State of Nature Report

Yesterday and today I was reading the RSPB State of Nature Report on UK Plants and Animals; it makes depressing reading. Of the 3,168 species of plants and animals, which were part of the sample, there has been a 60% decline in their abundance during the last 50 years. Furthermore there has been a strong decline of abundance for 31% of the species.

What is more disturbing is that 1 in 10 of  a sample of 6,000 species is under the threat of extinction. There has been a a threat to the numbers and range of a number of species especially those which have specific environmental requirements.

Most environments ranging from coastal to uplands have been affected especially meadows where there has been a 97% reduction of area which is no defined as "meadow". Fenland and mires are being drained and peat bogs are also being replaced by forests.

Some of our most familiar and iconic species are disappearing fast such as sparrows and skylarks. Recently, I took a walk through a golf course on the north Norfolk coast and I was pleasantly surprised to see and hear a dozen skylarks. The skylark is now a rare sight elsewhere, however.

Some species such as the red kite and the otter have extended their range and numbers but the success of some species has been more than compensated for by the demise of many others.

When I was a youth growing up in West Wales in the 1950s and 1960s  there were large flocks of lapwings feeding on the farmland. Now I rarely see a lapwing when I pay a visit.

The estuary of the the Western and Eastern Cleddau rivers or Aberdaugleddau was regularly filled with massive shoals of herring; the local fishermen used small boats coated with black tar waterproofing to catch prodigious supplies of the fish. There are hardly any herring left  in the estuary now and any that are are caught with a line rather than a net.

Industrialised fishing has made the local herring shoals almost extinct and it has severely affected the mackerel shoals as well. The local fishermen do not land mackerel in large quantities anymore.

It seems that mankind is unable to exist on our planet without severely affecting the climate or the abundance of our fellow species of plants and animals. The effect that we have upon the ecosystems are closely related to the sheer number of our species and industrialisation. These two factors are affecting both the climate and   the environment in general.

We could cope with industrialisation if we where able to keep our numbers down. Some scientists such as James Lovelock aver that we can only control the emission of  greenhouse gases to an acceptable level if we reduce our population to around 1.5 billion people. I agree with him.

To reduce the human population would also help alleviate the pressure on our fellow species and help their populations to survive.

What is wrong with controlling our fertility? We are intervening in nature to control disease and increase the fertility of the soil and this intervention has led to huge increases in our numbers. We are not afraid to make medical advances to stave of disease so why not make social advances to control our population?

Industrialisation helps us to maintain a world population of 7 billion people; to deindustrialise would mean that millions would starve to death. There is only one way to maintain a healthy world, that includes a healthy human population, and that is to manage our population growth just as we manage soil fertility.

I do not agree with government imposed limits to family planning as it is an infringement to our liberty. However, I appeal to personal responsibility. If we all limited our family to one child we could halve the population of the planet within a hundred years or so. The planet easily has the productivity to feed 3.5 billion people but we need to halve the population again within the following one hundred years.

Reducing the population could be achieved without anyone starving to death. It would also reduce the likelihood of war created by nations competing for resources. It is possible if we make the necessary
political, economic and cultural changes to achieve this. I am not a member of population matters but I support their primary aim.

http://www.populationmatters.org/

I fear that mankind will not be able to control himself. But, we must ask ourselves the question, "do we want to live in a world where there is no room for a sparrow, a dandelion, a tree or a herring"? "Do we want to live in a world where only plants and animals that are useful to humans are allowed to survive"? "Do we want to live in a world where we are unaware of the dangers of eliminating our fellow species"? There is the possibility of  unwittingly achieving our own extinction by killing everything else.

Surely, 1 billion people is enough to ensure our own survival for the foreseeable future. A world with 7 billion  people assures us of nothing but depravation.