Progress on an issue can be hampered by those that cloud the argument

I bought four parcels of land many years ago and to cut a long story short they have been left to nature. They are in all intents and purposes human free lands - lands for birds, bees, trees and animals. Untouched.

We have many problems with the environment and there is the not too small matter of global warming. As a way to tackle this I see establishing more human free land as a way forward. It is not the complete solution, but it is a major part of it. I mention to people that I am buying more acres of land and will leave it be. Over time trees will grow. The reaction has been on aggregate rather positive, but some have shown disgust. "It is terrible these people buying woodland and not managing it", "It gets overgrown, full of brambles". Yes, indeed it will soon become overgrown and yes virtually impassable. Town folk have, from time to time, been to the woods and walked beneath the canopy. They have only been able to walk there because someone has cleared and maintained a path. Most woods and forests are impassable though. Go to the amazon or to the Congo and see how you get along trying to venture deep into the undergrowth. You have to hack your way through.

There is the problem of vested interest. A forestry worker is not likely to say their work is not needed. The Galapagos islands are near enough human free and are very overgrown. No forestry workers there. Nor were there any forestry workers thousands of years ago. The woods managed just fine.

The bone of contention is that whilst it is great to have debates and discussions about what to do, people who cloud the argument are most unhelpful. The general public end up believing that whatever we do, nothing will solve the problem. We become mired in silly details. We become put off trying. We lose faith in possibilities.

How we get distracted by silly points in an argument that simply clouds the issue.

Cloud