Could we have achieved our modern industrial technological society within a similar time frame or at all (with the industrial revolution as the starting point) and minimised our environmental impact (this includes human health, animal exploitation, etc)

Is most of it just human laziness, selfishness and an attitude of she’ll be right mate with some excuses of uncertainty of the damage industry could do at the beginning. Some environmental damage is unavoidable but it does seem we almost go out of way to wreck things. Is it a trait of a dominant “intelligent” species to act this way.

Cymek said:

Could we have achieved our modern industrial technological society within a similar time frame or at all (with the industrial revolution as the starting point) and minimised our environmental impact (this includes human health, animal exploitation, etc)

Is most of it just human laziness, selfishness and an attitude of she’ll be right mate with some excuses of uncertainty of the damage industry could do at the beginning. Some environmental damage is unavoidable but it does seem we almost go out of way to wreck things. Is it a trait of a dominant “intelligent” species to act this way.

But..the money..

inclined to break the propositions down, but not sure where to start.

seems to be what could have been done different, starting at the industrial revolution, somehow, though not sure how to think about that.

it strikes me that the proposition is very difficult, for one, because the human mind today is much the same as it was a couple hundred thousand years ago. There’s been no structural changes, the cognitive toolkit is fairly much the same as it was in the ancestral environment (Environments of Evolutionary Adaptation, or whatever).

I don’t see the structure as a problem, though think it’s more adapted for small groups, perhaps threatened with extinction.

is cultural evolution constrained by biology?

maybe, you could see it that way.

transition said:

is cultural evolution constrained by biology?

maybe, you could see it that way.

I’ve wondered that do we need to tweak the human species so we will consider the welfare of the many and the future unborn over the few and currently alive.

one thing i’ve been, well, toying with really, for a while now, is the category human, the extent individuals self-identify with, or as that species. What it means, the extent it’s done, if and how it maybe is distorting.

i’ve pushed it a bit, variously denying (in a sense) the self-categorizing, and trying to think what happens with self-identity as human.

like emphasizing i’m primate, mammal, primate mammal. Thinking about what it is to be primate, and what it is to be mammal.

trying to make the normal a bit weird, to tease it out.

motivation being, a suspicion the human thing is some-part denial of primate, and mammal. I think culture and ideology are involved.

Cymek said:

Could we have achieved our modern industrial technological society within a similar time frame or at all (with the industrial revolution as the starting point) and minimised our environmental impact (this includes human health, animal exploitation, etc)

Is most of it just human laziness, selfishness and an attitude of she’ll be right mate with some excuses of uncertainty of the damage industry could do at the beginning. Some environmental damage is unavoidable but it does seem we almost go out of way to wreck things. Is it a trait of a dominant “intelligent” species to act this way.

Define “environmental damage”.

It’s a serious question because no two people will agree on what actually constitutes “environmemtal damage”. A starting point would be evaluating by how much the natural envinment damages itself.

Hurricane, plague, flood, bushfire, erosion, cuckoos and other parasites, earthquake, volcano, meteor strike, ice age, etc are all ways that the natural environment destroys itself.

Now add to that 7.6 billion people. I would argue that the lower the level of technology, the lower the level of production efficiency and the higher the amount of environmental damage done by humans.

Take the megafauna for example, wiped out by low technology. If primitive man had had modern farming technology, modern cities, and a modern attitude to the preservation of biodiversity then every single megafauna species would have survived.

Modern society already minimises environmental damage. It’s even fair to claim that modern society even goes so far as to reduce the damage to the natural environment that is being done by the natural environment.

Postmodern, though, is a big backwards step.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Could we have achieved our modern industrial technological society within a similar time frame or at all (with the industrial revolution as the starting point) and minimised our environmental impact (this includes human health, animal exploitation, etc)

Is most of it just human laziness, selfishness and an attitude of she’ll be right mate with some excuses of uncertainty of the damage industry could do at the beginning. Some environmental damage is unavoidable but it does seem we almost go out of way to wreck things. Is it a trait of a dominant “intelligent” species to act this way.

Define “environmental damage”.

It’s a serious question because no two people will agree on what actually constitutes “environmemtal damage”. A starting point would be evaluating by how much the natural envinment damages itself.

Hurricane, plague, flood, bushfire, erosion, cuckoos and other parasites, earthquake, volcano, meteor strike, ice age, etc are all ways that the natural environment destroys itself.

Now add to that 7.6 billion people. I would argue that the lower the level of technology, the lower the level of production efficiency and the higher the amount of environmental damage done by humans.

Take the megafauna for example, wiped out by low technology. If primitive man had had modern farming technology, modern cities, and a modern attitude to the preservation of biodiversity then every single megafauna species would have survived.

Modern society already minimises environmental damage. It’s even fair to claim that modern society even goes so far as to reduce the damage to the natural environment that is being done by the natural environment.

Postmodern, though, is a big backwards step.

Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

For example should some practices be stopped worldwide (the ramifications and practicality aside) for example no more logging anywhere except for trees especially planted previously for this purpose.

The oceans have times were they aren’t fishes commercially at all (again impractical) so the life in it has time to replenish

many aspects of human progress have damaged humans, not sure you’d call that environmental damage?

quite a few elements as extracted and concentrated, like mercury and lead come to mind.

chemicals, whatever like pesticides, herbicides too.

when alcohol was distilled it came with extra problems (still exist today).

PCBs, flame retardants.

been a lot of learning about biological sensitivities along the way.

1 hour warning.

1 hour warning.

Bugger.

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

mollwollfumble said:

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

You do talk bollocks sometimes mollwoll.

mollwollfumble said:

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

The burning of coal gives off pollution and is part of the problem of global warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_of_the_Ganges

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

The burning of coal gives off pollution and is part of the problem of global warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

You do talk bollocks sometimes mollwoll.

I’m on record as stating that there’s a fine line between genius and stupidity.

Honestly, there’s bugger-all human air and water pollution these days, judged on a per capita basis. Except in places like China, Russia, India and Nigeria which are a bit slow in catching up.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

You do talk bollocks sometimes mollwoll.

I’m on record as stating that there’s a fine line between genius and stupidity.

Honestly, there’s bugger-all human air and water pollution these days, judged on a per capita basis. Except in places like China, Russia, India and Nigeria which are a bit slow in catching up.

I’m confident China will go big time into pollution control as soon as Western nations manufacturing sector is destroyed.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

You do talk bollocks sometimes mollwoll.

I’m on record as stating that there’s a fine line between genius and stupidity.

Honestly, there’s bugger-all human air and water pollution these days, judged on a per capita basis. Except in places like China, Russia, India and Nigeria which are a bit slow in catching up.

These days maybe but could we have minimised all environmental damage from the beginning so the problems didn’t exist in the first place. Reading about the Ganges river its still a polluted river today and if you read about it they dump anything and everything into it

mollwollfumble said:

I’m on record as stating that there’s a fine line between genius and stupidity.

OK, I’ll read on even numbered days in the future, when you are in genius mode :)

It wasn’t asking about today anyway, could humans have been responsible from the start and minimised pollution and still achieved our modern society. Profit seems the motivator to not clean up our waste as its easier and cheaper to flush it, dump it, release it, etc instead of storing it safely or minimising it in the first place.

Did we need to achieve a certain technological level before we could have cleaner methods of power generation, construction, etc and pollution was just a phase we can eventually do away with.

An impoverished society will denude the local area for firewood and construction material, eat the animals endangered or not and have goats that reduce the undergrowth and encourage erosion and its population will probably be growing.

A richer society would have a coal fired power plant, the sorrounding forests might be unmolested, the animals protected and volunteers with spare time freed from hand to mouth scrabble for existence might be reforesting th erosion gulleys and its population growth will be reduced.

OTOH the richer society will use more energy, consume more resources albeit better managed and over time its environmental impact will diminish…possibly.

How to compare and measure the two?

Cymek said:

It wasn’t asking about today anyway, could humans have been responsible from the start and minimised pollution and still achieved our modern society. Profit seems the motivator to not clean up our waste as its easier and cheaper to flush it, dump it, release it, etc instead of storing it safely or minimising it in the first place.

Did we need to achieve a certain technological level before we could have cleaner methods of power generation, construction, etc and pollution was just a phase we can eventually do away with.

Well yes. We needed to harness and store solar power, for example.

These days it’s all about money. Electricity bills go up because people have solar and the companies aren’t getting as much money, so they claim maintenance fees no matter how much you actually use.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Polluting water sources for example, dumping of toxic waste irresponsibly, pollution from power generation (could we have minimised it from the beginning).

ROFL.

The pollution from power generation is waste heat, which dissipates in an hour or so.

More toxic waste is commonly produced naturally by plants and minerals.

Polluting of water sources by humans has decreased to such an extent that a polluted bay (such as Sydney Harbour) has less pollution in it than a bay that has no human input. I addition, the sewage outfall from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant is so beloved by the environment that it attracts birds down from as far away as Siberia.

You do talk bollocks sometimes mollwoll.

I’m on record as stating that there’s a fine line between genius and stupidity.

Honestly, there’s bugger-all human air and water pollution these days, judged on a per capita basis. Except in places like China, Russia, India and Nigeria which are a bit slow in catching up.

Nano-plastics in the oceans, co2 in the atmosphere, destruction of native habitat on the land. What do you need to change your mind?

AwesomeO said:

An impoverished society will denude the local area for firewood and construction material, eat the animals endangered or not and have goats that reduce the undergrowth and encourage erosion and its population will probably be growing.

A richer society would have a coal fired power plant, the sorrounding forests might be unmolested, the animals protected and volunteers with spare time freed from hand to mouth scrabble for existence might be reforesting th erosion gulleys and its population growth will be reduced.

OTOH the richer society will use more energy, consume more resources albeit better managed and over time its environmental impact will diminish…possibly.

How to compare and measure the two?

Richer countries will also pay poor countries to destroy their environment for the buyers benefit.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

An impoverished society will denude the local area for firewood and construction material, eat the animals endangered or not and have goats that reduce the undergrowth and encourage erosion and its population will probably be growing.

A richer society would have a coal fired power plant, the sorrounding forests might be unmolested, the animals protected and volunteers with spare time freed from hand to mouth scrabble for existence might be reforesting th erosion gulleys and its population growth will be reduced.

OTOH the richer society will use more energy, consume more resources albeit better managed and over time its environmental impact will diminish…possibly.

How to compare and measure the two?

Richer countries will also pay poor countries to destroy their environment for the buyers benefit.

Or poor countries destroy their environments to get rich, opposite sides of the same coin.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

An impoverished society will denude the local area for firewood and construction material, eat the animals endangered or not and have goats that reduce the undergrowth and encourage erosion and its population will probably be growing.

A richer society would have a coal fired power plant, the sorrounding forests might be unmolested, the animals protected and volunteers with spare time freed from hand to mouth scrabble for existence might be reforesting th erosion gulleys and its population growth will be reduced.

OTOH the richer society will use more energy, consume more resources albeit better managed and over time its environmental impact will diminish…possibly.

How to compare and measure the two?

Richer countries will also pay poor countries to destroy their environment for the buyers benefit.

Or poor countries destroy their environments to get rich, opposite sides of the same coin.

Well neither is good for the poor countries, but the richer countries environmental impact is not restricted to their own country, but due to their capacity to purchase, can set the agenda everywhere else.

mollwollfumble said:

Define “environmental damage”.

It’s a serious question because no two people will agree on what actually constitutes “environmemtal damage”. A starting point would be evaluating by how much the natural envinment damages itself.

Hurricane, plague, flood, bushfire, erosion, cuckoos and other parasites, earthquake, volcano, meteor strike, ice age, etc are all ways that the natural environment destroys itself.

I don’t agree that the the natural environment damages itself. Yes damage occurs but as a general rule this is all a part of the evolution of the planet. I know we can argue that humans are also a part of this but we are attempting to discuss this as if we are an intelligent species that should know what it is doing, know what it is capable of and be able to make reparations. For example much of the increased intensity of so called natural disasters in hurricanes plagues and floods even droughts, we now know to be due to us changing the climate.

mollwollfumble said:

Now add to that 7.6 billion people. I would argue that the lower the level of technology, the lower the level of production efficiency and the higher the amount of environmental damage done by humans.

Take the megafauna for example, wiped out by low technology. If primitive man had had modern farming technology, modern cities, and a modern attitude to the preservation of biodiversity then every single megafauna species would have survived.

I disagree that primitive man was the primary cause of the loss of every single species of megafauna. not by a long shot.

AwesomeO said:

An impoverished society will denude the local area for firewood and construction material, eat the animals endangered or not and have goats that reduce the undergrowth and encourage erosion and its population will probably be growing.

A richer society would have a coal fired power plant, the sorrounding forests might be unmolested, the animals protected and volunteers with spare time freed from hand to mouth scrabble for existence might be reforesting th erosion gulleys and its population growth will be reduced.

OTOH the richer society will use more energy, consume more resources albeit better managed and over time its environmental impact will diminish…possibly.

How to compare and measure the two?

Firstly the impoverished society would be partly that due to not enough population to do much other than by hand.
Secondly the richer society could easily be hampered by to much in the way of population.

I’m wondering that once we knew our actions were damaging to the planet and everything living on it could be have minimised this damage and still achieved our modern lifestyle within the same time span. Or was the damage required to get to this point in time so we can know minimise it and attempt to repair it. It seems much of it could have been averted but wasn’t because it required more effort, time and money.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

An impoverished society will denude the local area for firewood and construction material, eat the animals endangered or not and have goats that reduce the undergrowth and encourage erosion and its population will probably be growing.

A richer society would have a coal fired power plant, the sorrounding forests might be unmolested, the animals protected and volunteers with spare time freed from hand to mouth scrabble for existence might be reforesting th erosion gulleys and its population growth will be reduced.

OTOH the richer society will use more energy, consume more resources albeit better managed and over time its environmental impact will diminish…possibly.

How to compare and measure the two?

Firstly the impoverished society would be partly that due to not enough population to do much other than by hand.
Secondly the richer society could easily be hampered by to much in the way of population.

Plus first world society requires nations of the underclass to make things cheaply and if they wanted our level of lifestyle it would mean less resources for them

for me, the OP raises the question of what is the ordering force, here on earth, this example of negentropy, if you like.

in the detail about the emergence of and evolution of self-replicating organic structures there maybe some seeds of guidance, or it could be a black hole of despair, an oblivion for reason.

the trajectory of progress does seem to have required a lot of death, that hasn’t escaped me.

i’m not planning on joining a voluntary extinction organization.

nature’s quite efficient that way anyway, or time I should say, the thermodynamics, it renders the past extinct moment to moment, it’s quite unforgiving that way, and not entirely unexpressed in the dominant species human.

the OP question’s quite interesting that way, for me.

In the big scheme of things there will be no minimising environmental damage when the sun goes BOOM.

Peak Warming Man said:

In the big scheme of things there will be no minimising environmental damage when the sun goes BOOM.

And eventually all matter will decay.

And then Australia will win the Bledisloe.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

In the big scheme of things there will be no minimising environmental damage when the sun goes BOOM.

And eventually all matter will decay.

And then Australia will win the Bledisloe.

Not if you are an adherent of steady state.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

In the big scheme of things there will be no minimising environmental damage when the sun goes BOOM.

And eventually all matter will decay.

And then Australia will win the Bledisloe.

Not if you are an adherent of steady state.

In which case they’ll never win

Had trouble with website shutting down, back up now.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m on record as stating that there’s a fine line between genius and stupidity.

OK, I’ll read on even numbered days in the future, when you are in genius mode :)

As an engineer, you’ll know what the following are:

bag filter
electrostatic precipitator
scrubber
catalytic converter
tertiary treatment
fertilizer dose control
use of plant breeding to eliminate insecticides and fungicides
tillage minimisation
cleaning of bilge water
proper disposal of paints and oils

Yes. They are just a few of the many ways often implemented in the past 50 years to reduce air and water pollution.

Air and water pollution 50 years ago were terrible. Port Kembla was completely black with soot from the steelworks, and so was the washing on the line. Sydney Harbour and Lake Illawarra were full of jellyfish and stank. Bondi Beach was out of bounds on the many days when raw sewage flowed down it. Even earlier, mercury and oil flowing down our rivers made a nasty contribution. Further back, tannery wastes and charcoal production were the worst of all for water and air pollution respectively. All that’s gone now, I’d be happy drinking water straight out of any one of our rivers.

Ten years ago, the main source of water pollution in Australia was rubbish blowing off and being washed off landfill sites by natural wind and rain, that’s mostly been stopped now. The improvement in human-generated pollution levels in the past 50 years has been incredibly amazing. Even just in the past year in Melbourne, a former tip that used to stink to high heaven has been fixed so now it’s really difficult to detect any smell at all – I went sniffing around it two days ago just to check.

You do remember how much worse air and water pollution was in the 1970s? Or are you too young for that?
Back in the 1970s it was predicted that air and water pollution would have killed off, by now, more people than the whole of WWII. Hasn’t happened.
In fact the opposite has happened, the deadliest air pollution of recent years has been rye grass pollen.

mollwollfumble said:

Had trouble with website shutting down, back up now.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m on record as stating that there’s a fine line between genius and stupidity.

OK, I’ll read on even numbered days in the future, when you are in genius mode :)

As an engineer, you’ll know what the following are:

bag filter
electrostatic precipitator
scrubber
catalytic converter
tertiary treatment
fertilizer dose control
use of plant breeding to eliminate insecticides and fungicides
tillage minimisation
cleaning of bilge water
proper disposal of paints and oils

Yes. They are just a few of the many ways often implemented in the past 50 years to reduce air and water pollution.

Air and water pollution 50 years ago were terrible. Port Kembla was completely black with soot from the steelworks, and so was the washing on the line. Sydney Harbour and Lake Illawarra were full of jellyfish and stank. Bondi Beach was out of bounds on the many days when raw sewage flowed down it. Even earlier, mercury and oil flowing down our rivers made a nasty contribution. Further back, tannery wastes and charcoal production were the worst of all for water and air pollution respectively. All that’s gone now, I’d be happy drinking water straight out of any one of our rivers.

Ten years ago, the main source of water pollution in Australia was rubbish blowing off and being washed off landfill sites by natural wind and rain, that’s mostly been stopped now. The improvement in human-generated pollution levels in the past 50 years has been incredibly amazing. Even just in the past year in Melbourne, a former tip that used to stink to high heaven has been fixed so now it’s really difficult to detect any smell at all – I went sniffing around it two days ago just to check.

You do remember how much worse air and water pollution was in the 1970s? Or are you too young for that?
Back in the 1970s it was predicted that air and water pollution would have killed off, by now, more people than the whole of WWII. Hasn’t happened.
In fact the opposite has happened, the deadliest air pollution of recent years has been rye grass pollen.

Reminds me of some farmers who have had a cold winter, therefore think global warming is a load of rubbish.

PermeateFree said:

Reminds me of some farmers who have had a cold winter, therefore think global warming is a load of rubbish.

PermeateFree’s response reminds me of a religious nutter who is going to be so upset when the world doesn’t end next Thursday.

I would have thought that a memory is an essential part of survival. How do you live without one? Or did you just spend the first half of your life in an existential haze, blind with no sense of smell?

I repeat what I said earlier. Modern society is all about minimising environmental impact and maximising biodiversity, and has been for at least since the clean air act of 1961.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Reminds me of some farmers who have had a cold winter, therefore think global warming is a load of rubbish.

PermeateFree’s response reminds me of a religious nutter who is going to be so upset when the world doesn’t end next Thursday.

I would have thought that a memory is an essential part of survival. How do you live without one? Or did you just spend the first half of your life in an existential haze, blind with no sense of smell?

I repeat what I said earlier. Modern society is all about minimising environmental impact and maximising biodiversity, and has been for at least since the clean air act of 1961.

Why don’t you try thinking about the rest of the world, rather than just your own backyard.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Reminds me of some farmers who have had a cold winter, therefore think global warming is a load of rubbish.

PermeateFree’s response reminds me of a religious nutter who is going to be so upset when the world doesn’t end next Thursday.

I would have thought that a memory is an essential part of survival. How do you live without one? Or did you just spend the first half of your life in an existential haze, blind with no sense of smell?

I repeat what I said earlier. Modern society is all about minimising environmental impact and maximising biodiversity, and has been for at least since the clean air act of 1961.

Why don’t you try thinking about the rest of the world, rather than just your own backyard.

Why do you choose to live in such a small world moll? You really are the frog at the bottom of the well; for your own satisfaction and reputation, check the facts before you post.