Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Beaver away: are England’s beavers helping or harming?" video.

  1.  @crayontom9687  I'm not sure what is ironic about agribusiness disliking things which go against their business interests...
    4
  2. What is so baffling? Where another species is against their interests they will be against it's introduction. It's hardly a difficult concept to grasp.
    3
  3.  @OwOudoge  I'm not in agribusiness... Clearly the farmers believe the beavers in the wrong places will compete with their interests. That's the point. It's ridiculous that I'm having to explain this to you, try coming out from behind your pseudonym and actually watching the video.
    1
  4.  @crayontom9687  They don't hold themselves up as environmentalists, so I don't see where you're going here.
    1
  5.  @TC-dy4zr  That was a ridiculous comment.
    1
  6.  @TC-dy4zr  kek. Did you just tell me your statement must not be ridiculous unless someone can demonstrate it is? 🤣🤦 That's not how that works. You made the claim, I merely criticised it.
    1
  7.  @crayontom9687  Are you actually reading your comments and understanding the context of replies? You said "It's ironic because they hold themselves up as the gatekeepers of the countryside" But that does not mean they are environmentalists. It does not mean they care about saving species X or reintroducing species Y. It does not mean they are naturalists. So no, it was not strawman at all, it was a straight logical reply to your immediately prior statement pointing out that it's a non-sequitur. The reality is farming is a business. Businesses have interests, no businesses are thrilled about things that go against their interests. That's not ironic, not in the least. It's the expected outcome. The farming association rep in this video says in this video that they're indifferent to the reintroduction of beavers in places which don't compete with their business interests, but do not want beavers in places that do conflict with them. That's what any industry group would say about anything. There is no irony involved. You can enjoy being in the countryside away from medium and high density housing without being an environmentalist or fighting for natural restoration, particularly when it conflicts with their livelihood. There is no irony, just a series of non-sequiturs from you.
    1
  8.  @crayontom9687  Agribusiness is the industry term for farming 🤦🤣🤡. We are talking about agribusiness, you have no evidence of anyone else being opposed to the reintroduction of beavers There was no strawman and certainly no diatribe. You may want to learn what these words mean and how to use them appropriately. No one cares about your inane opinion, it's inconsequential. There was nothing ironic about this. The more you comment,the more foolish and ignorant you appear.
    1
  9.  @deinsilverdrac8695  Again, I am not in agribusiness. Please try actually reading the entire thread before you comment. This is the second time you've made a clown of yourself on this video.
    1
  10. @stephenparker8250  What on earth are you talking about? Self sufficient argiculture in the UK predates Stonehenge. UK agriculture too is a key driver in the rise of the British empire. It had nothing to do with WW2. If one is alone, just you, the amount of food one needs will be dramatically less than if they have a growing family, or invite friends over. The amount of people dictates the amount of food production required. The same concepts apply equally to overall national population. The population of Britain has doubled since WW2. Enter industrialised farming. Not because something the UK was doing changed but because it's the ONLY way to feed a population at this scale. Yeild has to increase. Without farmers, everyone starves. Population is continuing to rise, almost exclusively through unprecedented immigration. If the UK suddenly became a net importer, as you appear to be advocating then, beyond the economic devastation that could cause, all that would be achieved is outsourcing an even bigger environmental disaster to someone else. Why would it be bigger? Because it would concentrate industrial farming for the local region plus the UK into a relatively small geographic region instead of spreading it out as it currently is. This is of course without considering the cO2 cost of all those imports. Farming is not the problem, population is. A lower population would require farming at a far less intensive scale. Remember, the UK is a comparatively tiny island chain that is only ecologically capable of sustaining ~6M people, and yet there are almost 70M present, 11X the population the area can sustain. I get it, you want beavers for whatever reason. But just think for a moment. Remove farmers from the equation for a moment. What do you think happens to beaver habitat as the population of the UK continues to grow? All those people have to live somewhere. The problem is there are too many people. We keep using technology to overcome natural population bust and it's destroying our environment permanently. If you really care about beavers, then you have to recognise that the UK doesn't just need to halt population growth, it needs to institute population decline. Every country does. That's been the consensus conclusion of climate science since 1962, and the underlined point of every IPCC annual report since their inception in 1988. If you care about the environment more broadly, its probably worth noting that during the course of our exchange all the systems required to facilitate it produced the equivalent cO2 emissions as driving 20 minutes, roughly the equivalent to a average commute to work. The internet as a whole prpduces cO2 emissions equivalent to 6.75 round the world commercial flights EACH HOUR. This too is a scale problem.
    1