Interference

[posie]

I just do the best I can with what we've got. Maybe this world was designed to support 'life' as it was before civilisation. Maybe our Creator did not expect the human race to change things as they have. After all it is only we humans that make deliberate changes to our environment, with the invention of the many things that have changed things for the ***** (Better or Worse?) Nature was designed to support all life satisfactorily,but that was before Homo Sapiens decided that things could be 'better', better for us in some ways maybe, in other ways NOT better, and certainly NOT better for much of the Wildlife.... animal,vegetable and mineral................. PROGRESS ? ? Is this progress, first define PROGRESS..

[fairplay]

'Creator' ?....... nature 'designed' ?

Our planet has come about through millions of years of evolution and the phrase 'Survival of the fittest' is very apt.

For thousands of years man has tried to control man through the invention of Gods of one sort or another. Thankfully the 'west' seem to be escaping the dark ages, leaving the inhabitatants of the muslim countries as slaves to their religious leaders.

But now the world faces a new threat - the drug barons. They are becoming more and more powerful and threaten to take over control of many country's.
The human race must not allow these drug barons to become 'the fittest'

Neil.

[posie]

Hello Neil , though I do not want to appear critical, I have to say that you have a very limited understanding of certain words. You see the word Creator to mean a false god, when in fact I see evolution itself as our creator, over a long period of time, also my use of the word 'designed' ,that you challenged, you obviously do not believe that 'design' can in any way be linked with evolution. Maybe my brain works differently to yours(well, its obvious that it does) and maybe we shall have to agree to disagree, but my sole reason for responding is to correct your inference of the meaning of MY script. I agree that drugs are the big threat now, but cannot comment on your views about religion, as a) it is against the Site Rules and b) I don't think anything can be gained by such comments about other people's religious beliefs, in a very Public Window.You have forgotten that this site is open to ALL ,including people from other beliefs, that is why we have the rule. I hope you consider this to be 'Debate' and not 'Arguement'............POSIE (We've also broken another rule vis..stay on thread.)

[Paul mabbott]

No, you would just get a different balance: woodland birds would be very common where forest regenerated, while grassland birds would become much rarer and confined to patches within the woodland cleared by fire, flood or whatever. Lakes fill but new ones form, rivers change their course .... but all this very slowly so animals (and plants) have the chance to shift and recolonise. Hedgerow birds/plants are actually the inhabitants of the shifting woodland edge &c &c ....
Ecology is very dynamic: no problem if you took humans out of the equation ...

Originally Posted by fairplay

Tufftie,

What an ideal world to do no more to protect the habitats and let it all revert back to woodland, but where would we go to live - tree houses ?

Where would the Dartford Warbler go, or the Nightjars, Stone Curlews, Meadow Pipets and Skylarks or even the Silver Studded Blue Butterfly ?

If you stop cutting reedbeds, the reeds just collapse and build up a new layer of mulch each year until conditions are dry enough for pioneer trees to move in such as Alder and Willow, then you loose your Bitterns and Marsh Harriers.

Perhaps we should all live underground ?

Neil.

[fairplay]

Posie,

You are quite right about site rules regarding religion, that is why it is important to choose your words a little more carefully - even if you mean them in a different way.

Paul,

Yes, there definitely would be a different balance, but in the process there will bound to be extinctions as well.

Neil.

[posie]

[quote=fairplay;563151]Posie,

You are quite right about site rules regarding religion, that is why it is important to choose your words a little more carefully - even if you mean them in a different way.

Yes, I know what you are saying,very difficult one,I'd rather be safe than sorry.Posie.

[richnfamous]

I 'interfere' with rats, but only where they come into conflict with humans. They're just bad news in my book.

Originally Posted by partyboy

intrference should of course be as limited as possible,but i must agree with chris packham in that the alien grey sqirrel where inbedded in certain areas of our country should be embraced & our efforts directed at keeping them out of areas where they have not yet settled such as scotland and our outer islands

I used to be annoyed at (grey) squirrels when they ate the bird food from the ground, until I realised that they were cleaning up so Ratty didn't get any. Once I let them be, I grew quite fond of them