by Bengt Holst | Nov 3, 2024 | Animal ethics and welfare, Nature and environment, Nature view
We’re used to seeing death as something negative – and with good reason. It takes life away from us and creates a sense of loss when loved ones pass away. It is so final and cannot be undone. But death is also a prerequisite for life and a very important event in the natural processes.
The role of death in nature
“One man’s death is another man’s bread”, there is a saying that applies on many levels.
In nature, death is a prerequisite for the survival of predators and the livelihood of the many animals that feed on carrion, from vultures, hyenas and marabou storks to carrion beetles and fly larvae. The dead animals quickly decompose and become new life, which fulfills important roles in ecosystems and in this way also becomes a prerequisite for our own lives. Life and death go hand in hand in the biological processes that make up life here on Earth.
Acceptance of death
Death is thus just another biological state that we find difficult to relate to, but which is a completely natural element on a living planet like ours. To understand nature, we need to accept death as a premise on a par with life itself and not let our feelings about the meaning of death for ourselves guide our actions.
Intervening in nature’s processes
And with this in mind, we should not least look at our intervention in the natural processes where death plays a role. Should we intervene in the face of impending death in nature, knowing that if we do so, we deprive other living organisms of the opportunity to create new life?
Ethical considerations
Should we satisfy our own feelings and value those feelings so much that we intervene and prevent the coming death based on a principle of “compassion”?
In cases where we are responsible for the coming death of other beings – by running over animals or shooting them and the like – the answer can be quite easy. There we have made ourselves responsible for the lives of others. But what about the many situations in nature where we simply witness death? Should we intervene there too? Read the rest of the post in Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Sep 1, 2024 | Nature and environment
The world’s oceans cover approximately two-thirds of the Earth’s surface and hold no less than 1,332,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water.
It’s a staggering number that none of us really understand. It’s no wonder, then, that the oceans have always been seen as an infinite resource when it comes to fishing and an infinite waste receptacle when it comes to sewage and other forms of waste. But plastic waste in our oceans is a growing problem.
The global scale of plastic pollution
Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The ocean, like land, is by no means infinite and therefore cannot hold infinite amounts of waste. This is evident in the vast oceans, where plastic in particular has accumulated due to ocean currents in five large floating plastic piles that together cover an area the size of Africa. The largest of these is floating in the Pacific Ocean and is almost 1 million square kilometers – or about 20 times the size of Denmark. It consists of hardly degradable waste such as old fishing nets, ropes, plastic containers of various kinds and microplastics. All leftovers from our consumerism.
Pollution in Danish waters
But we don’t have to travel to the Pacific Ocean to see the results of our way of life. Much has been written in recent years about oxygen depletion in Danish fjords, the lack of fish in the Baltic Sea and, more recently, ‘ghost nets’ in Danish waters. Ghost nets are abandoned fishing nets that are either intentionally or accidentally left in the sea and then float around underwater as floating traps until, after 500-600 years, they have decomposed enough to no longer pose a danger to marine animals.
The deadly consequences of ghost nets
A 2021 report estimates the total number of ghost nets in Danish waters at just under 50,000. That’s a lot, a lot, and even though the nets are not all full-sized, they catch thousands of seabirds and marine mammals every year that suffer an agonizing drowning death in the stray nets.
Microplastics and toxins in the food chain
And not only that – during the decomposition process in the ocean, the fishing nets slowly transform into microplastic particles, which then absorb various toxins in the water and thereby poison the animals that ingest them, including us humans who eat fish, for example. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Jul 7, 2024 | Nature and environment, Nature view
Sensation, shambles, ommer and historic agreement. These were just some of the many words used to describe the green tripartite agreement when it was finalized at the end of June after months of intense negotiations.
Criticism and compromise
Some think it is far too unambitious and others that it favors either agriculture or nature too much. But the fact is that the parties have agreed, and that in itself is a great achievement that justifies the term “historic agreement”. It gives ownership to all parties and therefore also ensures support when the agreement is implemented after the upcoming political negotiations.
Content: Historically good?
But what about the content? Is it also historically good? That depends on the eyes of the beholder. There is no doubt that each of us could have wished it better in different areas, depending on where we stand. But deep down, we also know that the agreement has been the art of the possible, and that all parties have had to make compromises during the process.
Focus on the future
So, let’s forget the traditional tribal dances associated with all political agreements and look forward. Let’s forget the things that aren’t in the agreement and concentrate on the things that are actually in it.
The main points of the agreement
250,000 hectares of forest will be planted, of which 100,000 hectares will be managed as “untouched forest” – i.e. without production in mind. 140,000 hectares of low-lying land will be set aside for wild nature by 2030.
A Nature and Biodiversity Act will be drawn up to ensure, among other things, that at least 20 percent of Denmark’s area will be protected nature by 2030.
A plan must be drawn up to reverse the development of the nature that is currently in a very bad state, so that in 25 years we can ensure that it is in what is called “good condition”. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Jun 29, 2017 | Animal ethics and welfare, Bio-diversity, Nature and environment
Rewilding is a concept that is really getting on the agenda in Danish nature management. As a result, it was a central theme several times at the Nature Meeting in Hirtshals in May. But what exactly is rewilding? It’s not always easy to understand. The common definition is that rewilding is about re-establishing the biological processes in nature that over time have created different habitats and thus the conditions for species diversity. In other words: to get more wild nature by using nature’s own means.
Large grazers as tools of nature
In practice, rewilding often involves the reintroduction of large animals like moose and deer that help shape nature. But it can also be horses, cattle or sheep. What these animals have in common is that they are herbivores and in their own way they work the vegetation and soil to create better living conditions for other species. They create the conditions for open forest and open meadows. A good example is the reintroduction of the beaver in Jutland and North Zealand, where this “nature’s engineer” has recreated wetlands and thinned out forest stands by building dams – an effort of great importance for the management of natural areas and the preservation of biodiversity.
Challenges and ethical dilemmas
But rewilding is not without its challenges. To recreate natural dynamics in the landscape, it is important that humans do not interfere. The processes must find their own balance to achieve the greatest effect. Fallen trees should be left to decompose naturally and dead animals should remain in the landscape for scavengers like crows, beetles and microorganisms to benefit. But where do you draw the line? It’s one thing to let wild animals die a natural death, but what about horses, cows or other domesticated animals that are used to human protection? Are we prepared to let them starve during harsh winter months and perhaps die a painful death to keep our balance? Or is there a point where we must intervene – and compromise the basic principles of rewilding?
Rewilding and legislation – who is responsible?
Another important aspect is legislation. What rules should apply to animals that have previously been under the care of humans, such as horses, but are suddenly released into the wild? Do we still have a responsibility for them, or does it end the moment they become part of the wild? These questions are crucial to how rewilding can be integrated into Danish nature management. The debate has now been taken up in the Animal Ethics Council, but rewilding must also be part of the wider societal debate. We must ensure a clear framework for rewilding – for the animals and for society.
This post was originally published at Animal Ethics Council
Recent Comments