AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Those are monoculture plantations, not forests. They are managed to produce pulp (for paper, cardboard), plywood, chips, and/or dimensional lumber.
Deaths from climate change
- Thread starter JohnRoberts
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
I believe the forest in question has been a forest (i.e. not cleared for agriculture) for millenia. I'm sure humans cut some trees during that time, but the majority of that area is old forest.. Most temperate climate hardwood species start to decline after 100-400 years. Some specimens may grow for 1000. European softwoods are not as long-lived as species like Coast Redwood, Giant Sequoia, etc. I'm sure there are/were specimens there 500-800 years old.
I guess I don't agree with your definition of native. The trees growing there are primarily species endemic to northern Europe.
that's fair, i guess i don't really see the importance of the lifespan of trees to whether a forest is old. "the trees last 300 years, so a 300 year forest is old" is a bit like saying "people live 100 years, so a 100 year old city is old"
regardless, i hate to see a loss of green spaces. i agree with you overall, i just dont believe in platitudes like protecting forest "because it's old" (even if it's not) or casting the argument in a political way to point out the "other side's" hypocrisy. just say it's pretty and you like it and you don't want it changed. that's your base sentiment, isn't it? why make it complicated? i think just liking something is reason enough. "we shouldn't put a wind farm there because it's prettier without one" is a perfectly adequate reason that requires no additional justification IMO. i think most people, especially in political discussions, use logic as after-the-fact justifications for feelings and i find it dishonest. if you feel something and believe something, just feel and believe it.
Last edited:
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
I didn't say that. I said there are many trees there 300+ years old. Then I stated that most European hardwood species decline after 100-400 years. So a 300 year old tree is pretty old. The forest is much older as far as I can tell from a little research. It was never cutover for agriculture (or other) use, so it is likely to have existed for several millenia. During the last ice age it would have been a mix of tundra and possibly some softwood forest, so it can't be older than that
Old forest ecosystems in the northern hemisphere are now rare. They should be protected because they are the last ecological vestiges of what came before and they are much more diverse than second growth and (obviously) tree plantations.
Hypocrisy should always be exposed, IMO. It is not generally political to do so.
Wrong. It has value beyond any human-centric viewpoint.
That was only a part of my argument. The main reason was the damage that would do to this rare european forest.
i misunderstood, sorry
the idea that old forest ecosystems should be protected is your perspective as a human. that these actions constitute "damage" is your own moral perspective as a human. that is to say, it's based on how you personally believe the world "should" operate. there is an ideal state, and there are deviations from that ideal state. to me, that's just extra words for finding something beautiful. maybe it isn't only that you find the area beautiful on a surface level, but also that you find the way the ecosystem works and the history of this area beautiful. appreciation and a desire to preserve beauty is still the root motivation IMO. this perspective is based on your values as a person, it's a perspective i agree with and a set of values i share, but it is still fundamentally a construct of the human mind and a personal desire on both of our parts. as human beings, we are not really capable of seeing things from a non-human viewpoint. i think to say so underestimates how vast and alien the world is compared to how we see it.
i guess the root of this is that i'm curious as to why you're saying that it's important in general that we do this rather than that it's important to you that we do this. why phrase it this way? what's the long term goal of establishing your values and engaging in comparison with others? i'm very curious about internet arguments and what purpose they serve. whenever i've done them, they just make me uncomfortable and don't accomplish anything, so i stop. i am fascinated by people who have these discussions about various topics every day. i don't understand, but i'd like to.
Last edited:
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
I'm not interested in an academic philosophical debate. What is the alternative to not protecting such places? Letting them be destroyed (for human-centric purposes) or greatly degraded? Is that a better outcome in your opinion? I prefer to exist in some kind of balance with the natural world, not to dominate it just because I can.
no, i personally agree with you 100%. i'm just trying to figure out how i would enter into a conversation like this. I don't understand what the point of talking about it on the internet is. like, the ritual of staking your values and perspectives and then engaging with other people who deviate from them in a space that doesn't determine future, action, or policy. what does it do? this is not a joke or any kind of moral judgment. i genuinely don't understand, it's alien to me. that's why i'm never really in brewery. if you're not willing to help me understand (this is a big ask), that's OK. have a nice day
Last edited:
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Interaction between people who would likely never meet FTF is one of the few good things about the internet, IMO. Is it not good to also share and discuss values that may be similar or different? It is enlightening, if sometlmes frustrating, to discuss these sorts of topics with others.
Again, what's the alternative? Not discuss things where there might be disagreement? Only have such discussions in-person? Why create artificial barriers to enlightenment (by banning such discussions or avoiding them)?
i guess for me the pleasure also lies in seeing people's perspectives and learning how varied people's opinions can be and trying to unpack what underlies them, but the directions people take confuse me. i think a few threads ago i saw a guy argue that homosexuality is bad because it's caused by childhood molestation, and everyone focused on unpacking whether there was a link between being molested as a child and homosexuality, but nobody talked about the underlying premise (that things inherit the moral or ethical goodness of their causes) and the issues with that premise, and that's wild to me. i can't imagine living in a world where things inherit the morality of their causes. even if his premise is true, that's wild! if homosexuality is bad just because it's caused by being molested, then what about like, that guy that took a nail gun to the head and woke up able to play the piano? is playing the piano bad now because it was caused by a bad thing? if so, is it just him playing the piano that's bad, or did the nail gun accident retroactively make all piano playing bad? how far does this perspective extend? the cure for polio was motivated by people dying of polio. does that make the cure for polio bad? i didn't see anyone bring this up. they tried to attack his facts instead of the way he was using his facts, and that was really interesting. i see that a lot in these discussions as an observer. people are fascinating. after observing for a while i decided that he had a cultural-moral belief about homosexuality and was trying to work backwards to justify it, which is another odd behavior i see a lot. i would love to get involved in discussions online, but i find it uncomfortable and scary right now, so i tend to just watch.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
I worked outside all day. I'm tired. Will have a bourbon, neat, and read a book. Not going down the philosophical rat hole tonight. Cheers.
okay! have a lovely day.
what bourbon, though? i like wild turkey 101
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Looks like the recent El Nino event (which the alarmists used to great effect to claim the planet was boiling because of our wicked ways) is coming to an end. And it may quite possibly be followed by a cooling La Nina cycle.
Cheers
Ian
Cheers
Ian
That's weather, not climate...
Everybody is rejoicing over here, because after two very dry and hot years, the water supply is 100% again. Everyone is hoping the rain will stop now. I'm writing this in front of the open window, letting spring in.
Doesn't change the fact today's 100% is still only 60% of the historical level. Or 15 m, measured in another way. I have a friend who makes his own beer. According to him there's too many brewers over here and that's why the water level will never be what it once was.
Everybody is rejoicing over here, because after two very dry and hot years, the water supply is 100% again. Everyone is hoping the rain will stop now. I'm writing this in front of the open window, letting spring in.
Doesn't change the fact today's 100% is still only 60% of the historical level. Or 15 m, measured in another way. I have a friend who makes his own beer. According to him there's too many brewers over here and that's why the water level will never be what it once was.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Wild Turkey Long Branch. Other contenders are Knob Creek small batch and Four Roses small batch.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Surface reservoirs?
Eh? Are you talking about surface storage or ground water?
LolI have a friend who makes his own beer. According to him there's too many brewers over here and that's why the water level will never be what it once was.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Has nothing to do with climate. You're pumping more than can be replenished by infiltration. It's only in very recent history that deep wells have been in common use. Humans assuming it's a magical near-infinite resource is the problem. Groundwater is not very well understood in general.
BTW, surface reservoirs are also used for drinking water (with treatment, of course).
Matador
Well-known member
Matador said:
soliloqueen said:
You claim to not understand internet conversations in the Brewery, but you seem understand it quite well.
Last edited:
It seems that there is no shortage of water (in oceans) if we can afford to pay for desalination.
JR
JR
