How much impact is acceptable?
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
What Technology Has Accidentally Killed the Most People?
Show me a museum of important historical inventors and I will show you a gallery of deluded mass murderers. I’m not talking about machine gun
gizmodo.com
Progress is bad for us.
Only just found this thread. I'm a bit busy now to read fully so apologies if it's been discussed earlier. It's something about fires that I've been curious about. Heat from fires and indeed certain types or styles of stoves is capable of damaging the soil and organisms in the soil. With this discussion over sustainability and minimising impact, has anyone taken steps to shield the soil when using their hobo stove or other stove type? I have a welding or soldering mat to go under trangia or other stove to reduce heat damage.
I only ask because a guy I once knew managed to develop a very good career in environmental research based on studying soil nemotodes for his 4 year PhD. Apparently they are in soil in a very high concentration and are among many indicator species used to monitor climate change and other environmental damage. Everything is important afterall.
I also recall learning a little about Jainism. Apparently Jain monks carry a horse hair brush which they use to gently waft away any organism in their path. They're not supposed to kill anything even bacteria harmful to their health. No antibiotics for them. IMHO it's impossible to prevent your actions causing harm to something so it's about finding your level. Simple things like putting something under your wood gas burner to reduce the heat reaching the earth, picking up twigs and not using fallen loss which could develop into habitat, etc.
There's probably many little things you can do. Not least repairing things instead of replacing them when they get a little damaged. Anything new you buy will have a bigger footprint than repairing older kit or buying secondhand. It's the idea that most carbon footprint of cars is from initial manufacture. As someone working in that sector the transport used alone is immense. We use materials from China and eventually what we make might eventually go to China in the form of a finished car. I bet I'm not the only one working in a carbon intensive business because of transport and other factors.
I only ask because a guy I once knew managed to develop a very good career in environmental research based on studying soil nemotodes for his 4 year PhD. Apparently they are in soil in a very high concentration and are among many indicator species used to monitor climate change and other environmental damage. Everything is important afterall.
I also recall learning a little about Jainism. Apparently Jain monks carry a horse hair brush which they use to gently waft away any organism in their path. They're not supposed to kill anything even bacteria harmful to their health. No antibiotics for them. IMHO it's impossible to prevent your actions causing harm to something so it's about finding your level. Simple things like putting something under your wood gas burner to reduce the heat reaching the earth, picking up twigs and not using fallen loss which could develop into habitat, etc.
There's probably many little things you can do. Not least repairing things instead of replacing them when they get a little damaged. Anything new you buy will have a bigger footprint than repairing older kit or buying secondhand. It's the idea that most carbon footprint of cars is from initial manufacture. As someone working in that sector the transport used alone is immense. We use materials from China and eventually what we make might eventually go to China in the form of a finished car. I bet I'm not the only one working in a carbon intensive business because of transport and other factors.
I have never seen std Trangia affect the vegetation underneath, not impossible but I think highly unlikely.
Maybe a trangia used with meths wont leave a mark but even a Kelly kettle will scorch the ground underneath the fire pan. It's a good idea to put something under any wood burning stove. I use rocks or stones. They can be scattered about afterwards and protect the earth , leaving no trace.
I once used a Kelly kettle on a wooden bench... I left a perfect charred circle on the bench.... oops!
I once used a Kelly kettle on a wooden bench... I left a perfect charred circle on the bench.... oops!
Fire should be made on gravel or sand if possible, there it leaves practically no marks. Almost all rock faces are here ice ground so fire leaves an ugly mark so generally a no no.
I usually carry a grill which can either be used on an open fire or more often is used to lift a stove off the ground with a couple of sticks or rocks.
I usually carry a lightweight grill that I can either use on an open fire or more often support a stove or two off the ground with a couple of stones or sticks.
I usually carry a lightweight grill that I can either use on an open fire or more often support a stove or two off the ground with a couple of stones or sticks.
We use trangia with gas conversion a lot but certainly even the meths burner has scorched the grass or other plants underneath. Not always handy rocks to balance stoves on.
If you go to campsites in the UK where people use smaller tents you do see scorch rings from stoves. I must admit that a lot of my UL meths stoves scorch without careful placement or use of something underneath. I've also split meths at times causing a flare up as it burns off. It's easy enough to carry something to make sure IMHO even if it's such a little amount of damage.
If you go to campsites in the UK where people use smaller tents you do see scorch rings from stoves. I must admit that a lot of my UL meths stoves scorch without careful placement or use of something underneath. I've also split meths at times causing a flare up as it burns off. It's easy enough to carry something to make sure IMHO even if it's such a little amount of damage.
Of course I hold the view that everything has an impact it's as much about the spirit of responsible actions as practice of it. By this I mean if you're thinking about it and doing your best with what you have then it's good enough. Nobody in the modern world can live without consequences.
It's often the big things outside of your outdoor activities that cause the most harm. Two or more cars, new car every 3 years, buying new kit like a gear freak often does, taking the car when walking or bike could be used, etc. Even down to using wood burners in towns with wood that's noir been fully seasoned or you've stored in a damp location. It all harms our environment more than a tarp, bivvy and burner in the outdoors.
Just a thought. Climate damage seems to me to be like Lakeland footpaths. They start off as little more than sheep trods. As more people use them they get wider and wider eventually you've got a big scar on the landscape. Since stone age it's been a sheep trod. The industrial revolution turned it into a narrow footpath. The 20th century turned it into a scar on the landscape. Will the 21st century turn it into a lunar wasteland?
It's often the big things outside of your outdoor activities that cause the most harm. Two or more cars, new car every 3 years, buying new kit like a gear freak often does, taking the car when walking or bike could be used, etc. Even down to using wood burners in towns with wood that's noir been fully seasoned or you've stored in a damp location. It all harms our environment more than a tarp, bivvy and burner in the outdoors.
Just a thought. Climate damage seems to me to be like Lakeland footpaths. They start off as little more than sheep trods. As more people use them they get wider and wider eventually you've got a big scar on the landscape. Since stone age it's been a sheep trod. The industrial revolution turned it into a narrow footpath. The 20th century turned it into a scar on the landscape. Will the 21st century turn it into a lunar wasteland?
I know this is a consolation prize, but it always amazes me how nature reclaims the landscape. There's a number of sites locally to me that have been mined, spoiled, or just generally abused, and nature has taken them back super quick. I'm not saying that it excuses any damage we do, I'm definitely not.
I find it encouraging to know that when we've gone everything else will claim it all back
It would be nice to think that, but as 99% of all the species that ever were have gone, ( and most of these were not destroyed by humans) then it doesn't seem to work as well as you may think. The other problem with that is that so many intrusive species have now been let free, that these will cause immense damage, whether we like to admit it or not the humans do have a certain amount of control of things, especially the invasive species and in most cases for the good of the planet.I find it encouraging to know that when we've gone everything else will claim it all back
If you look for instance at the fires in California and Australia, these were (in my opinion) because of the lack of intervention and management to minimise the risk, if everything was allowed to go untamed then eventually i would think the earth would destroy itself and the wildlife on it..
Really? I doubt it very much. The earth is a great big automated control system - as one parameter peaks another develops to dampen the change. That's how it always has been. Yes, we have lost a very large number of species of plants and animals, but the basic building blocks are the same. There were devastating forest fires before man knew how to strike a spark - and some tree species rely on the fires to germinate. No, the world and nature will survive and maybe some other species will rise over a few million years to make a mess of things again
There's been many evolutionary blind alleys that just disappeared. There's also been many extinction events where even higher proportion of the existing species disappeared than is happening due to human activity. It's not good for evolution for all species to survive. As the extinction event removes species the resulting action of nature is to fill in the blanks. Evolution speeds up through selection processes to fill the opportunities.
If intrusive species takes over sooner or later there will be a change in local species to cope. Grey squirrels haven't wiped out reds which AIUI are coming back, slowly admittedly. There's probably better examples than that.
We've evolved within our species' existence too. A good example is milk tolerance. I'm hunter gatherer days a very small proportion of the human species had tolerance for milk as an adult. Since agriculture developed milk became something our species evolved a higher percentage of tolerance towards.
Nature copes but that doesn't mean the obvious way. Species extinction and evolution is just one technique of nature. Others include population collapse due to overfeeding leaving less ability for a habitat to supply the higher population. It's part of a range of techniques I reckon. I'm sure you guys will know more than I about this.
If intrusive species takes over sooner or later there will be a change in local species to cope. Grey squirrels haven't wiped out reds which AIUI are coming back, slowly admittedly. There's probably better examples than that.
We've evolved within our species' existence too. A good example is milk tolerance. I'm hunter gatherer days a very small proportion of the human species had tolerance for milk as an adult. Since agriculture developed milk became something our species evolved a higher percentage of tolerance towards.
Nature copes but that doesn't mean the obvious way. Species extinction and evolution is just one technique of nature. Others include population collapse due to overfeeding leaving less ability for a habitat to supply the higher population. It's part of a range of techniques I reckon. I'm sure you guys will know more than I about this.
Well you are entitled to doubt it, but if we only have 1% of species left(about 8.5 million) and 99% are gone, then it obviously hasn't happened, if a system kills or allows 99% of life to be killed it's not a very good system, land erosion, underwater volcanoes , rain washing away the limestone etc, big problems.and i am not sure we can depend on self healing.Really? I doubt it very much. The earth is a great big automated control system - as one parameter peaks another develops to dampen the change. That's how it always has been. Yes, we have lost a very large number of species of plants and animals, but the basic building blocks are the same. There were devastating forest fires before man knew how to strike a spark - and some tree species rely on the fires to germinate. No, the world and nature will survive and maybe some other species will rise over a few million years to make a mess of things again
I think where you might be mistaken is in assuming that there is only a finite number of species that ever can exist during the lifetime of the planet.
It's not a case that 99% have become extinct, leaving just 1% and that 1% will get smaller as more species die until there's none left.
It's a case that as one species dies out another replaces it.
It is likely that there will always be a rolling 99%/1% ratio, since the planet can support only so many species (for various reasons) at any one time.
That's what evolution is all about - as the environment changes so do the species inhabiting it. One species may die out but another replaces it - leaving us with a ratio of roughly 99%/1% (actually, by the very nature of the maths, that ratio will change - but during our lifetime it will appear about the same compared with the time span of the Earth).
