Period Archeology

[MikeG]

........Here are some bats hanging on:.......

Nice!!

Little factlet ........bat's claws and the tendons which control them have "closed" as the fail-safe position. To put it another way, they require no effort (muscular input) to hang upside down, such that they can and do often remain hanging for some little while after their death. "Hanging on" in the literal sense actually requires zero effort, but letting go has an energy cost.

 

[Penners]

a steady reduction over the coming decades would leave room for more hedges, woods, all those things we have lost

Ivor, your argument may be valid in theory. But how do you set about reducing the population of the country? No, I don't mean limiting its increase - I mean reducing it.

China tried this by introducing a legal limit on the number of children per family (in some regions). They have now found that they have a real demographic problem, with too many old folk and not enough young. So they have recently started to pay people to have children!

We already have the beginnings of this demographic situation, with our working age population growing at a much slower pace than the retired population. We also have severe shortages of qualified people to carry out some of the professional specialities, as well as people who are prepared to work at some of the most menial, low-paid jobs.

 

[Flyfisher]

Little factlet ........bat's claws and the tendons which control them have "closed" as the fail-safe position. To put it another way, they require no effort (muscular input) to hang upside down, such that they can and do often remain hanging for some little while after their death. "Hanging on" in the literal sense actually requires zero effort, but letting go has an energy cost.

I think that's true for many species, eg birds can sleep on branches because leaning forward pulls on tendons that close their claws, horses can sleep standing up due to their legs 'locking' in position and needing no muscle action to stay standing. There may be other examples.

 

[Penners]

At last I have an explanation for why I get cramp in bed at night. It's my muscles locking up so that I don't fall off my perch.

 

[middi]

I k new I should have kept my ,mouth shut !!!!!!. ( couldn't resist it )
The original observation from Darwin still holds true, ie.. " the survival of the fittest", therefore until the bats, newts and other terrestrial species accept the fact that those species that have the better machine guns etc,, Will win the survival race.
I am not in favour of the status quo as far as terrestrial species are concerned, but the above stated is a fact and highly unlikely to be reversed one way or the other at present. Call it evolution in progress if you like.

Middi

ps . Sorry for derailing the topic.

 

[Penners]

Sorry for derailing the topic.

I should hope so, too, Middi! Disgraceful behaviour! Thank goodness I never do that.

Ahem....

 

[LadyArowana]

China tried this by introducing a legal limit on the number of children per family (in some regions). They have now found that they have a real demographic problem, with too many old folk and not enough young. So they have recently started to pay people to have children!

I'm not sure they actually pay people to have children. They have relaxed the one child policy, Singapore offers certain incentives for citizens to have babies so there may be an element of the same. China's other problem is the sex imbalance, couples were only allowed one child and the preference was for boys. Ultrasound tech etc made it possible to abort a female foetus and try again for a boy, so there are huge numbers of 'missing' girls. Some poor families who couldn't afford prenatal screening would abandon girl babies. The White Swan Hotel in Guangzhou was unofficially known as The White Stork Hotel because so many American familes would stay there to finalise adoption of Chinese girl 'orphans', the consulate used to be very near the hotel.

 

[Penners]

China's other problem is the sex imbalance

That can be a problem with advancing years, too. Steadying yourself with your knees can help.

 

[wobs]

What with us being the most intelligent species n'all, one might think that we'd have called a stop to population increase in the UK. Indeed, a steady reduction over the coming decades would leave room for more hedges, woods, all those things we have lost.

Its not that simple. With bigger fields for growing crops, you get less hedges etc. Even if you reduce population. Our population is going up, and largely down to immigration, which the Government likes for economic reasons. If you want to see what a shrinking population looks like, look at Japan or Italy. Japan has seen a shrinking economy as a result, with land being reclaimed by nature. This sounds good, but their demographic time bomb will force them down the immigration route when they have no one to look after the elderly, and pensions will get interesting.

We need to work out how to have a steady state economy and population, globally.

But of course we don't really notice the loss. We notice the paving over of gardens, and largely shrug our shoulders. We read about percentages of this n that lost, and mostly turn away or lob a few ££ at some charity.
And we - not me, but a vociferous minority - think that the solution to whatever, is always more. More houses, roads, jobs, etc.
Never mind the natural world.

A lot of us get annoyed at people paving over gardens, especially here in Hull, where we had floods in 2007 due to heavy rainfall. Someone across the road from us has just dug up their front garden and paved it. There will be much tutting by us and our neighbours.

The wildlife charities won't campaign for population reduction. They put their heads in the sand and pretend that the temporary saving of little bubbles of animals and plants will make everything all right. Even Attenborough daren't put his head above the parapet because of the deluge of hate mail that ensues when he speaks on the population topic.

Apart from when he does:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html

In Africa a ballooning population threatens pretty much all large wildlife and the surplus people spill over into Europe, along with the sad detritus of primitive tribal and religious wars.

Global population is set to level out to about 11billion, with most of that growth being in Africa, where it will be about 4billion. But yes, large African wildlife looks in serious danger.

Surplus population does not necessarily mean getting the detritus and tribal wars. Immigrants are often the educated people with a bit more of a spark or are more productive. Many areas in Africa are becoming more urbanised, which enables greater educational opportunities. We see Africa as a basket case, but I understand its not that simple. MikeG probably knows more about Africa than me though.

As we retreat more and more from the natural world, move into cities, experience life through our screens, can only see this getting worse. What became of the Greens. They turned into the communists. How did that happen?

Surely urbanisation is a more efficient way of living for both people and nature, as those large new populations are more removed from the habitats. Granted, its not ideal, and agriculture will destroy a lot more habitat before we get to 11 billion.
https://ourworldindata.org/future-world-population-growth/
There is little we can do to change this.

The Greens are stuck in ideological nirvana. So many things wrong with them, I've written essays on the subject.

What was this topic about? Oh yes, dead people. I wonder what they would think of our country now, if they came back. Perhaps like us they would focus on their own comfort and disregard the devastation of the world that was.

I recall a story told by my Grandma: She lived on a small estate built in about 1980, which was between some inter-war semi-detached houses, and an open green field. There were plans to build on said open field, and some of her neighbours were putting together an objection, as it would reduce the green space, and spoil their view etc.

She pointed out to them that when their houses were being planned, the residents in the inter-war houses objected for the same reasons. Do they like living here?

The point is, where do you draw the line?

Locally, I'm little better. Since we came here five years ago I've added a garage and three sheds, each has ousted some greenery. Otoh, the mice and spiders now have more places to live.

Ivor

I'm no saint: I chopped down a tree to build a bigger garage (although it was an elder, which is effectively a big weed).

I do recommend people watch the wonderful Hans Rosling:
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

 

[philpjuk100]

Is there really a shortage of bats? over the river here at dusk there are thousands (probably many thousands) of bats.usually find a few dead ones in the morning.I don`t think they all swerve at the last moment!

 

[Zebra]

China's other problem is the sex imbalance

That can be a problem with advancing years, too. Steadying yourself with your knees can help.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Penners]

 

[Feltwell]

Actually, I was thinking about overall human population pressures on wildlife on a more global basis, rather than sub dividing the problem with arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

I'm late to the party as usual, but well said FF.

Now, on to more controversial matters, stop messing about with immigration, global warming, the unsustainable future of planet earth and Penners "steadying influence" you lot - time for the important stuff - is it archeology, or archaeology?

Frankly I'm amazed the thread has got this far without anyone commenting on this. :wink:

 

[Penners]

I suspect this is one of those British v American spelling variations. The Americans have tended to simplify the spelling of a lot of words in the English language which derived their original British spellings directly from their Latin or Greek roots, or from the later influx of French into our language.

Depending on your point-of-view, this can be seen either as ignorance or common sense!

The word 'archaeology' is in fact - like so many English words - derived from a bastardised mix of Greek (arkhaiologia) and French (archéologie).

Phew - time for a bit of a sit-down.

 

[Flyfisher]

You're too kind Penners but I was aghast as soon as I read Feltwell's post and immediately spotted my heinous corrigendum.
My head is still hanging in shame and I can only throw myself on the mercy of the forum.

 

[Penners]

Seeing as it's you, FF, we'll all agree to attribute the spelling to your distant American heritage. Wasn't Walt Whitman the great-great-uncle of your second cousin's milkman?

 

[Flyfisher]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Funnily enough, I was very nearly American. During some family tree research I discovered that my great, great grandfather (1826-1890) on my Father's side was the only one of six children who, for some reason, decided not to join the church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints and thus not join his entire family in their passage to America. I don't suppose I'll ever discover why he was the only one who chose to remain in the UK.

 

[Penners]

What a shame! You could have been enjoying kippers for breakfast in Texas, 'cos everyone's a millionaire.

 

[Flyfisher]

I suppose I could take a jumbo across the water and see for myself :wink:

 

[wobs]

Some of these posts are so crazy I wonder whether they are being made just for a perverse sort of humour.

Middi, before your building was built and the bats invaded it, Britain had more woodland and meadow. Lots more. Since WW2 alone, we've lost 200,000 miles of hedgerow, between 75% and 90% of our ponds, 97% of our meadows, 98% of lowland raised bogs and approx. 50% of our ancient woodland. Pine plantations may as well be the Sahara desert in terms of bat habitat. This is without mentioning the change in farming practices, which has devastated insect populations amongst other things (guess what bats feed on).

Those habitat losses are devastating for wildlife, obviously. So before your building was built, the bats had plenty of places to live, and much more to eat. Now, they don't. As a result there have been declines in their populations which range from "significant" to "catastrophic". Now, most of the UK bat species are just about hanging on in small residual pockets.

But no, you carry on. Whitter on about your rights and the "nanny state". It's because of people with your sort of attitude that we have to have a nanny state approach in the first place.

I was on a Wildlife Law course yesterday, and newts and bats were obviously mentioned. While its only Great Crested Newts have these levels of protection, it is all bats that are protected regardless of whether they are at risk. The reason for this is that its harder to ID what type of bat it is.

If you have a Schedule 1 bird nesting in your property - good luck. One twig of the beginnings of a nest of such a species would in theory be enough to prevent you from doing anything about it.

Interfering with a protected species, be it driving it from its home (eg. digging up a badgers sett), destroying a nest, laying down poison, or traps, all would be considered a criminal matter. But of course enforcement would be tricky.

A bat's roost is protected even when not in use. Just as long as there is sufficient evidence that it is in use