mary and, of course, the Mona Lisa.

But women in Italy at the time were not heeded as rulers or advisors, in fact the place was overtly masculine in terms of court political intrigues and wars and exploration and mercantile innovation and whatnot. Apart from a poisonous member of the Borgias I have trouble recalling a female personage of the time.

So if iconic images of women implies their rule (either implicitly or not) - why did this period of the renaissance see so little apparent female influence other than as a muse for artists?

Answer: Art does not necessarily reflect a social order.

In fact the reason many historians cite for the drawing of cave paintings was that the painters were courting good luck for their next hunt - paint a stag in the hope of catching it.

With that in mind the creation of artworks depicting women in prehistory might have been less veneration - and more about acquisition!

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Like Zeth, I don't know what the big picture is supposed to be.

Well, he seems to get it now.

Quote:

This is not an aesthetic matter, or, as it increasingly seems to be, a religious matter.

Depends on the individual. Clearly being angry at the wholesale destruction of great artworks can be either aesthetic, economic or both.

Same with the environment. One's appreciation of the beauty of nature may be aesthetic, and so even if you wouldn't put a price on it yourself, that wouldn't necessarily influence another individual who would. Theoretically if I appreciate looking at wildlife I might be willing to put a price on it justifying a personal sacrifice with possible economic knock-on effects (such as reducing my consumption) - and there's nothing you could do about that.

So to say it's not an aesthetic issue is a denial of reality. Some people clearly just care because they feel enriched by biodiversity on a subjective and aesthetic level.

The difference and simularity with religion is interesting - though I would say that most religious people I know are keen to bind people together in beliefs for which they typically do not provide evidence. Furthermore they don't often like to discuss the possible evidences against their claims.

Which is the opposite to most environmentalist bodies I am aware of - most of whom are happy to discuss the evidence they do have, and listen to objections for which they often provide reasoned answers.

So the desire to see a belief spread is common to environmentalism and religion - but the attitude to evidence is not.

Quote:

If "keeping your pockets full" means anything like maintaining and increasing our standard of living, you are absolutely right. It is a major concern, as it should be with any rational person.

Of course, and some people are aware of a significant loss of standard of living as the result of an environmental issue.

BP decided to keep their pockets full by taking some shortcuts on safety practices and hardware on an offshore drilling platform.

As a result many people living on the Louisiana coast are having to face the prospect of having a much harder time keeping their pockets full.

As are BP.

Quote:

I don't cosider myself a "steward of the Earth" and think that kind of talk is sentimental rubbish of the worst kind.

Well, no one here is making such a claim are they?

Quote:

I certainly am utterly opposed to putting people out of work, and reducing our standard of living for some vague notion of the environment. I care about the environment only in so far as it affects people. If that is what you mean by, "keeping your pocket full" you are completely on the mark.

Sure, and America could keep its collective pockets full(er) by going renewable.

It employs more people across more fields than oil - not just to work on the power stations but in construction and engineering and environmental management (which is not the same thing as the environmentalist cause - more akin to city planning and the like). On a net level more jobs are created by going renewable (or partly so).

Green energy is an export good - people are willing to pay for it. "More fool them" you may think - but more fool you if you're an avaricious type unwilling to cater to a hungry market.

It can be entirely home grown, and experts in the field would find lots of outsource work bringing money from other economies to the US.

It would wean you off your dependance to the Middle East for imports, meaning you don't have to pay the middle man. This is especially beneficial seeing as the middle man also pays for a lot of IEDs and RPGs that end up in Iraq and Afghanistan - the effects of which cost the american taxpayer a great deal of money anyway.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Like Zeth, I don't know what the big picture is supposed to be.

Well, he seems to get it now.

Quote:
This is not an aesthetic matter, or, as it increasingly seems to be, a religious matter.

Depends on the individual. Clearly being angry at the wholesale destruction of great artworks can be either aesthetic, economic or both.

Same with the environment. One's appreciation of the beauty of nature may be aesthetic, and so even if you wouldn't put a price on it yourself, that wouldn't necessarily influence another individual who would. Theoretically if I appreciate looking at wildlife I might be willing to put a price on it justifying a personal sacrifice with possible economic knock-on effects (such as reducing my consumption) - and there's nothing you could do about that.

So to say it's not an aesthetic issue is a denial of reality. Some people clearly just care because they feel enriched by biodiversity on a subjective and aesthetic level.

The difference and simularity with religion is interesting - though I would say that most religious people I know are keen to bind people together in beliefs for which they typically do not provide evidence. Furthermore they don't often like to discuss the possible evidences against their claims.

Which is the opposite to most environmentalist bodies I am aware of - most of whom are happy to discuss the evidence they do have, and listen to objections for which they often provide reasoned answers.

So the desire to see a belief spread is common to environmentalism and religion - but the attitude to evidence is not.

Quote:
If "keeping your pockets full" means anything like maintaining and increasing our standard of living, you are absolutely right. It is a major concern, as it should be with any rational person.

Of course, and some people are aware of a significant loss of standard of living as the result of an environmental issue.

BP decided to keep their pockets full by taking some shortcuts on safety practices and hardware on an offshore drilling platform.

As a result many people living on the Louisiana coast are having to face the prospect of having a much harder time keeping their pockets full.

As are BP.

Quote:
I don't cosider myself a "steward of the Earth" and think that kind of talk is sentimental rubbish of the worst kind.

Well, no one here is making such a claim are they?

Quote:
I certainly am utterly opposed to putting people out of work, and reducing our standard of living for some vague notion of the environment. I care about the environment only in so far as it affects people. If that is what you mean by, "keeping your pocket full" you are completely on the mark.

Sure, and America could keep its collective pockets full(er) by going renewable.

It employs more people across more fields than oil - not just to work on the power stations but in construction and engineering and environmental management (which is not the same thing as the environmentalist cause - more akin to city planning and the like). On a net level more jobs are created by going renewable (or partly so).

Green energy is an export good - people are willing to pay for it. "More fool them" you may think - but more fool you if you're an avaricious type unwilling to cater to a hungry market.

It can be entirely home grown, and experts in the field would find lots of outsource work bringing money from other economies to the US.

It would wean you off your dependance to the Middle East for imports, meaning you don't have to pay the middle man. This is especially beneficial seeing as the middle man also pays for a lot of IEDs and RPGs that end up in Iraq and Afghanistan - the effects of which cost the american taxpayer a great deal of money anyway.

Fine, so the "big picture" is cost/benefit, and has nothing to do with nonsense like destroying the planet, drowning polar bears, or "keeping your pockets full" (since, so far as I can tell, "keeping your pockets full" is a desirable thing, and everything being the same, I would like to keep Zeth's, my, your, and even BP's pockets full". And there are a lot of people on this thread and outside this thread who ware more worried about how far polar bears can swim, than worried about the effect of loony environmentalism on people-or more likely, don't even see the connection.

And by the way, about "weaning us" from oil: there is no chance of that for the next 75 years (as I understand it) and even then, if the loony environmentalists keep having a cow at the mention of nuclear power, never).

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Quote:

Theoretically if I appreciate looking at wildlife I might be willing to put a price on it justifying a personal sacrifice with possible economic knock-on effects (such as reducing my consumption) - and there's nothing you could do about that.

I could attempt to do something about it by persuading you that it is not an appreciation of wildlife that you are interested in at all. That you seek to look at wildlife in exotic locations for the purpose of getting one up on your friends and neighbours and that the actual trouble of doing it is a pain in the ass but worth undergoing for the pleasure of bragging to stick in the muds like me who can appreciate wildlife from their bedroom window, and, indeed, in the pub, and thus can spend their money in local businesses and contribute to making a thriving local scene. I would need some convincing that the photographs and videos taken showing you in the presence of unusual wildlife have nothing to do with appreciating wildlife, detracting from it in fact, and are exclusively in the service of appreciating yourself and inviting the rest of us to do the same.

Trophy wildlife in fact as with trophy wives.

And all as a result of falling for the ego massage of the propagandists who are in the business of diverting your scarce resources away from your locality and into that of their own.

To put it more bluntly--you're a sap. Just like all the cartoon characters which have ideas of their own. Oliver Hardy for example. Or Tom in Tom and Jerry and loads of others.

Heroic male characters in Barbara Stanwyk movies!!!! The very reason why we all laugh when the stage collapses during a political speech and the big cheeses all slide off into an ungainly heap.

What's the difference between sitting on a docile camel in Egypt and sitting on a donkey on the beach in Blackpool? Answer--it's not as common. And it's not as much fun either.

Well- you did throw down a challenge Dave.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Well- you did throw down a challenge Dave.

One that you most certainly haven't answered.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. A person could enjoy wildlife without taking a foreign holiday (something I have only done once in my adult life), by appreciating what's local to them (as you suggest) or watching nature documentaries or reading books or magazines on the subject.

So the idea that in order to appreciate wildlife one has to go and examine it first hand - well that might be the ultimate wildlife experience, but it isn't one that most people with an interest indulge themselves in.

Most of them watch it on TV.

But that doesn't mean they don't care what's happening in the Aral Sea, or the Gulf of Mexico or whatever.

Now if that is sort of nature tourism just to collect information about various animals vicariously, well - maybe it is - but what of it?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fine, so the "big picture" is cost/benefit, and has nothing to do with nonsense like destroying the planet, drowning polar bears, or "keeping your pockets full"...

Once again - I never said it was. You are persisting in a strawman characterisation of something I actually thought we had reached consensus on many pages ago.

I doubt anyone denies the big picture being one of benefits or costs - but individuals disagree on what particular costs and benefits mean to them.

Quote:

I would like to keep Zeth's, my, your, and even BP's pockets full.

And what about Tehran's?

Quote:

And there are a lot of people on this thread and outside this thread who ware more worried about how far polar bears can swim, than worried about the effect of loony environmentalism on people-or more likely, don't even see the connection.

I don't think there are a lot of people on the thread like that at all - some people have been employing metaphores for the big picture - you have chosen to take them literally. That's your issue.

But it's another false dichotomy - not all the things you mention are alike. Environmental hardships faced by animals such as polar bears is something real and observed whether or not it affects you. Invoking planetary destruction is just a metaphore.

Quote:

And by the way, about "weaning us" from oil: there is no chance of that for the next 75 years (as I understand it) and even then, if the loony environmentalists keep having a cow at the mention of nuclear power, never).

Many leading environmentalists - James Lovelock who coined the Gaia hypothesis amongst them - strongly support nuclear fuel programs.

If weaning takes 75 years - it takes 75 years. Long weaning - but still a weaning, and one that has already started.

1 Reply

This thread's taking some bizzare turns; lots of debate over mitigating factors and silly "This isn't important because something else is"-diversions. Another argument; namely, the one that says we're more important therefore environmental decimation isn't is also empty and short sighted.

Completely absent is the appreciation of humans being a part of a community of life. While this certainly isn't paramount - it still has importance. Seas of concrete, polluted air, water and waning plant life should still be a concern. How you see things (where your priorities are), naturally determines just HOW important. The pragmatist is more concerned about how environmental protection might impact humans, the environmentalist believes natural life (and health of our ecosystem) is worthy of protection and appreciation for its own sake.

The thing is: Most of us, I suspect, aren't completely of one mind or another. We're a mix of these competing priorities (which, actually, needn't compete at all). This false dichotomy - this two dimensional thinking that says it must be all one or another - pits us one against the other, as if that acurately reflected the complexity of either the issue or the mix of import we all carry in our heads.

Because aspects of a healthy ecosystem benefit us practically, there's cause for concern and effort
Because we are a part of a food chain - even though we often make our own - there's some respect due
So even if you believe that human life is the only life worthy of protection, this symbiosis demands some measure of concern
No one believes that sapping our economic/industrial base completely is the only answer
Overpopulation doesn't on its own imply there are too many humans to live at all, the more there is, the more resources are needed
Technology, smartly applied, can both multiply what's available for more as well as help maintain our atmosphere, biodiversity and resource consumption
Whether or not technology can compensate for ALL environmental concerns remains to be seen; but strikes me as "iffy" at best.
The best solutions come in combinations

After reading the last several pages, I get the distinct impression some of the parties here have in their heads the idea that anyone speaking to one side of the issue therefore must be completely opposed to all other views. Perhaps this is just a consequence of the medium we're trying to discuss such a complex issue. Even so, while we all can disagree IN degrees and discuss is, let's not fall into mutually-exclusive argument making for the sake of silly-spewing.

Nothing is simple as it seems.

Just my random thoughts, thanks

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Fine, so the "big picture" is cost/benefit, and has nothing to do with nonsense like destroying the planet, drowning polar bears, or "keeping your pockets full"...

Once again - I never said it was. You are persisting in a strawman characterisation of something I actually thought we had reached consensus on many pages ago.

I doubt anyone denies the big picture being one of benefits or costs - but individuals disagree on what particular costs and benefits mean to them.

Quote:
I would like to keep Zeth's, my, your, and even BP's pockets full.

And what about Tehran's?

Quote:
And there are a lot of people on this thread and outside this thread who ware more worried about how far polar bears can swim, than worried about the effect of loony environmentalism on people-or more likely, don't even see the connection.

I don't think there are a lot of people on the thread like that at all - some people have been employing metaphores for the big picture - you have chosen to take them literally. That's your issue.

But it's another false dichotomy - not all the things you mention are alike. Environmental hardships faced by animals such as polar bears is something real and observed whether or not it affects you. Invoking planetary destruction is just a metaphore.

Quote:
And by the way, about "weaning us" from oil: there is no chance of that for the next 75 years (as I understand it) and even then, if the loony environmentalists keep having a cow at the mention of nuclear power, never).

Many leading environmentalists - James Lovelock who coined the Gaia hypothesis amongst them - strongly support nuclear fuel programs.

If weaning takes 75 years - it takes 75 years. Long weaning - but still a weaning, and one that has already started.

And what about Tehran's?

One again, a matter of cost/benefit. Of course, we can reduced the benefit to Iran with tough sanctions, like reducing (or stopping) the petro being sent to them. Apparently, they are not adept at refining the raw product, so it is imported from those who are. Us. Or, of course, we can eventually bomb them.

I hope you don't believe that Gaia religion. But, as long as the loons allow us us to have energy, that's fine (Cost/benefit once more) However, last time I looked, the loons were continuing their loony ways.

The trouble is that the loons are setting the agenda for environmentalism, and still far more worried about polar bears than about people. Sentimentality over sense. I think you ought to address your efforts at them rather than those like Zeth and me, since they are the obstacle to any kind of intelligent resolution. Their noise drowns out intelligent environmentalism. Talk to the algorists. That film of his has set back environmentalism 100 years.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Even so, while we all can disagree IN degrees and discuss is, let's not fall into mutually-exclusive argument making for the sake of silly-spewing.

Nothing is simple as it seems.

Very true.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

But you had said Dave--

Quote:

I might be willing to put a price on it justifying a personal sacrifice with possible economic knock-on effects (such as reducing my consumption)

Which I took to mean not going to the local pub everynight, where the real wildlife is, in order to save up for a trip to some place where you might look at nature's wildlife. Or shopping around for car insurance instead of just signing the annual letter the local insurance broker sends out. That's the sort of thing I thought you meant by 'personal sacrifice" and the 'knock-on' effects.

Have you tried appreciating wildlife in the absence of "appreciating wildlife". I have had two pigeons courting, cooing, and consumating at an alarming speed and frequency in the trees in my garden all summer. It never entered my head that I was "appreciating nature". I used to have a line of sparrows to greet me every morning when I woke up. On the telephone wire.

Alas--no more sparrows. Not a one this year. And the cat would climb the tree and venture out on a branch which was close to the wire at the other end to where the sparrows were sporting. And just watch. The bloody cat could do vicarious consumption. And make a sacrifice in having to get off the tree which was sometimes pitiful to see.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

One again, a matter of cost/benefit. Of course, we can reduced the benefit to Iran with tough sanctions, like reducing (or stopping) the petro being sent to them.

Not sent to - bought from.

Quote:

I hope you don't believe that Gaia religion.

What, Greek paganism?

No.

James Lovelock's hypothesis?

It's not a matter for belief really, it's an observation to ponder as a loose scientific model rather than accept.

Quote:

However, last time I looked, the loons were continuing their loony ways.

You aren't looking - you are presuming along the lines of your obvious prejudices regarding people who don't feel as you do.

In fact isn't decrying a community of vividly different people as "loons" precisely the sort of exaggeration Caroline made regarding destruction of the earth?

Its yet another strawman from you: "I find some of the slogans and ideas I associate with eco types loonish - ergo they are loons".

Quote:

The trouble is that the loons are setting the agenda for environmentalism, and still far more worried about polar bears than about people.

The bear is just a clear example of the sort of thing that can happen, like pandas or dodos. It's an illustration of "the sort of thing" that might precipitate a bigger one that could effect people.

Fish all the sharks out of Californian waters and you leave a niche for Humbolt Squid - which eat fish and attack people more voraciously than sharks.

That IS a concern about people - though if you don't look past a perception that it is a concern about sharks, squid or fish you won't notice.

Quote:

I think you ought to address your efforts at them rather than those like Zeth and me, since they are the obstacle to any kind of intelligent resolution.

A false observation and a total irrelevence. Some reasons why:

1) I did take Caroline to task for her exaggerations on at least two occasions on this very thread, so your attempt to influence my behaviour isn't merely manipulative, but made in apparent ignorance of my actual behaviour.
2) It's entirely up to me what I chose to expend my time on.
3) You clearly aren't up for fielding anything except your own strawman constructions anyhow - so why you're advising me to stop engaging you I don't know. You haven't honestly challenged or answered any point I've put forward anyway.
4) If you want to stop engaging - stop engaging. I don't really care what you choose to do - but if you direct a post at me I will reserve right of reply.
5) Zetherin has proven to be able to talk for himself.

Quote:

Their noise drowns out intelligent environmentalism. Talk to the algorists. That film of his has set back environmentalism 100 years.

Another frankly ludricrous strawman and a totally untenable position to defend with any sort of intellectual rigour - the film is what, five years old? I think the environmental movement's far more better placed now than it was in 1905. The environmental movement is bigger and has greater influence and morale.

To smear them with the worst of Gore's agitprop tendancies to just an attempt to apportion guilt by association, and therefore a logical fallacy.

And whilst it is agitprop - agitprop and bullshit are different things. The film should be discussed on what it gets right, and what it gets wrong, and what likelihoods it describes, and which scenarios it describes that aren't likely, and what relevent points it raises, and whether the irrelevent points it raises are so regular and egregious as to render it poor argument.

That is not the same as a vague partizan dismissal.

Technically, the "Algorists" are an art movement - not an environmental one.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But you had said Dave--

Quote:
I might be willing to put a price on it justifying a personal sacrifice with possible economic knock-on effects (such as reducing my consumption)

Which I took to mean not going to the local pub everynight, where the real wildlife is, in order to save up for a trip to some place where you might look at nature's wildlife.

No - that would mean increasing my consumption.

Quote:

Have you tried appreciating wildlife in the absence of "appreciating wildlife". I have had two pigeons courting, cooing, and consumating at an alarming speed and frequency in the trees in my garden all summer. It never entered my head that I was "appreciating nature". I used to have a line of sparrows to greet me every morning when I woke up. On the telephone wire.

Not really - I'm not necessarily talking about myself when I talk of someone appreciating nature - nor do I feel observation is the only way to appreciate it.

That said I do like nature shows and I have a bit more knowledge about various species than most of my peers, and sometimes it gives me a buzz to show off about that. But it comes from watching TV and Youtube really.

Quote:

And make a sacrifice in having to get off the tree which was sometimes pitiful to see.

And not keeping a cat is a small sacrifice I actually do make.

I'd like one because I live in the sticks and have to deal with mice - but I don't want another apex predator in the neighbourhood.

So it's traps for the mice, but the birds go unmolested.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

I trust they are that type of trap which is a small cage into which the little mouse is lured by the necessity of eating cheese and trips a bar which catches him: or her, possibly swelled with micelets or having left those born waiting for her to bring back some food and warmth. Then they can easily be released and hopefully find their way back to their nests.

It's all very confusing really.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I trust they are that type of trap which is a small cage into which the little mouse is lured by the necessity of eating cheese and trips a bar which catches him: or her, possibly swelled with micelets or having left those born waiting for her to bring back some food and warmth. Then they can easily be released and hopefully find their way back to their nests.

It's all very confusing really.

The what? Mice require something to balance their population growth. If we introduce imbalance... we pay for it. The balance that a healthy mouse population is a part of isn't particularly charitable to the weak and young mice.

Which brings up the sentiment that's in background for some: people are evil.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Quote:

The balance that a healthy mouse population is a part of isn't particularly charitable to the weak and young mice.

Which is not something we can do anything about. Not in the sticks anyway and that's where Dave is. He has gone to live among the mice. He'll be writing to the local paper next about the cow-pats on the roads in his attempt to design the wilderness in accordance with his sensibilities.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Which is not something we can do anything about. Not in the sticks anyway and that's where Dave is. He has gone to live among the mice. He'll be writing to the local paper next about the cow-pats on the roads in his attempt to design the wilderness in accordance with his sensibilities.

My friend: where do you live... such that the mice can't poop in your flour?

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I trust they are that type of trap which is a small cage into which the little mouse is lured by the necessity of eating cheese and trips a bar ...

Nope - it's a metal bar spring loaded that breaks their backs and kills them (in my experience) instantly.

Ten years ago I bought a humane mouse trap - and it just didn't work. I'm far more interested in ridding the blighters before they get the chance to chew things or **** in the house than I am preserving them to do so again.

So spring loaded traps it is.

I've never noticed a pregnant dead mouse - but it wouldn't make any difference to me.

If house mice became endangered then I might alter my practices for ethical or legal reasons, but they aren't, so I think a sudden clean death is fair enough under the circumstances and more humane than some of the options I'm entitled to take (such as poison or a cat).

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Which is not something we can do anything about. Not in the sticks anyway and that's where Dave is. He has gone to live among the mice. He'll be writing to the local paper next about the cow-pats on the roads in his attempt to design the wilderness in accordance with his sensibilities.

It was all fields once. My neighbours and I have constructed human habitats around which there are plenty of niches for mice to live, to allow them to benefit unopposed from the food and shelter in a human habitat would be simply to provide them with an advantage leading to an imbalance and localised population explosion.

So they can either stay out and live as mice have done for millennia, or come in and take their chances with the traps.

Not really sure what your point about cow dung is. Round my way the livestock is kept to fields and is mostly sheep. For the second time this thread you seem to have jumped to a wholly incorrect assumption about me. Nor do I think the outskirts of a seaside town in Northern Ireland count as "the wilderness". Rural - yes. Frontier country - no.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Quote:

Not really sure what your point about cow dung is.

It was merely a mildly forceful metaphor for the annoying aspects of country life. I might have said the baaaaaing of the lambs starting at 5 in the morning and going on till 10 at night. Like with Thurber's whiporwill's call.

0 Replies

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know