Turn on thread page Beta

Why is it people act upset about deforestation but do nothing about it? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    My friend shares images of deforestation and like any normal person it's pretty upsetting seeing the destruction humans cause.

    However, when I show him articles like this https://www.theguardian.com/environm...troying-planet, he's unwilling to give up meat.

    Why are people so selfish?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Strangely enough because meat is rather tasty. Equally if you're delightfully middle class in the UK odds are your beef burgers are not from Brazil et al. and havent been fed soy or some such - unless Waitrose has been fibbing to me.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    What exactly would you want people to do? On an individual level, nobody can make a difference. Diffusion of responsibility exists and largely prevents people from acting but it's also not wrong; unless large numbers of people act it won't actually change anything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    What exactly would you want people to do? On an individual level, nobody can make a difference. Diffusion of responsibility exists and largely prevents people from acting but it's also not wrong, unless large numbers of people act it won't actually change anything.
    But if seeing an image makes you upset, surely you'd rather do something than not and I clearly indicated be could give up meat, that's what he or people can do.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by BatmanRH)
    But if seeing an image makes you upset, surely you'd rather do something than not and I clearly indicated be could give up meat, that's what he or people can do.
    You've missed the point. How does one person giving up meat affect anything? It doesn't make a dent in the problem. If I were trying to fight back against this, giving up meat would not actually have any impact. Shops won't order less meat as a result, no fewer animals will be killed and the deforestation will continue at the same pace. Simply giving up meat does not fix the problem. So it's really on a personal, moral level. Speaking personally I wouldn't give up meat purely because of the odd article or comment that might make me feel uncomfortable.

    There are lots of awful things happening everyday. People starve. People live rough. Most of these things can't be fixed on an individual level. You can give a homeless guy a sandwich and feel good for 5 minutes but you haven't actually fixed the root issue. The same is true for this case. It's not even that choosing not to eat meat makes a tiny impact. It makes absolutely no impact. So I'll always take my enjoyment of eating meat over giving up something I like for no reason.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    the ideal solution would be to eat grey squirrels. they taste delicious and cause untold damage to baby trees.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Pessimistic perhaps but the destruction of the earth's environment looks inevitable now. Eventually there will come a point when it impacts on us directly in big numbers but even that still won't stop the destruction. Humans + Technology + Consumer Capitalism = Environmental Apocalypse. And, no, we're not going to escape to the stars and leave all that crap behind, we will die in the crap.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    the ideal solution would be to eat grey squirrels. they taste delicious and cause untold damage to baby trees.
    What do red squirrels taste like?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    What do red squirrels taste like?
    :spank:

    :naughty:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    What do red squirrels taste like?
    Failure. Red squirrels are weak and people act like grey squirrels are evil when they’re just surviving. The thing that’s killing reds is the destruction of woodland and they don’t adapt well. There’s no grey squirrel mafia killing of reds, it’s the destruction of their habitat and natural selection. http://www.grey-squirrel.org.uk/reds.php
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Failure. Red squirrels are weak and people act like grey squirrels are evil when they’re just surviving. The thing that’s killing reds is the destruction of woodland and they don’t adapt well. There’s no grey squirrel mafia killing of reds, it’s the destruction of their habitat and natural selection. http://www.grey-squirrel.org.uk/reds.php
    Not really natural selection when they're artificially introduced is it?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I’m gonna derail the thread.

    1) red squirrels were seen as pests and were targeted by gamekeepers. Until they were endangered they were hunted by humans, the highland squirrel club alone killed 80,000 red squirrels in the first 30 years of operation.

    2) the parapoxvirus which is attributed to grey squirrels, may not have started with grey squirrels. Squirrel Natural Heritage (SNH) research has shown that Red Squirrels were dying of a disease between 1900 and 1920. Descriptions of the disease give very similar clinical signs to the disease that scientists now know to be poxvirus. Most of the Red Squirrels reported to be dying had never had any contact with Grey Squirrels. Grey squirrels are immune, red squirrels are not.

    3) Humans have continued to eat up Red Squirrel habitat at an alarming rate. 50% of the woodland that was present in the UK in the 1940s has been cut down, leaving ever decreasing places for the Red Squirrels to survive. Red Squirrels are far less adaptable than greys, and have suffered quite badly when their habitat has been destroyed throughout the centuries.

    The grey squirrel blame is a creation of people thinking correlation = causation. At the end of the day, both are victims of human intervention rather than the squirrel conspiracy.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Not really natural selection when they're artificially introduced is it?
    Check my post above. ^
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Failure. Red squirrels are weak and people act like grey squirrels are evil when they’re just surviving. The thing that’s killing reds is the destruction of woodland and they don’t adapt well. There’s no grey squirrel mafia killing of reds, it’s the destruction of their habitat and natural selection. http://www.grey-squirrel.org.uk/reds.php
    But gingers have souls.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    But gingers have souls.
    That just adds to the flavour.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    I’m gonna derail the thread.

    1) red squirrels were seen as pests and were targeted by gamekeepers. Until they were endangered they were hunted by humans, the highland squirrel club alone killed 80,000 red squirrels in the first 30 years of operation.

    2) the parapoxvirus which is attributed to grey squirrels, may not have started with grey squirrels. Squirrel Natural Heritage (SNH) research has shown that Red Squirrels were dying of a disease between 1900 and 1920. Descriptions of the disease give very similar clinical signs to the disease that scientists now know to be poxvirus. Most of the Red Squirrels reported to be dying had never had any contact with Grey Squirrels. Grey squirrels are immune, red squirrels are not.

    3) Humans have continued to eat up Red Squirrel habitat at an alarming rate. 50% of the woodland that was present in the UK in the 1940s has been cut down, leaving ever decreasing places for the Red Squirrels to survive. Red Squirrels are far less adaptable than greys, and have suffered quite badly when their habitat has been destroyed throughout the centuries.

    The grey squirrel blame is a creation of people thinking correlation = causation. At the end of the day, both are victims of human intervention rather than the squirrel conspiracy.
    Yes, things being hunted until their endangered then being protected is a common theme with humanity. I don't see what this is relevant to...

    Grey squirrels were introduced in what, late 19th century? Sure, may just be random coincidence, but that's a fairly strong coincidence. It doesn't have to be transferred purely from grey squirrel to red squirrel either, could be carried by reds, transferred by insects etc. Grey squirrels are immune because they've had time to build up an immunity, red squirrels are seemingly getting there as well. They're not inherently weaker, much as native Americans weren't inherently weaker than European settlers.

    Are they really that much less adaptable? I've seen red squirrels happily living in parkland, which is the main place I also see grey squirrels. I'd place good money on the fact that if there weren't grey squirrels everywhere, our cities parkland areas would be happily inhabited by red squirrels.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  SQUIRREL.jpg
Views: 32
Size:  86.5 KB
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BatmanRH)
    My friend shares images of deforestation and like any normal person it's pretty upsetting seeing the destruction humans cause.

    However, when I show him articles like this https://www.theguardian.com/environm...troying-planet, he's unwilling to give up meat.

    Why are people so selfish?
    I'm sorry, but simply giving up meat won't make one jot of difference to the environment. The same amount of space will still be used to make up the difference, and I can assure that a field of vegetables is no better for the environment than a field of livestock, if anything it's worse. Modern, intensive arable farmlands are effectively monocultural deserts where nothing but the desired crop is allowed to grow, and it wrecks the soil in the long term. At least pastural land has some degree of biodiversity and doesn't completely deplete the soil of it's microbial life and nutritional content.

    We do need to drastically revolutionise how we produce food, but it will take far more than simply going vegan or vegetarian. We need to figure out how to grow large amount's of food in confined spaces (aquaponics and vertical farming for example), and/or restore a greater balance with the natural world by figuring out how to apply permacultural practices to the food industry at large.

    Or we could just wait for the inevitable superplague to wipe out half of the Earth's population.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Yes, things being hunted until their endangered then being protected is a common theme with humanity. I don't see what this is relevant to...

    Grey squirrels were introduced in what, late 19th century? Sure, may just be random coincidence, but that's a fairly strong coincidence. It doesn't have to be transferred purely from grey squirrel to red squirrel either, could be carried by reds, transferred by insects etc. Grey squirrels are immune because they've had time to build up an immunity, red squirrels are seemingly getting there as well. They're not inherently weaker, much as native Americans weren't inherently weaker than European settlers.

    Are they really that much less adaptable? I've seen red squirrels happily living in parkland, which is the main place I also see grey squirrels. I'd place good money on the fact that if there weren't grey squirrels everywhere, our cities parkland areas would be happily inhabited by red squirrels.
    Maybe weaker was the wrong word, but it is more difficult for reds to survive in the current environment.

    Recently the preference has been for planting deciduous forests, which don't suit the red squirrel at all, and only help Grey Squirrels. Here in the UK, Red Squirrels find themselves at the very edges of their natural habitat.

    Red Squirrels could potentially survive in deciduous forest, even though the food sources available are not as beneficial to them as they are to Greys. However, given that greys thrive in deciduous and mixed forest, it is no surprise that Red Squirrels find themselves unable to compete in this type of forest. The poor diet means they breed slower than greys, and simply decline in these areas. This ecological replacement happens over significant timescales. Red and Grey Squirrels can live together for many years before the gradual decrease results in the Red Squirrels becoming extinct in the deciduous or mixed woodland. It is only where Red Squirrels can out-compete Grey Squirrels that they do very well. Research has shown that they require a minimum area of 200 hectares of coniferous woodland before they start to thrive sufficiently to do better than Grey Squirrels. Even in smaller coniferous forests, Reds will do significantly better than in deciduous or mixed forest where food sources are not so suitable for them.

    TL;DR The reds aren’t adapting to the changes in their habitat. They can’t digest acorns, which are plentiful food source in deciduous forests, and the seeds they need are harder to find. The existence of the grey squirrel isn’t much of a threat to the reds, it’s the change our environment that they haven’t managed to adapt to. Grey squirrels aren’t benefiting off the reds, they are just better suited to surviving in the UK than reds are now. To really help red squirrels we need to plant more coniferous forests so they can get a diet which gives them strength and a place to thrive and breed. Getting rid of grey squirrels only adds injury to the squirrel population, it won’t help reds.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Name:  SQUIRREL.jpg
Views: 32
Size:  86.5 KB
    This is the only thing in my life I feel passionate about. I’m a squirrel sjw now. I don’t believe in “one squirrel to rule them all”.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,206

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.