For more wonder, rewild the world

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

For more wonder, rewild the world



Wolves were once native to the US' Yellowstone National Park -- until hunting wiped them out. But when, in 1995, the wolves began to come back (thanks to an aggressive management program), something interesting happened: the rest of the park began to find a new, more healthful balance. In a bold thought experiment, George Monbiot imagines a wilder world in which humans work to restore the complex, lost natural food chains that once surrounded us.


One of the primary goals of rewilding is the mass restoration of ecosystems, and one way in which that can happen is trophic cascading, in which animals at the top of the food chain affect processes all the way down the food chain.

Monbiot’s gives a classic example:

In 1995, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park, 70 years after they had been exterminated. Wolves take life, but they also giveth. An unfathomable cascade followed: Deer populations went down, so streamsides and riversides flourished again; trees on the riverbanks quadrupled in height in just six years; bare valleys reverted to aspen and willow; birds and beavers alike flourished; beavers’ dams created habitats for otters, muskrats, fish, frogs and reptiles; and on and on. And a glorious, unexpected side effect: The wolves altered the rivers themselves. The return of trees reduced the rate of erosion and narrowed the width of the streams, meanwhile creating a greater diversity of pools and riffles. Even on the hillsides, vegetation has begun to recover. The Yellowstone wolves demonstrated that a single species, when allowed to pursue its natural behavior, can transform an entire ecosystem.

Wanted to bring this to ATS's attention, the concepts portrayed in the above talk truly show how much impact a single species has on the environment, a buttlerfly effect with immense consequences.
edit on 9-9-2013 by Clairaudience because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


Living where I live- and loving it, I usually have Mother Earth's back on environmental issues. But in this case, you can take your wolves and.... well I can't say it in public, but you get the idea. The wolves that have been introduced (not re-introduced, since they weren't here to begin with) to the northwest are a non-native invasive species. They have run rough shod over many peoples lives and livelihoods. They were exterminated for a reason, folks.

Smoke a pack a day!



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Re-wilding sounds great on the surface. But in reality, it's all part of the agenda 21, anti-human, de-population, "sustainable" future.
I'm not talking about wiping out 85% of the worlds population all at once, or anything. I'm talking gradual attrition, with a little help from those in a position to do so.

And then, of course, we have the brilliant idea of forbidden, or "human-free" zones across the world.

I actually like the idea of re-wilding to some extent, if there is a balance to what we are doing. Nevertheless, history shows, when humans attempt to help nature, we screw it up royally. We do less damage when we stop trying to help nature, and just do our best not to damage it any further.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


As much as introducing a single species can have a positive effect on the environment, it can also have a negative impact. The latter seems to be the case where you live at, no wonder, when introducing a non-native species you are basically asking for trouble rather than bringing the natural balance of things back.

There is an interesting article that relates to the above from Mr. Monbiot.
Native trees help wildlife – so why do councils plant so many exotic ones?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Local govs use non-native trees 'usually' because they are led astray by the contractors who are contacted to provide advice and information, and who eventually are given the contracts for public space 'beautification'. These business people grab their source list, add 100% to the warehouses prices and paste a copy into the proposal given to the city council.

When I decide to do some landscaping at home, I want to use plants that will require little or no maintenance, are resistant to the local diseases, and are easy to get and (with my brown thumb) replace the first couple of times till they finally take. Trying to get the county commission to do the same has proved impossible. Usually due to the 'professional' opinion obtained from the businesses looking to bid on the project. It is pretty hard to charge exorbitant prices for trees and bushes that can be picked up along most roadsides.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 

On the face of it, it sounds good. But, I think the lesson here is not to interfere with nature, not to interfere better.

In fact, the removal of the native tribes of humans appears to have caused the desertification in the example below.

What Could the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Possibly Teach Us?



As a young biologist, Savory was involved in setting aside large swaths of African land as future national parks. This involved removing native tribes from the land to protect animals. Interestingly, as soon as the natives were removed, the land began to deteriorate.

At that point, he became convinced that there were too many elephants, and a team of experts agreed with his theory, which required the removal of elephants to a number they thought the land could sustain. As a result, 40,000 elephants were slaughtered in an effort to stop the damage to the national parks.
edit on 9-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 

In Monbiot’s view, it’s not about controlling nature but letting it find its own way. There are a few necessary actions, like reintroducing absent plants and animals and pulling down fences, but in his view rewilding is not a teleological progression, with a correct endpoint or ideal ecosystem. “It lets nature decide,” he says.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I don't see how depopulation will help the planet. The rest of the creatures on earth are dumber than us, so really how would that help? A bunch of monkeys and deer and wolves and invasive species are going to somehow make things better?

It's anti-human to think that way. Humans have the capacity for both right and wrong, but we're far more than an animal. Animals will be animals, but humans have to choose to do good things and not do evil.

There's an agenda to make us out to be soulless animals. It's evil. Its goal isn't to make life better on earth, but to rob us of the truth and to send us down a path of ruin - all of it thanks to the father of lies and our capacity to sin.
edit on 10-9-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Consider the example of whales in the southern oceans. Though the Japanese government has argued that whaling boosts the population of krill and fish, the opposite appears to be true. Declining numbers of whales have an adverse ripple effect on the ocean’s ecosystem. Whales produce an iron-rich manure — “fecal blooms,” as scientists call them — that fertilizes plant plankton; more plant plankton means more zooplankton; more plankton means more food for fish and krill. And, Monbiot suggests, just as wolves have altered the behavior of the Yellowstone rivers, more whales could have changed the composition of the atmosphere for the better, since the plankton fertilized by them absorb carbon and remove it from the atmosphere. It would seem, says Monbiot, there is more and more evidence to support the Gaia hypothesis — that the Earth functions as a coherent and self-regulating system — from an ecological perspective.


Another interesting example portrayed in the TED talk.
edit on 10-9-2013 by Clairaudience because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5

log in

join