He believes that independent scientists have been performing their function: to study the situation, postulating hypotheses, comparing them with reality, disseminate the results through professional means available, simulate possible developments, propose alternative, post them in spaces of popular dissemination and warn collateral consequences. The task of stopping the destruction that detects and documents beyond the scientific function and leads to social action, which is alien to the scientific work itself, but ethically could be taken as a guide to personal performance of the scientists themselves as beings committed to human society and its environment. Of course, scientists can collaborate in the development of social action plans contributing its specialized and deeper understanding of the issues and avoiding excesses of ignorance knowledge. Unfortunately, there will always be scientists who put the other side and that respond to economic or political opponents to the disclosure of the evidence or that promote confusion about the scope of the destruction of nature in motion interests. In response, scientists must reaffirm the authentic evidence of the respondents and seek their open debate and public dissemination, but this battle is not always win.

Dear Shaz, what is this about? Tell me. 

Best regards, Lilliana

Due to destruction of nature and landscapes --- no one gains, everyone looses!

Dear Shaz, I do not welcome this kind of request. 

Best regards, Lilliana

Destruction of landscape and nature around us is so rampant that it is not difficult to forcast about the fate of our mother nature in near future. Changes are almost irreversible and every individual from every country has to willingly contribute his/her might to delay the onset of dooms day so as to allow atleast few generations of mankind in years to come to survive.

He believes that independent scientists have been performing their function: to study the situation, postulating hypotheses, comparing them with reality, disseminate the results through professional means available, simulate possible developments, propose alternative, post them in spaces of popular dissemination and warn collateral consequences. The task of stopping the destruction that detects and documents beyond the scientific function and leads to social action, which is alien to the scientific work itself, but ethically could be taken as a guide to personal performance of the scientists themselves as beings committed to human society and its environment. Of course, scientists can collaborate in the development of social action plans contributing its specialized and deeper understanding of the issues and avoiding excesses of ignorance knowledge. Unfortunately, there will always be scientists who put the other side and that respond to economic or political opponents to the disclosure of the evidence or that promote confusion about the scope of the destruction of nature in motion interests. In response, scientists must reaffirm the authentic evidence of the respondents and seek their open debate and public dissemination, but this battle is not always win.

"state with in state".....apply on the situation, anyhow it looks more appropriate that from the beginning there are more than one force behind such distribution, so sometimes it looks like that human is not independent in actions and get influence by competition among those forces which are behind the Nature, result are in try to reshape.........its important that what actual effect is produce by such reshaping except than the problems for eco systems which are vital for "life" too.....!!

I agree with that already noted about scientists personally helping green our environment and being more environmentally friendly. However, I believe that it is necessary for scientists to be better at presenting their data about the effects of pollutants on the environment in a clear and concise manner to politicians and the general public. Not only that, but scientists need to make sure that their conclusions will stand up to inspection and criticism. One important aspect in data presentation is to not rely on politicians, but to create a public information campaign to convince the citizens who can then lend their voice to the cause.

P.S. Lilliana.

RG spam!

The protection of nature and landscape of today do not. It is the policy of the problem, the administrator and the administered. The need for action in symbiosis of all stakeholders allows the preservation of the environment and landscape. It must pass through mechanisms both at the political, legal and educational (environmental education). This topic requires multitudes and various literatures. See links.

https://books.google.dz/books?isbn=284444993X

www.projetsdepaysage.fr/dimension_environnementale_et_paysagere_et...

https://vertigo.revues.org/12362

Please, my friends, read the links posted here by dear Fadel! They are worth reading and discussing!

Thank you, dear Fadel. :-)

Lilliana

Dear Liliana::

There is a growing awareness of the need to protect nature and preserve natural areas.

How has this destruction come about?

For most of their existence on Earth, humans have suffered hunger or shortage of resources. But over the past two centuries, they could develop the technology and social organization needed to overcome that shortage through systematic exploitation of natural resources. This process has substantially increased world population and improved the living conditions of a large number of individuals, although inequalities are evident. But this process is finding its limits, because the exploitation of the environment has reached such a degree that is now beginning to damage living conditions.

Who wins/ loses from it?

Many people obtain big benefits from the exploitation of natural resources and don’t suffer the damaging consequences. They are the main winners. Many more people suffer the results from destruction or contamination of the environment and get little or no return. They, along with future generations, decimated or annihilated species, and the Earth as a whole, are the big losers.

How can we stop it?

Gaining awareness of the problem, promoting such awareness in others and committing ourselves to action in order to protect Nature.

Well, 'you' alone can't protect the environment. It is up to the Government to formulate a national policy and implement it. As an individual, you just can abide by the rules that are framed by the Government. If you have enough time and energy, you can form a group and operate locally.

Thanks for the invitation in this important issue. I trust that the solution for this problem of destruction of our forests and the green spaces and of the pollution of air, water, and soil requires an effective Environmental Education since the childhood when the love for nature is easily understood and the potential of learning is enormous.

Yes, absolutely, dear Antonio Manuel, education of children is indispensable for the future, but we must educate the whole population because we need a better management of nature now. This seems not to be so effective because most of the population who witness  illegal conduct harming the environment usually turn their heads and fail to report it in order not to get into trouble. Conscientiousness on the part of the adult population is necessary NOW!!! 

Best regards, Lilliana

I think policy implementation and monitoring by the designated authorities would help address the situation as many violations go unnoticed in the environment.

many thanks,

Debra 

You are right, dear Debra, and also it is evident that in many US states, laws are in contradiction with nature preservation, as the state itself protects knowing violators, as witnessed by the long case against Dupont recently covered by the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html?_r=0

The state is not always the best friend of the environment! The citizens themselves have to spend incredible amounts of money to get the law obeyed by corporate power.

Best regards, Lilliana

NATURE CONNECTED TO OUR SUVIVAL. I have only seen a few cases where the natural world was preserved, so if we want that to happen, we need to find the reasons why we need to conserve it because it is connected to our survival.  

PSEUDOMONAS TO KEEP THE RAIN FALLING. For example the seven Pseudomonas host plant areas of tropical and temperate forests that produce the rainfall for most of the planet, should be items number one.  Otherwise billions of people will be without adequate rainfall to survive in areas of China, India, etc.

I just had a bumper sticker made for my car that says, "Save the Pseudomonas Seven, to keep the rain falling."

BARREN LANDS REVEGETATED. The second areas that need to be preserved and restored are the one billion acres of arid barren lands around the world, and instead of grazing the little bit of vegetation that grows there each year, allow the native plants to recover, to eliminate the Dust Cloud that originate from those lands--see Google images "Riyadh dust storm" for example.

FIX THE DRY RIVERS. Then the third area to be preserved and restored are what are currently dry ancient river beds, called "wadis"  to start the process of slow river flows adding water back to the water tables, instead of the flash floods that have been occurring every year in places like the Arabian peninsula since 2000 and is happening as I write this today,

See the Youtube video "Flood suddenly goes out of control" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSnPUqt-qow

WHERE DO WE PRESERVE NATURE NOW? So in general, without some kind of nexus between humans and nature, nature has always been utilized to the max. for the last 5,000 years or so, with some notable exceptions.

SACRED areas, like the forests of the Western Ghats in India, NO-MAN"S LANDS the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas in the no-man's land, NO-GO ZONES, the no-go zone around Chernobyl, VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCES, the mountain range above Salalah, Oman, where the forest and frankincense groves were worth their weight in gold, so preserved for economic reasons, and PARKLANDS and NATURE PRESERVES, areas where the humans are usually kicked off the lands and preserved by governments. 

Bravo, dear Craig!!!! Without water there is no life!

Warm regards, Lilliana

When big business has 10 years to implement anti-pollution standards and at the end of the deadline they are given more time because to comply with government mandates is too much of a burden on them! Don't get me started on U.S. pollution standards and its implementation and enforcement by the federal and state governments. For some companies it is cheaper for them to pay the fine than comply with the law.

There is also a question of competency. A state along the Mississippi River had a barge leaking a toxic gas adjacent to a large city. The state's Department of Environmental Quality had monitoring equipment on the river levee. They declared that the instruments showed no toxins were being carried into the city, even though the wind was blowing from the direction of the barge and people were getting sick and one person even passed out. So, were their instruments faulty or did they not understand how to use them properly?

Another problem is that many times government fines only apply to the first violation or series of violations. My state has a law that logging companies that fell trees into streams, thus blocking the flow, or push dirt into small streams in order to create temporary bridges for their equipment, must remove those obstructions after the job is finished. The problem is that violation of the law nets only a 50 dollar fine per parcel of land. So, if they block 1 stream or 20 stream locations on 5000 acres it is still only a 50 dollar fine.

Many refinery toxic releases are similar, with fines calculated by day or week. Thus a refinery that has 20 hazardous gas releases in a day is only fined for a single violation. If 20 occurred one day and only 1 the next day, then that is only two government fines.

Enforcement of environmental laws often seem more favorable to business than to the environment.

Dear Liliana,

In my opinion we should find a new way to develop our future landscape. As now human made and natural environment become more mix and interference each other, we should think about the multifunctionality of the landscape. We do need infrastructure and economic development but at the same time we also need a better living environment and ecosystem services from the nature. How to combine this two systems become very important. Now some scientist have developed the conception of green infrastructure, but the problem is how to measure the ecosystem services, who are the producers, who are the beneficiaries, how we can build rule of the game  when the producers and the beneficiaries sometimes is not really clear. I think scientists should work hard to study this, thus all stakeholders, not only government, can work together to deal with this issue.      

I  just heard E.O. Wilson talk about his new book "Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life" that was published in March, that sounds like everyone reading this question and the answers, may be interested in reading Dr. Wilson's book?   He is asking if we can preserve 50% of the earth for nature.

I asked a similar question on ResearcGate ar https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_we_need_to_set_aside_35_of_the_planet_as_Ecological_Restoration_Preserves? in January, not expecting Dr. Wilson's book would suggest to preserve a lot more than my question was suggesting?  Nice to see Dr. Wilson's vote on the question. 

Paul Cézanne: «Todos los grandes paisajes tienen un carácter visionario. La visión es lo que se vuelve visible de lo invisible... El paisaje es invisible, porque cuanto más lo conquistamos, más nos perdemos en él. Para llegar al paisaje, tenemos que sacrificar, tanto como nos sea posible, cualquier determinación temporal, espacial, objetiva; pero este abandono no sólo alcanza el objetivo, nos afecta a nosotros mismos en la misma medida. En el paisaje, dejamos de ser seres históricos, es decir seres por sí mismos objetivables. No tenemos memoria para el paisaje, tampoco la tenemos para nosotros en el paisaje. Soñamos de día y con los ojos abiertos. Somos sustraídos al mundo objetivo pero también a nosotros mismos. Es el sentir.»

Querido Jorge, hoy día el estudio del paisaje propone una idea muy diferente de la de Cézanne. Pierre Nora, el famoso historiador que provocó, en los años 80, una gigante antología en varios tomos sobre la memoria en Francia, específicamente habla de la importancia del paisaje como depósito memorístico esencial, y del mismo modo lo dicen los autores internacionales quienes, reunidos bajo la batuta de Javier Maderero en el Centro de Arte y Naturaleza (CDAN) en España, se han dedicado a estudiar el paisaje y han creado valiosos documentos, ensayos y libros, casi todos publicados por Abada Editores de Madrid. Nada de sacrificios en cuanto a la objetividad, y nada de llamar al paisaje "invisible". Nuestro paisaje está muy presente siempre. Te recomiendo también, además de los miembros del CDAN, a autores como Denis Cosgrove, Alain Roger, Anne Cauquelin, W.J.T. Michel, Jean-François Lyotard y a Doreen Massey (entre muchísimos otros), gente que ha dedicado sus mayores esfuerzos a esclarecer nuestros conceptos de "paisaje" para poder tomar acción sobre su disfrute y conservación.

Saludos, Lilliana

Apreciada Liliana:

Claro que conozco Le Lieux de memorie y el trabajo de Maderuelo ( uno de los fundadores de ABADA es un querido colega, el Dr. Félix Duque). Mi cita del genial pintor va más en la línea de rescatar dos ideas: el paisaje como construcción cultural y su dimensión estética.

Un abrazo.

Qué bueno, Jorge querido! Qué bueno que lo aclaras!!! Por un momento, me asusté...

Gran abrazo, Lilliana :-)

Thay was a fast answer¡¡¡

 It has to become every ones movement but an informed movement. Because we have reached this stage of Urgency  where in we had information but not that of  interdisciplinary nature. each of us in our own cocoon. Each of us performed not knowing what are the implications of our doing. Thanks to theforum as this which gets in the cross disciplinary culture helping us have deeper in sights.

As an architect and observing the architectural fraternity I always feel  the sensitivity towards the environment and nature has a long way to go because of a thinking nature in built environments has to be done by landscape architects, urban designers or horticulturists. All of us can contribute in our small ways cumulatively making it a large movement.

The world of most scientists do not consititute social action, rather the focus is on finding evidence and confirmation of scientific claims and theries through quantitative and qualitative means. If social action groups work closely with the scientific community, which has happended in some instances, the outcomes and action for the conservation of natural resources can proceed with greater effectiveness.