BS: Green/Godly Gardening

Subject: BS: Plant Natives Please
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 16 May 09 - 01:33 PM

Further to the gardening verses in http://walkaboutsverse.sitegoz.com (e-scroll) or http://blogs.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse (e-book), and with the concern that Gardeners' World (BBC) seem to be leaning more-and-more away from native gardening...

Green gardening is native gardening, and vegetables, plus other consumables, should be the only exotic-flora we plant - as doing so can help limit food-miles, etc. By filling our other garden spaces with natives, we use less water and other resources, whilst aiding the native-fauna that, over the centuries, have evolved with them.
(Even high-nectar exotics, such as Buddleia, that are very attractive to SOME native-fauna, should be avoided, because they upset nature's/God's balance – God created evolution, too, that is.)
Our green gardens, with their vegies and natives, can be made still greener by the addition of compost heaps/bins; a wildlife pond – for native frogs, newts, etc, rather than exotic goldfish; bee- and bird-boxes, plus carefully selected feeders; rain- and grey-water vats; by growing everything organically, including thrifty home-propagation/species-swapping; and by leaving some lush untidy patches, decaying branches, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:38 PM

"Again, I think the difference between saying that the policy is humane and saying that the implementation of the policy is humane needs to be pointed out."

I disagee, Carol. Saying that you are "glad they stuck with" the policy isn't just about acknowledging the need for some sort of policy; it implicitly condones the policy's implementation.

"And for one to say that the motives behind posting poetry are "self-aggrandizing" requires assumptions (and probably some amount of projection)."

This isn't about poetry. WAV compulsively posts links to his website as his world manifesto. If someone posts a link to a website once or twice, fair enough. WAV's links to his own website must number in the hundreds by now. Many people have commented that it speaks of a certain level of self-obsession.

"There is a rule against personal attacks. "

And if the moderators felt that i had contravened them, I'm sure I would have heard by now.

This thread is closed. It has run its course and nothing being said is under any discussion except individual personalities and how they relate.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:19 PM

Again, I think the difference between saying that the policy is humane and saying that the implementation of the policy is humane needs to be pointed out.

If the policy results in many fewer deaths than would be the case without it, then it can be argued that it is more humane to have the policy than to not have the policy. And in that case, the only thing that needs to be discussed (in terms of being humane or not) is how the policy is implemented.

Having contentious views, or even ones that those who don't share them consider inflammatory, isn't the same thing at all as attacking people. And for one to say that the motives behind posting poetry are "self-aggrandizing" requires assumptions (and probably some amount of projection). This is a music site. People post song lyrics here all the time in lieu of discussion... even their own song lyrics. Poetry is lyrics that haven't yet been set to music.

There are no rules in the Mudcat against people holding opinions that others don't like, or even posting lyrics (or poetry). There is a rule against personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM

"they are both heavily against my views on economic/capitalist immigration, which I am certain has been bad for Aboriginal and English, e.g., culture and society, and which I feel should be controlled by the UN."

which you won't discuss, or defend, beyond referring people back to your website. It is this tactic of making highly contentious statements, and then refusing to engage in any kind of debate, which has frustrated people almost as much as the statements themselves. If you would answer criticism directly, or provide any kind of evidence for your assertions (beyond referring people back to your qualifications, or resorting to the refuse tip that is Wikipedia), you might find that people are less dogged - usually, they're just trying to get a straight answer from you. Which you mostly refuse to give. My personal opinion is that it's because you don't actually have any (academically defensible) evidence for most of your views and assertions, and can't argue your case successfully, so you choose instead to constantly evade those who try to pin you down.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM

Do explain, then, WAV, how you defend this statement:

"I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies..."

I ask again: given the awful outcomes for thousands of abused and murdered children, how can you say you are glad that China has stuck to its policies? Do you think that all of those wasted lives are an accepptable price to pay so that we in the west feel more comfortable with the rate of population growth in China? Now that you have been confronted with the outcomes of those policies, do you still believe them to be green and humane?

And what's wrong with Wavey Davey?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:52 PM

I'm not sure of Ruth's stance on native gardening, but IB seems to agree with me, roughly, on that; however, they are both heavily against my views on economic/capitalist immigration, which I am certain has been bad for Aboriginal and English, e.g., culture and society, and which I feel should be controlled by the UN. And it's largely their pro-immigrationism that has led them to say ridiculous things and use some unfair tactics, such as putting words in my mouth, using "Wavey", "retarded", "misanthropy"!...could it be that I've at least tried to support the land rights of Aborigines, Masai, etc., raised the problems of population growth, etc., and put up with these tactics because I (with my degree in humanities, shoestring travel through about 40 countries, etc.) genuinely DO CARE about humanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:45 PM

"(especially when the ones being treated that way never fight back)"

no, they just post contentious and inflammatory political views and refuse to present any evidence for them, beyoind the constant self-aggrandisation of posting links to their own websaite.


WAV on the Chinese government:
"I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies..."

I have responded to this statement, pure and simple. There is nothing either green or humane about how China has implemented its birth control policies. Given the awful outcomes for thousands of abused and murdered children, how can anyone with even an ounce of humanity say they are glad that China has stuck to its policies?

This is what I challenged. This is what WAV has refused to discuss. Why? because I think he now realises what a horrible gaffe he made by raising China as an example of good practice. But he cannot ever admit that he was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:26 AM

I'm not a big fan of people ganging up on others (especially when the ones being treated that way never fight back) and there definitely is a lot of attacking going on in the threads in which this person posts. It is possible to disagree with, to challenge, and even to dislike someone's opinions without continually putting that person's back up against a wall or abusing them (not saying everyone is doing this, but some definitely are).

However, while there are many aspects of this person's opinions that I do not agree with, and some I even dislike, I can also see a lot of people jumping to incorrect conclusions about what this person is saying. When I see people arguing with points that haven't even been made, it looks to me like it's being done for reasons other than just disagreement.

I think if people would just respond to what has been said, and not inject any of their own stuff into what has been said, they would find a lot more common ground (that can serve as a point of departure in a constructive discussion) than they seem to think is there. People's minds can gain new perspectives when they feel an exchange is on an equal footing, but that doesn't usually happen when someone feels that their back is up against a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:01 AM

No one is attacking this person, rather it is the retarded absolutist fanatical ego-centric views this person espouses & promotes as being, as this person believes, the best way forward for humanity that are being attacked. It is only because this person chooses to set themselves up in this way that this person's views are thus challenged, as such views must be, simply because they read like the ravings of a mad horse, which is not to call this person a mad horse, rather to perhaps invite this person to reconsider their position somewhat before that conclusion is, perhaps, inevitably drawn. Such views that this person has, and chooses to promote, at some considerable length, have been proven, time and time again, to represent a misanthropy that might well be considered to be inhumane at its most fundamental, or else merely irksome, to those of us who might have knowledge or experience of the things this person persists in discussing whilst being demonstratively wanting even in the fundamentals of those subjects. That this persons persists in such matters is evidence of such a self-promoting ego-centric misanthropy which, it might be suggested, is not entirely an indication of the best of intentions on the part of this person towards humanity as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:53 AM

Carol, I am NOT attacking David. I have disagreed with him, and attempted to discuss a point with which I strongly disagree. What's more, there is substantial evidence to support why I disagreed with him. Trying to get him to defend, or present any evidence for, his position is, as usual, like nailing jelly to a wall.

Look, I understand that you feel victimised on this forum, and I understand why. I have seen posts of yours, with which i agree quite strongly, and seen that you seem to attract quite a lot of criticism. I really don't know the history behind it all as I've dipped only occasionally into those threads, but I reckon that your own experiences have led you to want to "defend the underdog" when you see cases of others being treated similarly.

But where you see a victim in WAV, I perceive a sort of sinister passive-aggression combined with a huge ego. He also makes some very xenophobic claims about folk music, which I would challenge wherever and whenever I heard them, because I believe these have the potential to seriously damage the reputation of the tradition.

Okay, suppose no one ever disputed any more of WAV's theories and ideas, because to do so somehow constitutes a personal attack. He has already demonstrated the ability to keep endlessly reiterating his "life's work", starting multiple new threads and obsessively drawing attention to himself and his theories. Is this a particularly social way in which to interact with people? If he does not wish to be challenged on his ideas, he should publish them exclusively on his own website, where no one has any opportunity to respond. But this is a forum, and a forum means people debate and discuss and challenge the ideas of others - not that WAV tells us (over and over again) how it is and we just say, "yes, of course you're right."

Someone told me recently that he's been spamming one of the traditional music e-mail groups with his poetry. You think he's being attacked on Mudcat, you want to see some of the responses to his "life's work" there...isn't it interesting how certain people tend to draw the same responses from various different groups, but somehow it's never their fault?

At the end of the day, from what I have observed, it's the people who insist on shoving their own ideas and points of view down the other people's throats, over and over and OVER again, that really wind people up, and which eventually makes their contributions unwelcome. There are genuine victims, and then there are people who deliberately court negative attention. It's important to distinguish between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:18 AM

There is an important difference between saying the "implementation" of the policy is humane and saying the policy itself is humane. The person who is being attacked in this thread has not said that the way the policy has been implemented is humane, although they have been accused of having said that. This distinction is important.

The only reason I can see why people would insist on putting words in this person's mouth is that doing so makes it a lot easier to attack this person.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:14 AM

you still haven't explained what makes China's policy humane, Wavey.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:11 AM

Volgadon: we humans have taken the first part of Genesis 1:28 too far - for our own good, and for the good of the flora and fauna that we "rule over".

Poem cum song/lay 101 of 230: JUST SUBSIST
(I've turned mostly-vegan since writing this, but decided to leave it.)

At times when I've had time to take,
    I've thought of a plot by a lake:
The plot would be of fertile ground;
    The lake would have some trout around.

The plot's house would be made of brick -
    Well insulated, in good nick.
And round this abode there'd be built -
    Solar panels, kept at best tilt.

Inside large coops would run the legs
    Of chooks and quails - for fresh eggs.
A vine for grapes plus summer shade;
    And, in thin beds, vegetables laid.

Up at dawn, to use all sunlight -
    Fish and farm by day, read at night.
A spouse with me I'd not resist -
    In retirement, we'd just subsist.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:33 AM

"I stand by the idea that controlling the world's population is green, humane, and necessary"
I'm not quite sure what green means, apart from being a fashionable catchphrase which doesn't really say much, but it seems a bit rich that the person who decries growing non-native plants as 'ungodly', will applaud China's efforts in population control, which go right against Genesis 1:28. Is God on your side, or rather, are you on His, only when it's convenient for your own dogma?

I think that people should have the right to choose for themselves how many children to have, be it ever so many or ever so few. If they want to have a lot because of their religion, that's fine, they are following their own path to happiness just as much as the family with one, aren't they?
Who is to say that having one or two kids is necessarily better, or worse. At the very least, it's unbelievably presumptious to make that choice for the parents.

As for divorce, sometimes it is better than staying together, but it can leave lasting marks on people. Again, that's something that the individuals involved should decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:54 AM

I don't think anyone has failed to acknowledge the need for a more healthy policy along the lines of what Bee has suggested - what ws disputed was the notion that the implementation of this particular policy was "humane".

Humane for whom? It may have benefitted the world overall to slow the population growth, but it has not been "humane" towards the children who have been its victims. My point is that it is very easy to solve the world's problems on paper, with neat little solutions that assume everyone will behave in a particular way, but real life is rather messier than that.

And going back to my earlier point about "broken" homes, the same applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 08:02 PM

China did offer rewards for people who had only one child. And it also allowed people in rural areas to have more than one child without being penalized.

My own opinion is that they could have done a much better job of trying to reduce their population growth rate (which is what they did, rather than reducing the population overall). However, this policy arises from real need and not from a lack of concern for human rights. If we want to criticize the government of China for its human rights abuses, there are plenty of other things to criticize that don't address any urgent needs. But people who understand why the government of China established and implemented this policy do not necessarily do so because of a lack of concern for human rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM

CarolC, a number of circumstances drive people to have larger numbers of children. One is the practical consideration of working farm families to have children to help and expand the family harvesting capability. Another is the lack of knowledge to do anything much about how many children you have - reproductive education. Another is the meddling of religions which oppose birth control. Another is the patriarchal fetish for many sons, and the patriarchal contempt for women.

China actually made great steps in educating the urban and less isolated farming areas populations about birth control, though not so well in isolated areas. China is an enormous land area, with a monstrous population - hard to reach everybody. What China did not do was offer appropriate assistance to struggling farm families, so that the combination of a conventional perceived need for sons to help and a contempt for the value of women resulted in the practice of trying for a son until you got one. China did not institute a program of educating the people about women's equal value, nor did they attempt to deal with the problem for decades, despite being fully aware of the practice. They were also late, and I would blame a government consisting mostly of men who held the same prejudices against women, in understanding the consequences of not having enough young women.

Chinese social scientists were not stupid or uneducated, but they were a product of their culture, and they blindly entered a huge social experiment without a thought given to the inevitable effect on girls and women, and the eventual effect on men of too few women.

Making sure farm families were not hamstrung by having fewer children would have helped. Using their huge and largely successful propaganda machine to raise the status of women would have helped. Rewarding people for having fewer children would have helped - that kind of incentive has been offered in many countries, mine included, for increasing the number of children.

When people are largely affluent, secure, and educated, they limit the size of their families without anyone making it a law. China may well be on that path now - we can hope.

India, btw, is experiencing a similar problem, for similar reasons, though without the forced family size - low status of women + ability to abort or abandon = people opting for sons and not daughters.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM

No Bee - I'm very much for reducing suffering, as I've said in poems 1 and 71, e.g.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:51 PM

Like I said, I agree that the way it's being implemented is bad. But I would be interested in hearing any suggestions about how they might have done it more effectively. They needed compliance in what was, and still is, an emergency situation that could result in many more deaths than has been the case with the way their policy has been implemented so far. How might they have done things differently and still have gotten the compliance they needed?

I also have to say that although I hate that girls have been treated the way they have been under this policy, in order for that to have happened, girls and women must have not been regarded as having any value in the first place. That needed to be changed, and from what has been shown here in this thread (by others), the shortage of women in China is causing that society to reevaluate how they regard women. This is likely to have a profoundly beneficial impact on women in that country in the future.

So boiling it down to "people who don't condemn, in absolute terms, the population control measures taken by the government of China, are racists and Nazis" (as seems to be the inclination of some), is oversimplifying things in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:42 PM

CarolC, 'not forcing population control' does not equal 'no policy at all'.

WAV, so you are okay with the consequences of China's backfiring experiment with population control - for you it really is a case of 'less Chinese people is good no matter how much suffering occurs'.

Now I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:29 PM

I was actually in China 20 years ago, and remember thinking - what will it be like when all these bicycle riders have cars; and, it seems, as they embrace capitalism and materialism, more-and-more do have cars; cars are becoming less-and-less polluting, thank goodness; but still, as CC says, thank goodness the governments of the likes of China and India have made some efforts on population control..."Liberty, as surfeit, is the father of much fast" (William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure).

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:33 AM

China's policy is certainly inhumane the way it's been carried out. There's no question about that. But not having any policy at all might be even more inhumane. Had the government not had any policy at all, China might well have become so overpopulated that large numbers of people might have died from famine. As it is now, some of China's rivers are becoming dry before they reach the ocean. These are mighty rivers that once carried large quantities of water all the way to the ocean. And that's after a few decades of having the population control policy. Try to imagine what things would be like in that country had the government not instituted its population control measures. Attacking people is easy. Finding stuff out takes a bit more effort.

The government of China certainly ought to find better ways of keeping their population numbers down, but to suggest they shouldn't have any policy for doing so at all shows a lack of understanding of the situation in China.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM

Sorry Bee, you'll have to wait while he reviews his favorite volumes of "Angelic Techniques Toward Godly Humanity" by Dr. Josef Mengele..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

WAV, could you possibly address the actual issue, which is not simply the evils of orphanages (something that can occur regardless of population control efforts), but the gender-unbalancing of an entire population, leading to severe consequences, and why you have called China's policy 'humane'?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 07:22 AM

Firstly, I am of course aware that there can and has been inhumane treatment of children in orphanages - including in my country.
And, as for population/birth control, what I'd add to the above is that reducing the revolting inequality between nations, and providing better care/security for the elderly within nations, would also help.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:40 AM

WAV, I asked you how you could possibly have described China's policies, and the results, which are catastrophic for both women and men in that country, 'humane'.

You have a choice of answers, you know. You can admit that you were ignorant of the realities I've pointed out, and therefore intend to revise your views. Or you can somehow find a way to defend those consequences as being 'good', which I'd be fascinated to see. Or you can continue as you are, leaving us to think that in fact you have no human feelings at all for Chinese people and could not care less about their suffering, as long as there are fewer of them. I don't know any people who think that last, so I doubt if that's the case, but I'd really like you to clear that up for me.

Population is best controlled, since you ask, by alleviating poverty, educating people about reproductive health and birth control strategies, and countering the rantings of those religious groups which oppose birth control of any kind. That strategy has worked very well in countries where poverty is not a huge issue, such as Canada. There is never a case to be made for forcing population or birth control, because the consequences are always tragic.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:49 PM

"What do you suggest on this "taboo" topic?..."

I asked you first. You're the one who seems to think he has all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

You once again fail to answer direct questions........The how-to of population control is a debatable topic certainly. But your (Wavy) "limiting influx" stands as at the very least, segragationist and racist.......which I believe you are as you continue to promote those things.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 05:19 PM

On top of native gardening, tidal and wind power, etc, recycling, reducing our consumption, etc., Bee, we have to consider population control - i.e., if we care about future generations (it would be inhumane not to). What do you suggest on this "taboo" topic?...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 04:58 PM

CarolC, at one point I might have agreed that WAV does appear to be picked on as opposed to debated, which IMO is what you should ideally do if you disagree with someone.

Right now, however, and I am addressing you directly, WAV, I am shocked by your unthinking (I hope) support (even calling it humane!) for China's previous birth limit policies. Have you missed entirely that because, like far too many places in the world, women have been so undervalued in China that families have deliberately aborted girls, practiced infanticide with girls, abandoned them (along with children with birth defects or illnesses) to orphanages? Have you missed that there is now an overwhelming number of young men in China with no hope of ever marrying, because there are nowhere near enough young women for them to marry? That the Chineses government is predicting serious consequences in terms of an inevitable rise in crimes because of this? That there is already an increase in the abduction and rape of women, and that they are now making an effort to convince the people of the value of women?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:30 PM

"at least for those who do care about children"

so what's your solution for China's orphaned girls, Wavey? All those sad little by-products of population control...

Your poem explains nothing, and offers no solutions to the real, messy problems of lives lived - not theorised about on paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 03:11 PM

I stand by the idea that controlling the world's population is green, humane, and necessary - at least for those who do care about children and futute generations. The Indian government has also made an effort - on the windy roads, up the Himilayas, I saw sign-posts saying, e.g. "Have one or two, and that will do."

Poem 88 of 230: FROM 20TH-CENTURY SEXUALITY

From One Lover to Free Lover to Fee Lover,
    For children's sakes, let's fashion back to One Lover:
In public-life there are - guess what - women and men;
    Thus, upbringing's best by a woman and a man -
Not by one or two men, or one or two women,
    And not in a tug-of-war of women and men.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:15 PM

bloody hell, Wavey - you're so blinkered it's quite scary.

Have a look on the links I provided at how those children are living in Chinese orphanages and tell me that ANY life in the UK wouldn't present them with a better alternative. The stories about orphanage "dying rooms" have been circulating in the west for at least 15 years that I'm aware of, so while some aspects of China may be impenetrable, this is one area which is well known thanks to several undercover investigations by journalists. Nothing done in the name of "population control" could justify the miserable lives - and sad, needless deaths - suffered by the children in the links I posted.

So if you wouldn't "displace" those orphans in a foreign land, Wavey, and the laws in China prevent them from being raised within families there, and the care provided by the state is basically abusive, what would you do to relieve the misery of their lives? And please don't mention the UN - this is not their remit and they're not doing anything about it. Is it okay to just shrug your shoulders and say "It can't be helped", and leave them to their fate? After all, they're only foreigners...

Having raised a child in the UK, at least I can speak from experience on the matter. Yes, the UK can be agreat place to bring up kids. It depends on where you live and your socio-economic background, but that's true of any country, and has in fact always been the case. My daughter is healthy, happy and thriving. She has received a good education and a sound upbringing (if I do say so myself) - though now that her father and I have separated, she is from what you would describe as a "broken home". What does that mean to you, exactly? Her dad is still very much in her life and we share her custody and our responsibility for her. She lives in a nice village and goes to a good school, and enjoys quite a priveleged lifestyle, to be honest. She says she's happier now than when we all lived together - the tensions of an unhappy marriage are stressful for everyone involved.

See, a lot of your philosophies stem from your theories about how life works rather than from direct experience. Theoretically, population control in China is "green and humane" - the reality proves to be quite different. In your mind, the only kind of stable home for a child is with two parents, but the realities of life meant that this is not always possible, and that when marriages break down (and it's inevitable that they will sometimes - that's life) children can still live in stable, happy homes.

Despite your much-mentioned travel through 40 countries, my guess is that your life and relationship experience is actually quite limited. Maybe you ought to wait till you have a bit more firsthand experience before you tell other people how best to live their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 01:22 PM

You agree that it's difficult to know exactly what's going on in China, Ruth? Do you agree that there was/is a need for the government there to attempt to slow population growth? I don't think orphans should be displaced to a foreign land, frankly. And as for England, now, one in three children have to try and grow up in broken families - do you think it's a relatively good place to bring up a child. I think it was a few decades ago - not now.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

Wavey Davey, you were the one who called China's approach to population control green and humane. I'm not sure how "green" a system is which has created a population of complete gender imbalance, but it has been known for many years that the system there is anything but humane for the millions of children who have become little more than its waste product.

The UN is not the world's police force. Unless you are suggesting replacing all federal law with the UN, it would have no power in such cases. The fact is, your "green, humane" system, which might be so on paper, has failed dismally in reality.

Given your views on immigration, I'd love to know what you think of the agencies who rescue little girls from Chinese orphanages - these children who are the victims of the system you so admire - and place them with families abroad, including here in England...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

"Too many people certainly" (Spaw)...there are now about 1.3 billion people in China - what if the government had not tried regulation? And, as for any human rights issues in any given country, Ruth, that's where a stonger better-respected UN is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 12:15 PM

There are other (long time and well respected) members of the Mudcat who aren't attacked for saying the same kinds of things about population control. My own opinion is that it's possible to develop technology that would make the growing population less of a problem than it currently is. We just need to be working much harder on developing these technologies. Also, populations tend to produce a lot of offspring when they are under stress. Those of us in the West (the US and the UK, in particular), could help reduce this problem quite a lot if we didn't wage our proxy resource wars in those countries, thereby putting their populations under stress.

On immigration, my own opinion is that it's not possible to keep cultures geographically separate. That horse has left the barn. Not that I would desire it even if it wasn't too late... I find that people who are culturally similar or the same will still find people to scapegoat even without the presence of people who are culturally different. I lived for 13 years in a place that was about as culturally homogeneous as it is possible to be, and they picked on people who were a different kind of Lutheran than themselves, or people who were poor or came from a different neighborhood.

But if we want to create a situation in which there would be fewer people from stressed populations trying to find peace and security in our countries, we need to stop contributing to the problems that are stressing out those populations. Most people would rather stay in their own countries if they can feel secure and have a decent standard of living. If we want to ensure that the immigrants already in our countries will be able to live among us peacefully, we need to make sure that we don't discriminate against them in our countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 10:53 AM

"Curb the birth queue
And influx, too."

And Walkslikearacist again shows his stripes. "Green/Godly" my fuckin' ass. Too many people certainly but I think its obvious where you stand (although it is difficult to find a piece of shit standing in a pile of it).

This thread has never been about gardening...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:42 AM

"I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies..."

the by-product of China's "green, humane" birth policy

and more
quote from the site above:
"Critics have cited a number of reasons for the deliberate starving of these Chinese children. Many of the children admitted to the orphanages were abandoned because they were born disabled. In a country that has an official policy limiting families to one child, some couples abandon disabled children so that they can try again for a healthy child; others may do so to shift to the state a caretaking burden they are unable to bear.

In the Chinese orphanages, according to these critics, it is these disabled children who tend to be subjected to `summary resolution'--deliberately starved, not treated when they develop easily treatable medical conditions, sometimes medicated to keep them quiet as they starve, and confined to `dying rooms.'...The parallels with the treatment of disabled children in German institutions during the Nazi era are haunting."

and, of course, female infanticide

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 09:03 AM

"Plus, any wildlife that frequents them gets chased away or otherwise disturbed."

My ex-husband played a course in South Africa where the monkeys would come down from the trees and nick your balls... :0)


"Curb the birth queue
And influx, too."

Oh dear. Here we go again...

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 07:09 AM

...and too many people? 6.7 billion is too many for the area of land on Earth; and 50 million is too many for the area of land that is England, e.g. I certainly don't agree with the Chinese "Communist" Party on everything, but I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies...

Poem 102 of 230 CONGESTION

The waxing view;
And the taboo:

Again-and-again for congestion,
Leaders make this sort of suggestion -

Nationalisation,
    Remuneration,
Standardisation,
    Cooperation,
Integration;

Fine...but (through dread of accusation -
    "They don't care about our children" -
And of losing the next election)
    Most politicians never mention -
Promote a lower population.

I do care for the lives of children,
And think birth-control mends congestion -

Curb the birth queue
And influx, too.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

Golf courses are a plague here - far too many of them, they require far too much fussing and application of pesticides and herbicides, and the fertilizer run-off has damaged a number of waterways near various courses. Plus, any wildlife that frequents them gets chased away or otherwise disturbed. I don't mind a few, but in the maritimes there are far too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:07 PM

There's pros and cons, and controversy, with golf-course development, also. As one of the presenters of The Open (BBC) coverage highlighted, a native rough can be good for native fauna; but some courses have been developed in parts of the world where fairways and greens require lots of extra watering.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

I'm feeling a little hopeless about eco-anything at the moment. The Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia is one of the most heavily clear-cut areas of the province, and right now I can hear the machines, which have been running from 7am to midnight every day for two weeks now, not a half km. from where I sit. I've had a headache from the grinding constant noise for days - my tender rural ears are not used to this.

I'm really torn. We've protested this practice for years and gotten a few protected areas out of it, and I'm well aware of the much needed well paid forestry jobs involved. I also know that these guys will not likely replant, which IMO is better than replanting a mono-culture of spruce, which is the common practice. The new forest here will begin with blueberries, brambles, nannyberry, elderberry and similar plants, quickly succeeded by young poplar, birch and maple, and last will be the spruce, fir, and a few pines. It's a better kind of mix than what was already there, for many kinds of wildlife, and the policy now is to leave standing snags that encourage woodpeckers and owls to nest. Still, it is disheartening to see the vast barren cut-outs the first year or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM

I would suggest reading my post again. I didn't say across the board. I did say, "certainly not all of them".

I can say from experience living in a city that is an up and coming resort area, when real estate people get involved, local legislation tends to work in favor of the people who make their money in the real estate business. Our city council is made up mostly of people who make their money in real estate, and most of their decisions reflect this inherent conflict of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM

carol, each development decision is going to be different, isn't it? Each will have a different social and environmental impact on the area. So I don't think we can simply say that it's a good thing across the board...

"If such places are places of beauty, what's going to prevent more large-scale building in them eventually anyway?"

Local legislation? Protection orders?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:42 AM

If the point of eco-tourism is for people to be able to see unspoiled places, it seems to me this is a good thing for many of those places (certainly not all of them). There is no guaranteeing that such places will not end up like Benidorm in the long run, even if there is no eco-tourism. If such places are places of beauty, what's going to prevent more large-scale building in them eventually anyway? But with eco-tourism at least, the owners of facilities in such places have an incentive to keep the surrounding areas unspoiled rather than building them up, or they will lose their clientele.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:29 AM

Bee, there are good points made about the over-developed coastline, the water resources etc. But by visiting resorts where this development has already taken place at least tourists are using large-scale facilities which already exist, rather than creating a market for new facilities in places which are currently "unspoilt".

I say this as a bit of a devil's advocate - I would rather have pins in my eyes than go to Benidorm, and one of the best holidays I've ever had was a "low impact" luxury safari in Zambia, in a camp which only took 12 guests at a time, and which did loads for the local economy and community. Prototype sensitive tourism and a fabulous experience, but sustainable in the long term...?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Bee
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM

I read the article, and was pleased about the resort's efforts, but the rest of the article was quite sensibly criticized in some of the following comments, I thought.

I do like the UNESCO 'sacred places' project. Some fragile areas should be just left alone by hordes of humans, or we will end up destroying them.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 09:41 AM

Fascinating stuff, Ruth. I wonder - might not eco-travel be of far greater detriment to indigenous cultural process that immigration per se? Given that immigration is the consequence of economic / political necessity and is manifestly committed, whereas tourism is just so much colonialist indulgence; putting the world on show for the most superficial of reasons, just so our latter day voyeuristic ego-travellers can have something to talk about over dinner parties, or wherever...