The following is from the soon-to-be-published book, The Beginning of the Path to Human Extinction, and HOW TO GET OFF IT - Notes on a Paradigm Shift. It's a small part of a subtopic, biodiversity loss---
.....................................
When
thinking about biodiversity loss, imagine a natural forest. It
has a rich variety of trees, shrubs, grasses, mosses, lichens, fungi,
animals, and microbes. It’s
a highly complex ecosystem which provides many “services”,
including those well-known,
such as the prevention of
soil erosion, the production of oxygen, and the trapping of the
greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
Because of its diversity, a
natural forest is resilient.
It can bounce back from the onslaught of
many destructive factors.
Now
imagine that a timber company clears it. It’s logged off, and most
of the remaining vegetation (shrubs, etc.) is burned or otherwise
removed. Then, in place of the previous forest, trees are re-planted
on what essentially is now a timber company “plantation”.
Usually, only one or two species are grown. Undergrowth
(mostly shrubs) is kept to a minimum, or
eliminated completely. In
other words, biodiversity has been greatly reduced. In addition,
pesticides often are used. Some portion of them find their way into
the soil, where they negatively impact any number of necessary soil
microbes and fungi.
This is a bare bones description of how “forest monoculture”
operates.
Which
of the two forests – the original, or
the monoculture “plantation” – do you think will be more
resilient? Which one will
shelter and nourish a wider variety of organisms? Which will
contribute more to soil fertility? [Artificial
fertilizers generally are not good for soil microbes or soil
structure. They, along with
herbicides and other pesticides, commonly are used on tree
plantations.] Which one
will better prevent soil erosion? Which
one will better resist tree-boring or leaf-eating beetles (which are
usually specific to each species of tree)? You
get the idea.
Consider,
too, the following. Humans cut down (worldwide)
an estimated fifteen
billion trees per year, and
re-plant only five billion.
About half the forests
which once covered almost half Earth’s land surface are now gone.
Only approximately one-fifth of our planet’s old growth forests
remain undisturbed and in pristine condition. In general and globally, we simply are not
sustainably managing a crucial natural resource.
Forests
have been called
the “lungs” of the world. Luckily
for us, they work differently than do animal lungs. Trees take in
CO2 and “breathe” out O2. It’s
usually easy to take adequate oxygen for granted, but we really
shouldn’t. All green plants should be fully appreciated and valued
as absolutely necessary to life on Earth. [A
possible exception to that would be noxious weeds, such
as various thistles & mesquites – both of which are injurious –
and poisonous/deadly nightshade.] Arguably,
trees
should be at the top of the
list of green plants to be revered. If for no other other reason,
because they provide us with oxygen and are
necessary carbon “sinks” (and
that’s critical to the climate problem).
It has been estimated that
deforestation
accounts for approximately
20% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
At
times, we no longer seem to fully appreciate that green plants in
general truly are a miracle of Nature. As you may recall from your
high school Biology class, the process of photosynthesis is one of
the main reasons life is possible on this planet of ours. In
the presence of sunlight and chlorophyll, plants convert carbon
dioxide and water into glucose
(food) and oxygen. The balanced chemical equation
is: 6CO2
+ 6H20 + energy/sunlight &
chlorophyll → C6H12O6 + 6O2.
The value of that process is incalculable. Photosynthesis
is a colossal accomplishment of evolution.
...........................
Not only my opinion. Be Well
p.s. The book should be out sometime next week.
.jpg)
