It was a slow day yesterday so I was able to catch up on some TV programmes one of them was The Editors. One of the pieces posed an interesting question. If Gold was found in the White Cliffs of Dover, at what value would it be worth digging them up ?£10 mil , 1 billion, 1 trillion? At 1 trillion my initial reaction was, why not? After pondering the question my answer is a firm no. If a trillion pounds worth of minerals were found under Dartmoor would it be worth digging them up. After all once the minerals were extracted you could fill the hole in and create a new Dartmoor. My answer would still be no. Surely the "desolate beauty" of the North East is worth saving more than the "Urban Beauty" of Guilford. As I look at my own small town and think about all the fields, copses of trees, etc that have been concreted over in my lifetime I am afraid I have become, what my Dad calls an " Eco extremist". Is there ever a price that is worth destroying natural beauty for ? I think I may be able to anticipate the answers.
What Price Natural Beauty
- Thread starter Gaudette
- Start date
Probably worth considering that Dartmoor is far from a "natural beauty", no more so is the "desolate beauty" of the North East. It exists only because man has already utterly destroyed the natural beauty that was there before. If man did not destry landscapes, there would be no Dartmoor.
Gaudette, I fear this'll end up a locked thread unless everyone behaved themselves. It's unfortunate (and good at the same time) but passions will be inflamed. I personally think that if we can remove minerals without disruption and destruction excellent. If we can put it back afterwards and not cause pollution OK. Otherwise we have to gauge what we gain to what we loose. Look how emotive the golf course at Aberdeen has become. Fracking, peat stripping, and open cast mines. But also look at some of the reserves created after these places are decommissioned. Some would say richer in wildlife than before. Also are crops placed, on the ground not also a ground changing resource?
Hope we all play nice and debate rather than squabble.
Good question though.
GB.
Hope we all play nice and debate rather than squabble.
Good question though.
GB.
The whole of the UK would be forest from coast to coast
An interesting chapter here,http://www.readcentral.com/chapters/Richard-Jefferies/After-London-Wild-England/002 Written at the turn of last century, describing Britain's return to it's wild state.
If they found oil or Uranium then maybe, but gold? No, it just sits in a vault, being gold, it doesn't do anything, doesn't help us make anything and the process of getting it out the ground is very destructive. The South West would end up with huge poisonous lagoons that would leach into drinking water or break their poorly constructed banks and poison people, rivers and fields for some distance around.
To quote Warren Buffett
"Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.”
The Wikipedia page about the cyanide spill that poisoned the Tisza river in Romania and Hungary is worth a read.
Last edited:
GOLD has lots of uses. LINK
1 Monetary exchange
2 Investment
3 Jewellery
4 Medicine
5 Food and drink
6 Industry
7 Electronics
8 Commercial chemistry
Not saying it's an excuse but it does have uses.
I'm struggling to think of many landsacpes at all in the British isles that haven't been altered by human influence, including the White Cliffs.
The tops have been cleared for farming in many parts, removing the natural plant life that may have helped bind the chalk together to some degree. Sea defences will have moved sea erosion of the cliffs to different parts.
Hard rock areas of parts of the coast are probably the only places that remain close to unchanged.
The tops have been cleared for farming in many parts, removing the natural plant life that may have helped bind the chalk together to some degree. Sea defences will have moved sea erosion of the cliffs to different parts.
Hard rock areas of parts of the coast are probably the only places that remain close to unchanged.
There is an old wives tale about the early days of the soviet revolution that it was suggested that everyone would have gold plumbing fixtures, that being at the time something that gold would be useful for in the imagined workers paradise. It is a useful metal, hi-tech applications aside there are many things that can be done with it, however the value placed on it is artificial, the same money invested in sweet chestnut plantations or organic pig farming would bring in more return and be of more use than keeping piles of the stuff in the basement of the BoE. It certainly isn't worth poisoning the earth to get any more out of the ground.
Dartmoor is indeed a man made landscape. Funnily enough it has been changed in many areas from mining (mainly tin) but I for one would not like to see it returned to some previous appearance. I love it just like it is
But isn't the irony of that statement that if everyone was as resistant to change, then the current Dartmoor landscape would not exist? Or the Highlands, the New Forest or so many other "natural landscapes"?
I must admit, I have come to dislike and distrust "preservationists" like the National Trust, Parks Authorities etc. Its as if they seek to stop the evolution of a country, of buildings and of a landscape - and yet its that very evolution that made them beautiful. I speak as someone who lives in and has restored a listed building, lived in several AONB, Parks etc. These people generally do more harm than good IMO
I must admit, I have come to dislike and distrust "preservationists" like the National Trust, Parks Authorities etc. Its as if they seek to stop the evolution of a country, of buildings and of a landscape - and yet its that very evolution that made them beautiful. I speak as someone who lives in and has restored a listed building, lived in several AONB, Parks etc. These people generally do more harm than good IMO
When I was a student years ago we had a lecturer who was an 'economic ecologist'. He would go around to estate agents and ask for a valuation of a house with a really nice view. Then he would ask for a valuation for the same house, but with "What if there was another house between that one and the view? What would it be worth then?". This allowed him to get a financial value for 'the view'.
I'm not sure what he did with this research, or what conclusions that he arrived at, but I always thought that it was an interesting approach to putting a financial value on a landscape.
Personally, I'd rather see a rural landscape (man-made or natural to whatever degree) than an urban one.
Oh yes, and my understanding is that current thinking is that "if there were no people the UK would be trees from coast to coast" is out of date. The modern view is that there would be a sort of natural wooded pasture, with glades and rides and extensive treeless marshes, a much more varied landscape than uniform woodland. I can't back this up with a reference though.
I'm not sure what he did with this research, or what conclusions that he arrived at, but I always thought that it was an interesting approach to putting a financial value on a landscape.
Personally, I'd rather see a rural landscape (man-made or natural to whatever degree) than an urban one.
Oh yes, and my understanding is that current thinking is that "if there were no people the UK would be trees from coast to coast" is out of date. The modern view is that there would be a sort of natural wooded pasture, with glades and rides and extensive treeless marshes, a much more varied landscape than uniform woodland. I can't back this up with a reference though.
Elen Sentier
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Gaudette, Im with you. The stupid MP who made the comment used the word natural. Yes, everyone with half a synapse firing knows that our landscape has not been natural of best part of 10,000 years. That, the word natural, is not the point. The point is that the wretched man seems to think that the NE of this country is of less worth than the SE. That kind of attitude cannot be tolerated.
I know very well that since we began farming some 8-10 thousand years ago weve been radically changing the landscape. Up to the industrial revolution it wasnt too hectic for Planet Earth to cope with and we didnt wipe out other species in the way weve done since the beginning of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century for instance, the Victorian butterfly collectors had practically no effect on our butterfly populations but the devastation we have created since then has wiped out vast numbers.
In about 1880 the population of Planet Earth was about 1 billion as of now its working up to 7.5 billion. When I was born, 65 years ago, it was about 3 billion which means that its more than doubled in a mere 65 years. In the year 2000 it was 6 billion, so that means it has gone up by over 1/6[SUP]th[/SUP] in a mere 10 years. We consume and want and desire and demand. But we live in a closed-system, its called a planet, there are only so many atoms in its make-up; maybe we get a bit of extra from meteorites etc but pu-leese dont start arguing thats enough to keep up with our population explosion!
Add to that that we have become completely money-oriented and you have the causes of the problem that makes so many people frantic to find more oil (or whatever). The combined problem is exponential breeding plus a completely selfish money-driven attitude to life. This must change if we are to survive as a species.
Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. ― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray: this is still where perhaps 90% of the civilised population is at and that too must change. We even value disasters by what they may cost in money the cost to lives, the environment, to non-human species like animals, plants even the rocks and soil themselves, are of no account to most. This must change if we are to survive as a species.
We do not need to frack. We do not need to keep up the population explosion. We do not need support a continual growth mentality. We do not need to chase money.
The concept of eco-extremist is very comfortable and convenient to many who are not willing to face up to the population explosion and the money-grubbing that has become acceptably normal nowadays. We do not have to accept other peoples scripts of what we are.
I dont expect to be agreed with, however.
I know very well that since we began farming some 8-10 thousand years ago weve been radically changing the landscape. Up to the industrial revolution it wasnt too hectic for Planet Earth to cope with and we didnt wipe out other species in the way weve done since the beginning of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century for instance, the Victorian butterfly collectors had practically no effect on our butterfly populations but the devastation we have created since then has wiped out vast numbers.
In about 1880 the population of Planet Earth was about 1 billion as of now its working up to 7.5 billion. When I was born, 65 years ago, it was about 3 billion which means that its more than doubled in a mere 65 years. In the year 2000 it was 6 billion, so that means it has gone up by over 1/6[SUP]th[/SUP] in a mere 10 years. We consume and want and desire and demand. But we live in a closed-system, its called a planet, there are only so many atoms in its make-up; maybe we get a bit of extra from meteorites etc but pu-leese dont start arguing thats enough to keep up with our population explosion!
Add to that that we have become completely money-oriented and you have the causes of the problem that makes so many people frantic to find more oil (or whatever). The combined problem is exponential breeding plus a completely selfish money-driven attitude to life. This must change if we are to survive as a species.
Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. ― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray: this is still where perhaps 90% of the civilised population is at and that too must change. We even value disasters by what they may cost in money the cost to lives, the environment, to non-human species like animals, plants even the rocks and soil themselves, are of no account to most. This must change if we are to survive as a species.
We do not need to frack. We do not need to keep up the population explosion. We do not need support a continual growth mentality. We do not need to chase money.
The concept of eco-extremist is very comfortable and convenient to many who are not willing to face up to the population explosion and the money-grubbing that has become acceptably normal nowadays. We do not have to accept other peoples scripts of what we are.
I dont expect to be agreed with, however.
There is a point of view that as man has evolved on this planet that he is one of it's many pieces of much varied flora and fauna. As such anything we do is natural. So all landscapes are natural. Other colonies change their landscape and surroundings, for example some species of ants.
Explosion? No. But we do need population growth unfortunately (if we are to survive as a species that is) China's learned this the hard way with their population control. Without a growth, there aren't enough working age people to support the elderly. Blame it mainly on increasing life spans.
Agreed BR. But all our various socio-economic systems depend on it. Be it Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism. All the way back to ancient patriarchal societies. Historically civilizations have either been replaced or expanded into collapse. It would seem to be an inevitable spiral.
The seeming way out appears to be leaving Earth for another planet; which just as apparently seems to be beyond our ability (even if we could find another habitable planet)
Last edited:
Similar threads
