Free lunch from nature as long as we control our appetites?

[blacktimberwolf]

"Nature provides a free lunch as long as we can control our appetites.

Nature may provide, but it isn't destined for us & our appetites are as unsatiable as our desire to breed.

 

[Laughoutlouder]

Quite right, the issue of logging is destroying a collective part of our planet, which in turn hinders a forest's ability to decrease the damage of Co2 on the outer layer, so it could be argued that some parts of the world are a little "too hungry" in terms of taking from nature

Agreed Rmbriar, some parts of the world are a little "too hungry". With regard to logging though, we (the developed peoples of the world) chopped our forests ages ago and took advantage of these resources. Who are we now to tell developing countries not to do as we have done?

There needs to be an alternative for these peoples available whereby they recieve some reward for maintaining these globally relevant forests for the entire planet.

This reward needs to come from us!

 

[udamiano]

From an academic point of view, why not take 0.64 acres of the most profitable wood /farmland you can find and each day write in a diary what you could take from that patch to keep yourself alive, forget water, just food. you wouldn't need to actually take anything, but only list what is actually found in that plot , nothing more. your not allowed to introduce fertilisers, pesticides, etc just what is in the plot each day you visit, calculate based on a daily average in calories and see if the sheets balance. would be an interesting experiment, and topic for your talk

 

[greensurfingbear]

Not sure about the 'free lunch' bit. Nature provides, whether wild or farmed, but it isn't free. Look at the effort that goes into farming. Even all of the discussion around foraged food, which is usually perceived as free, involves a cost in terms of time gathering, travel to your foraging location, and the time spent gaining the knowledge to know what you can forage and where to find it.

I have collected a huge quantity of chestnuts today, more than I ever have before, but I had to take the car to get to the site, spend a long time actually collecting the things (back-aching work, not to mention the scratches and prickles that are inevitable in any forage), and then get home again. If I'd bought the same from a shop it would cost me money, but would have been much quicker and less painful, and I would have had the time to do something else instead.

I think it is about choosing which costs you want to pay.

Totally agree with that point....just because you didn't pay in cash don't mean you ain't paying for it.


Orric

 

[robin wood]

Agreed Rmbriar, some parts of the world are a little "too hungry". With regard to logging though, we (the developed peoples of the world) chopped our forests ages ago and took advantage of these resources. Who are we now to tell developing countries not to do as we have done?

There needs to be an alternative for these peoples available whereby they recieve some reward for maintaining these globally relevant forests for the entire planet.

This reward needs to come from us!

To be honest I would not mind as much if I thought the logging companies were local initiatives being paid a fair price. I suspect the norm is that they are multinationals and paying a fraction of the true worth. As with fossil carbons we treat global assets as if they were income and if you realise that these things are in fact assets then the folk who are currently getting rich are simply cashing in the family silver to the detriment of their children and grandchildren.
I agree the solution has to come from the West in the form of changed consumption. We need to pay for what we value, stop buying cheap disposable BBQs, palm oil, plywood etc.

 

[Martyn]

From an academic point of view, why not take 0.64 acres of the most profitable wood /farmland you can find and each day write in a diary what you could take from that patch to keep yourself alive, forget water, just food. you wouldn't need to actually take anything, but only list what is actually found in that plot , nothing more. your not allowed to introduce fertilisers, pesticides, etc just what is in the plot each day you visit, calculate based on a daily average in calories and see if the sheets balance. would be an interesting experiment, and topic for your talk

The problem with the 0.64 acres each, is that huge chunks of that are Scottish hillside and moorland, which is only really suitable for sheep, bunnies, moorhens and Scotsmen. It wouldn't take long to eat through that - though I'm told Scotsmen can be a bit chewy.

Of the remaining land, most is either pasture or planted cereal crops. Again, once you've eaten your way through the farm animals and bunnies, there is not much left. To forage, you need a mixed landscape with plenty of woodland and there is far, far less than 0.64 acres each. Not sure how much woodland is in private hands in the UK, but most of it is state owned and there is 637000 acres of that. Lets be (very) generous and double that for an estimate of total UK woodland at 1.3 million acres. That's 0.02 acres of woodland, or about 870 square foot - or a 30' by 30' slice each. Remember, that's being generous. You'd eat that dry of every squirrel, mushroom, berry, nut and nettle in a single day.

Even if every bit of farmland, moor and hillside in the UK was magically converted to woodland to give us the 0.64 acres each, the daily tally thing still wouldn't be viable, because each day you'd be removing from it, without putting anything back. It would still only last a few days before everything edible was raped out of your 0.64 acres.