Hacker News Reader

Comment by cr__ | Hacker News Reader

I like em.

People forget that the natural landscape of Britain is forest. The enclosed fields people think are natural countryside are in fact an entirely human creation.

Ecologically, it is basically barren.

What? Pastures? Grassland are actually good for biodiversity.

I'm sorry you're saying people think agricultural fields are natural vegetation?

Yes. The gently rolling fields of grass, sheep, rape and wheat are considered a national symbol of our natural environment in need of protection from dastardly human creations such as wind turbines. This is the 'green and pleasant land' that William Blake wrote about.

I’m not sure anyone consciously thinks that, but the kind of nostalgic “old England” thing is big on fields and grass, not so much forest.

The "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain. Are moors not natural landscapes because they were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago? Is it natural when animals do something but not when humans do it? Or is it natural when hunter gatherers do something but not when agriculturalists do it? Or is it natural when non-industrial people do it, but not when industrialists do it? And why does your chosen definition matter? Is the natural landscape better than human-modified landscapes? Is a change always fine if the starting point was created by humans?

If you replaced the ancient figures carved into the chalk in England with wind farms would that be fine because they arent natural features?

It's unclear what point you're making with reference to the blanket ban on onshore wind. I wouldn't like to see turbines on Cerne Abbas or Dartmoor. Nobody wants that, as far as I'm aware?

I would like to see more of them on the generic grass/wheat/rape fields that cover much of England. That was prevented by the blanket ban.

> The "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain

It's quite simple: there is none. Moors are created by farming and logging. All woodland has either been planted and managed by humans, or self-seeded on land cleared by humans. Aside from a handful of tiny patches (which are questionable) there is no primeval forest in Britain.

You can't find a principled stance for a naturalistic fallacy.

I mean on that basis you could say that Milton Keynes is natural because humans did it.

I think the point is more that none of it is really "natural". But also yes? We are animals.

They're one of the only pieces of technology that I think often (not always) improve the appearance of a landscape.

Maybe also lighthouses. Sometimes.

Lighthouses have only become aesthetic because of their rarity rendering them as quaint or nostalgic. Modern versions and their impacts would be largely protested.

I suspect the real reason behind objections to technology being visible is basically "It makes me feel old by highlighting that I came from a time before X and now everyone will just become accustomed to X!".

And I'm like "whoa, I'm living in the future!" It's awesome!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com