In all the current talk about sustainability, sustainable development, biodiversity, conservation of natural resources, one factor is prominently missing. Human Populations.
In the solutions offered, re-use, recycling, sustainable harvesting and all the other clichés are trotted out, but how often does anyone suggest curtailing the urge to reproduce? Around 30 years ago, the subject was much higher on the agenda, and I made the decision not to reproduce, a decision I have never regretted, and as I travel around the world and see the impacts of more and more people aspiring to more and more material wealth, I realise limiting reproduction to one or none, is the greatest single contribution any of us can make to the future of the planet. Particularly those who live in the developed, all-consuming world. Britain is now in a panic over its aging population, requiring medical care and pensions. However, the reality is that young populations are much more dangerous in terms of the need for resources. The elderly often have savings and property -- the problem is they want to hang on to them and not use them for paying for their medical care and retirement. They want to be able to pass them on to their family -- and the greater the number of decendents the more they want to hold on to.
The argument goes that if the birth rate falls there will be fewer young people to support the ageing population. But this is a myth. If the birth rate were to fall dramatically, many older people would work longer -- many don't actually want to retire -- and wealth tied up in an aging population is significantly greater than in a young population. It's simply a matter of ensuring that capital is released in their lifetime, and not just passed on to the next generation, thereby making the gap between rich and poor wider and wider.
Friday, 8 April 2005
Friday, 11 March 2005
Treating Fox mange with mumbo jumbo
A couple of years ago, the Mammal Society, once the leading organisation for the scientific study of mammals in the UK actively promoted the homeopathic treatment of wild mammals. All members of the Society were sent a leaflet advocating using homeopathic doses of arsenic at a dilution of 30c which (according to information on the very informative www.quackwatch.com website) could require several billion litres of water to effect such a dilution.
The Mammal Society claimed that "a few drops of the homeopathic treatment are placed on something sweet, such as a jam sandwich, which is scattered around the garden. A full course of treatment will take around three weeks, although an improvement can usually be seen in a few days." How they know it is the dilute water and not the jam sandwich (or anything else) that effects the cure was not made clear.
The then Chairman of the Mammal Society claimed that "This particular treatment has been tested extensively by the Fox Project and the National Fox Welfare Society and all the data that have been collected show that it works. It certainly seems to be at least as good as Ivermectin, but has none of the associated problems, and is a treatment that can be used by members of the public without the need for veterinarian intervention. So if all the data suggest that it works, I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that people try it if they have no other treatment they can use."
Finding out the basis of these claims is nigh on impossible, and the Mammal Society seemed reluctant to even discuss them, let alone provide data alleged to have been collected. Among the few pieces of quantifiable data available, are the costs recorded on the mange.org.uk web site:
"In the year 2000 the society sent out in excess of £18,295 worth of treatment free of charge. This homeopathic treatment of Arsenicum alb & Sulphur 30c helped over 3,659 foxes. Already in the last six months of 2001 we have sent out in excess of £9,120.00."
When one member of the Mammal Society queried the Society's position, the Chairman (Professor Stephen Harris, of the Department of Zoology, Bristol University) wrote:
"I am inundated with e-mails that waste my time and I had rather viewed the correspondence on mange and homeopathic treatments as falling into that category. Hence I have not exactly rushed to respond to the request for hard data since part of the aim of the current study is to collect just such data." In fact as the earlier quotes demonstrate, Professor Harris is actively supporting this "research", despite the fact that the manner in which the so-called study is being conducted, does not appear to be able to collect any hard data -- only anecdotal information, mostly from untrained sources. It's the sort of 'data' most reputable scientists would run a mile from.
Keeping an open mind is certainly important, but what next? Cynics within the Mammal Society have suggested some possible lines of future research for Professor Harris and his Bristol team. They could investigate the influence of zodiac signs on the breeding cycle of rams (Aires spp.), bulls (Taurus spp) and goats (Capra spp.). They could use dowsing to trace mole runs and other subterranean mammal runs. And Feng Shui might be very helpful as a tool for improving catch rates in mouse traps. Or perhaps Bristol University might carry out a study on food combining as practiced by competing populations of bank voles (Clethrionomys) and wood mice (Apodemus). The possibilities are endless, and have about an equal scientific basis. Most scientists would agree that letting people practice alternative medicine, is a human right akin to the freedom of worship. But like religion, the fact that it has virtually nothing to do with science is self evident. But then some scientists presumably must pray to get the research results they want. Keeping an open mind is one thing, but as it has been said on many occasions, not so open the brain falls out.
The Mammal Society claimed that "a few drops of the homeopathic treatment are placed on something sweet, such as a jam sandwich, which is scattered around the garden. A full course of treatment will take around three weeks, although an improvement can usually be seen in a few days." How they know it is the dilute water and not the jam sandwich (or anything else) that effects the cure was not made clear.
The then Chairman of the Mammal Society claimed that "This particular treatment has been tested extensively by the Fox Project and the National Fox Welfare Society and all the data that have been collected show that it works. It certainly seems to be at least as good as Ivermectin, but has none of the associated problems, and is a treatment that can be used by members of the public without the need for veterinarian intervention. So if all the data suggest that it works, I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that people try it if they have no other treatment they can use."
Finding out the basis of these claims is nigh on impossible, and the Mammal Society seemed reluctant to even discuss them, let alone provide data alleged to have been collected. Among the few pieces of quantifiable data available, are the costs recorded on the mange.org.uk web site:
"In the year 2000 the society sent out in excess of £18,295 worth of treatment free of charge. This homeopathic treatment of Arsenicum alb & Sulphur 30c helped over 3,659 foxes. Already in the last six months of 2001 we have sent out in excess of £9,120.00."
When one member of the Mammal Society queried the Society's position, the Chairman (Professor Stephen Harris, of the Department of Zoology, Bristol University) wrote:
"I am inundated with e-mails that waste my time and I had rather viewed the correspondence on mange and homeopathic treatments as falling into that category. Hence I have not exactly rushed to respond to the request for hard data since part of the aim of the current study is to collect just such data." In fact as the earlier quotes demonstrate, Professor Harris is actively supporting this "research", despite the fact that the manner in which the so-called study is being conducted, does not appear to be able to collect any hard data -- only anecdotal information, mostly from untrained sources. It's the sort of 'data' most reputable scientists would run a mile from.
Keeping an open mind is certainly important, but what next? Cynics within the Mammal Society have suggested some possible lines of future research for Professor Harris and his Bristol team. They could investigate the influence of zodiac signs on the breeding cycle of rams (Aires spp.), bulls (Taurus spp) and goats (Capra spp.). They could use dowsing to trace mole runs and other subterranean mammal runs. And Feng Shui might be very helpful as a tool for improving catch rates in mouse traps. Or perhaps Bristol University might carry out a study on food combining as practiced by competing populations of bank voles (Clethrionomys) and wood mice (Apodemus). The possibilities are endless, and have about an equal scientific basis. Most scientists would agree that letting people practice alternative medicine, is a human right akin to the freedom of worship. But like religion, the fact that it has virtually nothing to do with science is self evident. But then some scientists presumably must pray to get the research results they want. Keeping an open mind is one thing, but as it has been said on many occasions, not so open the brain falls out.
Monday, 7 March 2005
Ripping off Charities with awards?
A few weeks ago, inside a newsletter sent to charities, I found a leaflet promoting the HR Excellence Awards 2005. Superficially it might seem that giving an award for an organisation doing something well is a good thing. But think about it. There can only be one winner, and that winner will probably be a subjective decision by a group of judges with their own particular biases and interests. And then the winner will be able to trumpet all over their literature that they are the best, the winners. Thereby implying that the others in their field are not as good, or are even somehow inferior. I am far from convinced this is the best way of encouraging excellence in the charitable world. Particularly when you realise that in order to enter, you have to pay a fee of £295 plus VAT. And if you are in a shortlist, no doubt you will be expected to book a table at the Dorchester, at an additional cost, to be present at the awards ceremony. So caveat emptor when you see a charity has won this or that award, find out who they were competing with, and how much they spent on entering, and how much was spent on going to the awards ceremony. Do you really want to support a charity that not only spends hard earned money on patting itself on the back, but presumably spends a lot of time filling in forms, and going to awards ceremonies?
Thursday, 17 February 2005
More about real rainforests vs. imitations
In 1996 the World Land Trust was donated an indoor rainforest in Berkshire - Wyld Court Rainforest - as a visitor centre. The World Land Trust managed the centre until 2000, when the trustees decided to dispose of it; it has since become an independent charity and now known as the Living Rainforest.
One of the main reasons the Trustees of the WLT decided to relinquish the rainforest in Berkshire was that it was a huge drain on WLT resources - the income from visitors did not cover the running costs, and although the original donor had made a generous donation to subsidise the operations, these were running out. The only real benefit to the WLT was that raising funds to subsidise operations was relatively easy - a lottery grant of over £100,000 was just one of several. But the World Land Trust was established to conserve real rainforests, and eventually the difficult decision was taken, and the ownership handed over to a new board of directors.
Five years on the Living rainforest is flourishing, and in terms of education this is clearly a good thing, but from a conservation perspective it is also rather depressing. The national lottery has just given it nearly £1 million. To create an imitation rainforest of less than one acre. Meanwhile the World Land Trust is trying to raise a mere $8 million to buy over 150,000 acres of real rainforest. But neither the lottery, nor any other government agency will support such a purchase.
It reminds me of the old foreign aid trap: in the past most foreign aid was given to projects that mostly benefited the donor country - money to buy equipment only available from them, that needed expensive ongoing maintenance from the donor country. Now the lottery can claim to be helping rainforests, by developing education resources. But in reality it is only helping the economy of the countries doing the damage; if it spent the same amount on real rainforest it could save endangered species as well as thousands of acres.
One of the main reasons the Trustees of the WLT decided to relinquish the rainforest in Berkshire was that it was a huge drain on WLT resources - the income from visitors did not cover the running costs, and although the original donor had made a generous donation to subsidise the operations, these were running out. The only real benefit to the WLT was that raising funds to subsidise operations was relatively easy - a lottery grant of over £100,000 was just one of several. But the World Land Trust was established to conserve real rainforests, and eventually the difficult decision was taken, and the ownership handed over to a new board of directors.
Five years on the Living rainforest is flourishing, and in terms of education this is clearly a good thing, but from a conservation perspective it is also rather depressing. The national lottery has just given it nearly £1 million. To create an imitation rainforest of less than one acre. Meanwhile the World Land Trust is trying to raise a mere $8 million to buy over 150,000 acres of real rainforest. But neither the lottery, nor any other government agency will support such a purchase.
It reminds me of the old foreign aid trap: in the past most foreign aid was given to projects that mostly benefited the donor country - money to buy equipment only available from them, that needed expensive ongoing maintenance from the donor country. Now the lottery can claim to be helping rainforests, by developing education resources. But in reality it is only helping the economy of the countries doing the damage; if it spent the same amount on real rainforest it could save endangered species as well as thousands of acres.
Tuesday, 25 January 2005
Life After the Tsunami (Part 2)
When the next tsunami occurs (note, WHEN, not IF) the impact could be even greater then the recent disaster. And over the next few months there may well be one or more. The recent tsunami was a result of movements in the tectonic plates -- a sudden jolt -- but that can easily increase pressures in other parts of the plate. It can also produce volcanic activity in the region. Following the tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion about the devastation of Krakatoa in 1883, but most the discussion ignored the fact that activity continues, and that there have been several other major eruptions particularly in the 1920s and 1930s. But they were nothing compared with the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Although the direct death toll was 'only' in the region of 10,000, another 85,000 died from disease and starvation. And that was at a time when the population of Indonesia was a fraction of the present day. The resulting ash and dust clouds rose an estimated 28 miles (44kms), and spread over an area of more than 1000kms; today the devastation it would cause is almost unimaginable. In fact, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere suffered a series of crop failures, and exceptionally cold winters. Charles Dickens (born 1812) grew up in this period, and his growing up with snow at Christmas, has influenced Christmas traditions in England ever since. But the crop failures were they to be repeated now, would be disastrous, and the impacts far reaching, causing widespread starvation in many parts of the world, not just southern Asia.
While there is very little that can be done to avert natural disasters -- Acts of a vengeful God -- there is plenty that can be done to avert the disastrous impacts of man's activities. Pollution can be reduced, and even human populations can be reduced. But they demand strong political will, in all countries. It may appear futile for governments to initiate pollution reduction, and population controls while some countries, particularly the US continue with expansionist policies, but a start has to be made. And perhaps eventually, a US president who is more rational and better informed will be elected, one who wishes to work with the world community. In an ideal world, conservation issues should be non-political, but in a world dominated by the largest superpower it has ever known, which is also the richest, and most consumptive, it is impossible to ignore politics. Nearer to my own home it is also impossible to ignore the fact that the British Government is still spending obscene amounts of money on arms and warfare, in comparison with what it spends on the natural environment.
While there is very little that can be done to avert natural disasters -- Acts of a vengeful God -- there is plenty that can be done to avert the disastrous impacts of man's activities. Pollution can be reduced, and even human populations can be reduced. But they demand strong political will, in all countries. It may appear futile for governments to initiate pollution reduction, and population controls while some countries, particularly the US continue with expansionist policies, but a start has to be made. And perhaps eventually, a US president who is more rational and better informed will be elected, one who wishes to work with the world community. In an ideal world, conservation issues should be non-political, but in a world dominated by the largest superpower it has ever known, which is also the richest, and most consumptive, it is impossible to ignore politics. Nearer to my own home it is also impossible to ignore the fact that the British Government is still spending obscene amounts of money on arms and warfare, in comparison with what it spends on the natural environment.
Life after the Tsunami
The tsunami in the Indian Ocean has been one of the most devastating natural disasters in living memory, and it is also record breaking in many other ways, particularly in media attention and funds raised for the victims. This is all a very good thing. As BBC TV showed last night, even more importantly it has also raised public awareness over the huge disparities in the funding governments devote to poverty alleviation and other forms of foreign aid and what they spend on warfare and invading other countries such as Iraq.
Many of the supporters of the World Land Trust have asked how the disaster affects conservation, and fund raising by conservation organisations. This is interesting, because normally disasters affecting humans have a sudden and dramatic negative impact on conservation fund raising, but in this instance a significant proportion of the public are aware of the importance of habitat conservation as part of the process of general protection of the environment. Almost immediately after the Christmas holidays, we received donations from the public asking that we direct the funds specifically to restoration of mangroves. So it is clear that among the better informed sectors of the public, there is a very clear linkage between the damage done by the tsunami, and the loss of protective mangroves. The World Land Trust has for many years been involved with conservation and restoration of mangroves and the protection of coral reefs in the Philippines, and we were already discussing with the Wildlife Trust of India the possibility of assisting them with projects in the Andaman Islands, and so it is very timely that we are launching our Reef and Mangrove Appeal, which will assist projects aimed at habitat restoration and protection.
Many of the supporters of the World Land Trust have asked how the disaster affects conservation, and fund raising by conservation organisations. This is interesting, because normally disasters affecting humans have a sudden and dramatic negative impact on conservation fund raising, but in this instance a significant proportion of the public are aware of the importance of habitat conservation as part of the process of general protection of the environment. Almost immediately after the Christmas holidays, we received donations from the public asking that we direct the funds specifically to restoration of mangroves. So it is clear that among the better informed sectors of the public, there is a very clear linkage between the damage done by the tsunami, and the loss of protective mangroves. The World Land Trust has for many years been involved with conservation and restoration of mangroves and the protection of coral reefs in the Philippines, and we were already discussing with the Wildlife Trust of India the possibility of assisting them with projects in the Andaman Islands, and so it is very timely that we are launching our Reef and Mangrove Appeal, which will assist projects aimed at habitat restoration and protection.
Wednesday, 19 January 2005
Rainforests: Imitations or the real thing?
Paignton Zoo is building a new rainforest exhibit in Devon, England, and not so long ago the Eden Project opened at a cost of nearly £100,000,000. While these are very laudable efforts to show the public the importance of rainforests, they are also somewhat depressing to us at the World Land Trust.
Most of the rainforest exhibits in England (as well as other parts of the northern hemisphere) are funded at least partially with public money – grants from the Lottery, government and foundations, but the amount of money these funders are prepared to put to funding real rainforest is absolutely insignificant by comparison. For £100,000, 000 the WLT could save around 10 million acres of land. Eden Project costs £8million a year to run – that's another million acres that could be saved.
Obviously the money spent on Eden and other UK attractions – probably in excess of £50 million a year, is not available for land purchase, but it does put it all into some sort of perspective. If every pound that was spent on seeing these imitation rainforests was matched with a donation for the original thing, the WLT could achieve a lot. I can speak with some authority, as for several years the World Land Trust owned and managed Wyld Court Rainforest, near Newbury (now the Living Rainforest) and compared with raising money for the real thing, fund raising for a glass-house rainforest was a walkover.
Food for thought?
Most of the rainforest exhibits in England (as well as other parts of the northern hemisphere) are funded at least partially with public money – grants from the Lottery, government and foundations, but the amount of money these funders are prepared to put to funding real rainforest is absolutely insignificant by comparison. For £100,000, 000 the WLT could save around 10 million acres of land. Eden Project costs £8million a year to run – that's another million acres that could be saved.
Obviously the money spent on Eden and other UK attractions – probably in excess of £50 million a year, is not available for land purchase, but it does put it all into some sort of perspective. If every pound that was spent on seeing these imitation rainforests was matched with a donation for the original thing, the WLT could achieve a lot. I can speak with some authority, as for several years the World Land Trust owned and managed Wyld Court Rainforest, near Newbury (now the Living Rainforest) and compared with raising money for the real thing, fund raising for a glass-house rainforest was a walkover.
Food for thought?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
