Vocal Voices

by **Workingman** » 14 Sep 2016, 12:18

The State of Nature has found that intensive farming has put one in 10 species in the UK under the threat of extinction. We probably all realise the species' have been and gone, but their extinctions took hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Many modern day extinctions are happening in periods of decades, even a few decades.

The problem is that industrial farming is necessary to feed us, and it is a global problem, but the UK makes for a suitable microcosm to study. WWII highlighted our problem with food - we did not grow enough. Post war all that changed and the UK became the world leader in getting more form less. It was not driven by simple efficiencies, that would have been fantastic, it was driven by the introduction of chemical fertilises, pesticides and selective weed killers. It worked, for a time, and we nearly became self-sufficient in many foods. Then came the population explosion and that sent us back to square one. Unfortunately the huge steps once made have now gone and we are putting more and more effort (chemicals and GM) in for minuscule gains.

We now import about 40% of our staple foodstuffs - apples from Chile, potatoes from Egypt, green beans and peas from Kenya and so forth. These are not exotic or fad foods, they are what we have been eating for hundreds of generations. Unfortunately we do not have enough land left to grow our own.

And on the subject of land: another report says that the Earth has lost 10% of its wilderness, mostly forests and jungle, since the 1970s. This has been turned over to industrial use such as oil sands, mining and logging, or to create grazing for animals. These woodlands are the Earth's lungs and a major factor in locking up atmospheric CO2 yet we have chopped them down to be able to produce more of it!

We should probably put humans on the 'goodbye' list...

by **manxie** » 14 Sep 2016, 12:33

Did you also see the news the "Bayer" want to have us use 2 new chemicals that will kill off even more of our butterflies and BEES that we need to survive into the future

Manxie xx

by **Suff** » 14 Sep 2016, 14:27

Workingman wrote:We should probably put humans on the 'goodbye' list...

We already are.... It's just not politically correct to say it.

by **Workingman** » 14 Sep 2016, 20:26

Suff wrote:
Workingman wrote:We should probably put humans on the 'goodbye' list...

We already are.... It's just not politically correct to say it.

And that is a large part of the problem.

When astronomers discover another Earth 2.0 the media is alive with how we can get there in X hundreds or years. "We are saved", "We can go somewhere else", it is all so positive.

The truth of that 'possibility', unless there is a huge rethink, is that only a few of the elite will escape, and then, unless they also take their inferiors, farmers and builders, they too will demise.

by **Kaz** » 14 Sep 2016, 20:39

They will need hairdressers and phone sanitisers too

by **Suff** » 14 Sep 2016, 20:46

The safest place for anyone is likely to be deep in the sea in a purpose built self sustaining habitat which farms the sea bed using "day" lights on brought in earth and living off underwater fishing.

Not that I expect that little piece of information to go anywhere. It's even safe from volcano's tsunami's (done properly) and even massive solar events.

Kind of limited though. Just like those space habitats on other planets. A whole lot more possible though.

You'd get the hairdressers and phone sanitisers too Kaz. But the big downside is it would be ruled by those who are causing the problem today...

by **Workingman** » 14 Sep 2016, 22:01

Suff wrote:The safest place for anyone is likely to be deep in the sea in a purpose built self sustaining habitat

The irony is that the only ones able to afford it will be the super rich and they will have to rely on the much despised 'tradesmen' to support them. So who will actually 'run' the communities under the waves?

The meek might actually inherit the earth, at least the underwater one. :lol: