Finally I was able to see the new foal, and on the way, record the collapse of an iconic oak.
Along the way, I had these thoughts:
I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from planting trees, especially as opposed to, say, ripping through a forest in a quad, but this idea – which is similar to plans I have read about to move other species, such as butterflies, proposed by scientists – seems completely unscientific and is baffling to me.
The underlying premise assumes that species will accept assisted migration to higher elevations or northern latitudes, based on a linear rise in temperature (itself pure conjecture and most likely specious), and completely ignores the influence of all the other components of the environment, such as moisture, soil composition, extreme weather, and most essentially the interwoven web of an ecosystem.
There are complex relationships that have developed over long periods of time between species – mushrooms and trees, birds disseminating fruit and nuts and seeds, the understory plants of forests and their need for the proscribed amount of light filtered by the leaves. It goes on and on and I am smart enough to know that I don’t really know a thing about it, other than it is incredibly complicated and virtually IMPOSSIBLE to replicate artificially.
So if I know that, how come trained, educated scientists propose such ridiculous solutions to extinction?
Maybe because they’re also human, and can’t bear to surrender to the objective truth.
With related detail to be found at:
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com