- Linda Hesthag Ellwein
- Brooklyn, NY
- United States
Communications, Change, and Photography, Oikonomia, Inc.
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How attached are you to your deeply held beliefs? If solutions to global problems challenge your worldview, how do you react?
Allan Savory's recent TED Talk introduced an unlikely and politically incorrect solution to reversing global desertification and climate change with the use of livestock as a tool, and different decision making.
Well-meaning laws, bureaucracies, and activists at the mercy of public opinion have stifled this work from moving forward on a large scale in the US. Belief systems and the fear of being wrong often prohibits change.
How do you respond to ideas that challenge your belief system? How do we stop our paradigms and prejudices from unfairly shaping decision making, and allowing us to take real risks for lasting change? What's your reaction to cows helping save the world? What idea have you believed and been completely wrong?
Bernie Amell
Ethan
Mike Colera 10+
Not easy. But, I can appreciate those who have nerves of steel
Scott Reil
"Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman is now supporting gay marriage and says his reversal on the issue began when he learned one of his sons is gay."
This had been a vehement anti-gay crusader, right up to the moment his kid came out, and BAM! break out the flip flops, he has completely reversed his position... his son only came out a few weeks ago and he is already all over the airwaves, embracing his newfound knowledge and working for change...
SO...
We just need the kids out there to work those parental units HARD. Play them like cellos. Use what you know about the topic some, but use what you know about your parents more, because those elders you haven't come out to yet, those grandparents that still think humans can't effect weather, the ones that think their religious book tells them it's ok to hate...?
THEY'RE the real problem with everything. If you love them, change their minds. Because YOU are the only ones they will listen to... save your family from stupidity and ignorance, not just because it is good for you and them, but because it is good for EVERYONE. We can't really start to heal the problems until we ALL agree there ARE problems...
Mike Colera 10+
So Yes, grandparents know there are people who are not so interested in providing offspring. Some may even be our children. Your rather unsympathetic tone does not address our hurt. No grandchild, no bloodlines. No one to carry on the family traditions. Maybe we're just a little selfish in our old age.
Yes, there are grandparents that aren't fully convinced that people can control our global climate.
I, for one, believes that global climate is a dynamic process and is always changing. The earth has had ice ages when everything was frozen solid and other times when it was so warm that plants grew hundreds of feet tall and animals grew almost as big to eat them. Oh, and there were no people around during those times.
So, when I hear someone say that all we have to do is this or that and the climate will stop in it's tracks or we can slow it down. I hear him say " I am a pompous ass, I have an over exaggerated opinion of myself and I have no concept of cosmos, or the universe or those forces that no one can begin to understand."
And don't tell kids to con their parents, we all were kids once and we all played the game of being whiny, snot nose brats. So, who do you think you'd be fooling. Most parent and grandparents barely tolerate your adolescent behavior as it is. Try not to make it too hard to love you.
I guess it's in what you hear.
SkiBum Willy
http://youtu.be/qBKo3P9f4mY
John Gianino
Jennifer Nielsen
Solving this problem is going to take all of us, acting in our own areas of expertise, from the highest levels of government and industry through to the manner in which each individual lives.
The problem to me is that while (thank god) people like those in this discussion are interested and often involved in solving vegetation problems and saving elephants, most of the planet is focused on getting the kids to school, getting a promotion, worrying about real estate prices and the cost of petrol.. (All of which you might add are constructs.)
I think there is a real place for mass level influence to change beliefs slowly. Captains of industry, rulers of lands, scientists, social workers, thieves alike are all mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends and governors of the earth's resources. Get 'em at home and you will get 'em at the office.
Tom Schmitz
After 12 years as a near-vegetarian who never misses an opportunity to tell people how bad meat-eating is for the environment, for the first time, I've heard a compelling presentation to make me reconsider and at a minimum do some research.
One burning question for me is, assuming it's true that the water used to produce meat protein (even if it's via this holistic approach vice factory farming) still dwarfs the water used to produce plant-based protein.... - how does that issue interact with what the presenter is advocating?
Lauren Roche
In regards to the amount of water livestock production requires, livestock production can utilise water in different ways to cropping and the vast majority of landscapes don't receive the rainfall in the right quantities at the right time to produce a viable crop. Whereas, by holistically managing the landscape you can get that water to remain within the landscape and it can be used to water stock all year round.
Also it worth remembering that he is talking about ticking two very large boxes - rehabilitating land AND feeding people.
Tom Schmitz
James Hardiman
So I had no paradigms. At least, not around this subject.
And I have read Kuhn, and dealt with conflicting paradigms in the past (try submitting a post-grad thesis based on co-operative inquiry, as opposed to reductionist research methods!)
And I'm an enthusiastic follower of the so-called "paleo" movement (enthusiastic, not religious!) so I'm delighted at the prospect that raising organic grass-fed beef could be an answer to so many environmental ills as well as human health problems.
Now, how can we put our recent inheritance and life-time delivering management and personal training to good use to help others overcome their paradigm conflicts? Maybe running some co-operative inquiries into the life-changing effects of understanding and implementing holistic decision making into all walks of life.
Anyone interested?
In the meantime I'm reading the books.
Margriet O'Regan
Some of the advantages of using weeds initially is that they do it all for free. They only have to be slashed a couple of times. And for the many vegetarians who are pricking up their ears about these fabulous ways of re-greening our planet & reversing global warming at the same time, natural sequence farming doesn't rely on beef production. So you don't have to go out & buy a herd of any kind of meat producing animals to be successful. Peter Andrews learned his method of desert reclamation raising horses. Check it out Cheers
Scot Wilcox 10+
I don't think people should have a belief system where science is concerned. The facts are the facts. Trying to change them by belief systems is not only illogical but potentially harmful. I always respect the scientists that come out and say they don't know when the facts aren't clear instead of jumping to conclusions that support their beliefs. As for the places where science can't bring us facts, we're free to believe whatever we want. Whether or not those beliefs are true will have to be confirmed by another method.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Here is a great essay by Leo Tolstoy where he argues this point. The essay is about his understanding or religion. I would interpret "religion" in this essay in a wider sense, as a "system of beliefs". I love the style of this essay. I believe, it's brilliantly written even though some points are arguable.
http://tinyurl.com/cjkrxj6
All scientists are interested in some outcome of their research. That's normal. But that must not lead to "confirmation bias" - "counting the hits and ignoring the misses". People commonly fall into this trap. No amount of supporting evidence can confirm a rule or theory, but a single contradiction destroys it. A single contradiction indicates that a theory is either false or needs to be changed to account for exceptions which may lead to another theory altogether. Contradicting evidence cannot be dismissed.
This is why, I'm interested to know if Mr. Savory's method has ever failed where it was tried.
Scott Reil
Joel Salatin gets around this at Polyface Farms by using lightweight portable troughs he can transport with Quad runners, to which he has attached a water tank and pump. Pump the trough into the tank when you are ready to move the paddock (Joel uses portable electric fence on solar for his rotational grazing, mimicking Alan's predation pressure), move the paddock and trough, place trough (in a different spot than the last time you used this paddock), and refill. Brilliant!
Joel and smart farmers like him have been following Alan for years. His holistic grazing is, at its core, biomimicry, and Nature runs the experiments for millions and billions of years. That sort of in depth research is rarely "wrong", it just needs a tweak here and there to make it work for us...
James Hardiman
But what Allan has developed here is HOLISTIC management. This is NOT a reductionist process.
We have become accustomed to two competing epistemolgies: science and faith. We need new evidence procedures, new ways of evaluating outcomes. I suspect that this is what I will find as I read the books, but I'm not there yet. Still, Savory says it took him decades to appreciate Smuts' ideas. I'll give myself four hours on the plane to Denver tomorrow! ;)
Robin Palmer 10+
Additionally, Mr. Savory’s newest hair brained hypothesis flies in the face of widely accepted research about the root causes of desertification - including global warming, short-sighted over-planting, feeding methane releasing livestock instead of adopting vegetarianism, and deforestation.
I am a foster mother to a couple of orphaned baby elephants at the Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. Both of them were rescued after having witnessed poachers murder their mothers for their tusks. Some of the orphans die of grief. The ones who survive are greeted and surrounded in a literal circle of love by the other orphans, trunk to tail. The Sheldrick Wildlife Trust is the only organization that releases orphaned elephants back into the wild. After two years of care, they are ready to return to the African wilderness. The Sheldrick graduates send a subterranean message to each other, and then arrive from miles away to “pick up” the newest member of the herd.
If Allan Savory feels any guilt for his grievous crime against nature, he can help -http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust. It is my fervent hope that the TED organizers would choose to invite real humanitarians like Dr. Daphne Sheldrick, Dr. Jane Goodall, Ric O'Barry - Dolphin Project, Dr. Con Slobodchikoff, among others. Please add to the list - I will be happy to forward it.
Linda Hesthag Ellwein 50+
I cannot speak for Savory, but I know his commitment is to sustaining all life. The unfortunate, unintended consequences of man's decision making can be devastating. It is for this very reason Savory developed the holistic decision making model. His intent was to prevent as many unintended consequences as possible, by addressing root causes and working towards the best possible outcome for the whole - including every elephant. In our quest for answers, or a job responsibility to a single cause (i.e. endangered specie,rangeland, deserts, etc.) , we have traditionally addressed one symptom or problem leaving us wide open for massive error to the system as a whole.
Savory learned from his mistakes, rather than cow-towing (no pun intended) to those seeking to further their own agendas. Over the years, I've witnessed him repeatedly choosing blunt honesty and transparency, over popularity and sentimentality. I can only imagine the horror it was for a wildlife biologist like Savory to know elephants suffered at all. Isn't it how we address our mistakes - if we're paying enough attention to notice them - that matters? Making decisions holistically with vigilant attention to the results in the process will limit many unintended consequences. Savory's model has deeply influenced land management across the globe. He is rarely given credit for his monumental influence towards global sustainability - and there is still a long way to go.
James Hardiman
Thank you; I learned something this evening.
Robin Palmer 10+
Thank you for your response. As a foster mom to orphaned baby elephants, I was saddened that Allan Savory had convinced the government to implement his plan on such an enormous scale. Systematically shooting 40,000 elephants to test a theory that proved to be incorrect is unconscionable.
It seems to me that desertification solutions could include restoring the land back to the native nomadic people whom Allan Savory forcibly removed, and helping to protect and restore the elephant population, rather than bringing in methane producing non-native livestock.
Christopher Michael
Mr. Savory's research, which led to 40,000 elephant deaths, was conducted in the early 1960's. At that time, the prevailing scientific thought was, required rest of the land to save desertification of the grasslands. The idea was, culling those elephants would eventually improve land quality and allow the grasslands to thrive, including the bounce-back of remaining elephants. Obviously, he regrets this decision, since he admitted so during the lecture, and if you have ever read any of his books you would understand he has a passion for saving all wildlife. People tend to make major mistakes early in life and regret them, this would be one of Savory's.
Mr. Savory's way of grazing livestock is considerably different then the conventional methods used to raise livestock, most of which never actually see grass. As a cattleman myself, I can attest to the wonders a properly managed livestock herd can do to one's land. When grass is grazed properly by livestock; plant and animal diversity grow; soil quality and water retention increase; erosion and run-off into streams decrease. There are actually quite a few books that outline the success of intensive grazing. I'd be happy to offer some suggested reading to help change your mind.
Robin Palmer 10+
I am a vegetarian and would not be interested in reading books about livestock. Since you are a cattleman, I am pretty sure we would not agree about the environmental problems created by methane producing livestock, and in our ability to feed starving people around the planet, instead of livestock.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I understand your emotional attachment to elephants. However, emotional attachments often cloud our judgment.
I commend Mr. Savory for the courage of admitting his mistake of killing 40,000 elephants in public. He has to carry this cross till the end of his life now, face accusations like yours, which jeopardize all his subsequent results. He HAS to admit his mistake in every public speech he makes. If he does NOT mention it, he would be discredited as scientist for life. It's exactly BECAUSE he admitted doing it in his speech, I believe, he should be allowed to speak at TED. It shows him as a man of considerable integrity. Actually, this mistake and him admitting it, ADDS credibility to his research in my eyes. People who make such mistakes in the past would go 10 extra miles to make sure such mistake is not repeated.
There is an old Russian saying "bowed heads don't get chopped off".
Robin Palmer 10+
I have not heard of any sane scientific research that began with the slaughter of FORTY THOUSAND elephants. I wholeheartedly believe in forgiveness. I completely disagree with Allan Savory’s previous and current solutions for desertification. It seems to me that solutions could include restoring the land back to the native nomadic people whom Allan Savory removed, and helping to protect and restore the elephant population, rather than bringing in methane producing non-native livestock.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I don't defend slaughtering 40,000 elephants. That was an act bordering with a crime by today's standards. But mind you, his conclusions were peer-reviewed and were found to be in-line with a scientific opinion popular at the time. So, he did not make this decision without asking anyone. Those who agreed with him back then should share the responsibility. I'd say the message here is that today's popular environmental theories that we accept as truth (like methane-producing livestock that you mention) could be wrong as well. Are we sure that someone will not consider what we do a crime 50 years from now?
Allan's main idea is not introducing non-native livestock. Its a method of grazing the grass. It can be done by any grazing animals - bison, rhinoceros or wombats. This is what seems to bring results. But if he is able to achieve results with cows, it clearly proves that methane was not the major issue, but the grazing was.
I always wondered why extra CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and allegedly responsible for the global warming is not absorbed by plants. Plants love CO2. It's their food. The answer seems to be - because plants are destroyed by something else, not by the CO2 in the atmosphere. And Allan's research seems to provide the answer.
I still admire Allan for admitting his past mistake. Perhaps, it's this mistake that caused him to think independently of the prevailing mainstream scientific theories. He seems to know enough about herding to understand the dangers of herd mentality.
Scott Reil
My occasional meat intake comes from a local farm. I know the farmer and the farm; it is a small herd, well managed and MIRGed, and the beef is gras raised AND grass finished. My move to plant based (mostly) was not based on emotional or social pressures, but on health matters, to which I have had clear and resounding results I can see and feel. I would advocate for a mostly plant based diet for EVERYONE; it is curative, restorative and sustainable for both you AND the planet...
Robin, I think you missed something significant in the talk, blinded by that PETA II rage I know so well from cohabitating with my wife, a like minded vegetarian like yourself. YOu were so busy being mad at ALan for what he had done that you missed how mad, sad, and dissapointed he was with himself about that decision. As Arkady points out, at the time, it was done with the best intentions based on the best avaiable information. You are basing your feelings on current available information, which, if Alan had access to at the time, would have ASSUREDLY made your anger unecessary, as it NEVER would have gone down. Alan has to live with his decision for the rest of his life, as he said himself, and the pain in his eyes brought tears to mine as he said it. But how many of us have the courage to present our greatest failure as a global citizen, as cautionary tale to the rest? Damn few...
These herds, wild or domesticated, are the answer to an immediate problem. We do not have immediate access to wild herds of ungulates, and we have ready access to vast quantities of domestic animals, for the most part being managed very badly. Doesn't it make a certain amount of sense to utilize the latter, reducing the damages to soil and helping with the damages to atmosphere by so doing?
Please remember the question originally asked.
Margriet O'Regan
The loss of the vast herds of mega fauna from the Australian continent had the same effect on this land that Allan's removal of the vast herds of African elephants had on Africa - as did the removal of the vast herds of bison on the American midwest. First, here in Australia after the demise of the mega fuana, the lush vegetation grew back madly unchecked & smoke & charcoal sediments in lake bottoms from that time are evidence that lighting-started wild fires stripped the continent bare of this plant cover almost immediately, or this plant cover just died & oxidised as Allan shows that it does without herbivores to eat & recycle it. Oxidising plants ruining the soil.
After this initial devastation of Australia 50,000 yrs ago then the 'second Australians' arrived a couple of hundred years ago & we late comers have utterly devastated millions & millions of once productive land all-over again.
Yes. Let's recognise the unspeakable crimes we humans have perpetrated on this planet - & on each other !!!! - but let's get on with 'un-doing' these atrocities. Let's weep for the elephants, bison & herds of wombats as big as rhinocerouses - but let's get on with restoring our ecologies & reversing climate change at the same time.
In Australia we have a miracle-working desert re-greener in the person of Peter Andrews. His method is called 'natural sequence farming'. Check it out.
Robin Palmer 10+
Thank you so much for your message. I really appreciated receiving it. It looks like desertification solutions could include helping to protect and restore the native animal populations, rather than bringing in methane producing non-native livestock. I will check out Peter Andrews and his natural sequence farming.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
The history of my worldview is not so common in the U.S. I grew up in Soviet Ukraine. At school I believed that I'm very lucky to be born in the greatest country on Earth - the Soviet Union. A mere look at the world map was enough to see how great it was. Not only it was huge, but my country was also leading the world to the better future for humanity - without exploitation, free of economic ups and downs of capitalist economies and free from the "vices of the rotten West". I believed that my country stood for peace in the world, against imperialism and neo-colonialism who sought to destroy the countries of working-class people. I was "free from religion" (opium for the people) and "armed" with Marxism-Leninism as the "most progressive ideology in the world".
We know what happened later. The "iron curtain" fell. The Berlin wall fell. The "rotten West" turned out to smell pretty good and it turned out that Marxism-Leninism had been used to kill and repress millions of people.
Lessons? Never be sure that my views are right or the best.
Later in my life I became interested in religion. I wondered, how this "opium for the people" works. I wondered, how people believe logical paradoxes and obvious absurdities that contradict physical facts. It was an interesting experience. I think, I know now why people have irrational beliefs. I learned to recognize them and appreciate them. I deliberately participated in atheist forums, not proselytizing, but advocating for religion and challenging atheist beliefs while challenging mine. It was, again, a transforming experience. I was exposed to facts that religion which seems to preach love and forgiveness was used for centuries to justify ruthless genocide, inquisition, and atrocities. I did a lot of reading and processing these facts. Lessons? See above...
Mike Colera 10+
You mention you exploration of religion and how it was subverted by many atrocities. In my travels, I witnessed a number of what were found to be noble causes that were corrupted by greed and destroyed by vandals. I have no idea what is in the mind of man that so many would destroy a thing of beauty or a noble idea for no other reason then to destroy it. I think it is that flaw in human nature that will really be the cause of our species extinction.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
James Hardiman
Scott Reil
Seth Itzkan
Margriet O'Regan
Cult recruitment practices work extremely well when they do work because the recruits are taken 'there' - they are invited/persuaded to enter into a world where they are (seemingly) 'loved' & taken care of some for the first time in their lives. Recruits are flooded with epiphanic-inducing circumstances & spoken messages. These two examples of 'arranged epiphanies' do not exhaust the list.
My point being that epiphanies do happen, are possible, not only change the subject's mind but not infrequently his or her whole way of being, & also can be deliberately orchestrated & in the hands of ethical 'practitioners' operate to the good of everyone concerned.
Imagine for effectively most people's minds could be changed by visiting a example of Allan's work.
In the 'greening the planet & reversing climate change via the Allan Savory's method' 'ethical practitioners' could be no more than 'tour guides' showing willing visitors around examples of his work.
Undoubtedly the Savory Institute is also an extremely powerful & highly ethical epiphany-inducing phenomenon in its own right - any one desiring to become involved in this work, attending the Institute & becoming a student of his ideas, would almost certainly be guaranteed non-stop epiphanies on a daily basis .. ... .. Sure wish I could - & take along a couple of nay-sayers too if I could persuade them . . . . . . Cheers from Down Under
Linda Hesthag Ellwein 50+
I don't know if people experience the type of 'epiphany' you describe at Savory's Institute. I know I didn't. It was interesting, but not for the reason one might think. The realization solutions might look different than those within my neatly defined, urban, environmental worldview were most fascinating. I took the challenge and pursued the actual practice of it. My actions did lead to epiphanies but not the type we have at a personal growth seminar, or even a TED conference. Instead, the process opened me up to the idea of using more tools than I had imagined to achieve my goal. I accredit these experiences to a more open worldview in general towards humanity and a much deeper appreciation for the wonder of our natural world as a whole. I'm grateful for that.
Margriet O'Regan
Allan Savory's talk would be epiphanic - if only mildly - for many of those of us who's psychic 'garden soils' are already both fertile & moist enough for his ideas to take hold, take root & begin to grow. Even here 'blossoms' would be a long way off.
But in principle (but perhaps not in practice) no great difficulty at all attends the task of deliberately ARRANGING circumstances so that not just mild epiphanies but grande mal ones will occur in any individual willing to expose themselves to these deliberately contrived epiphanic-inducing circumstances. And here I refer to the phenomenon of simply 'being there'.
Imagine if you went in person to see Allan's work !!!????? And even took a doubtful nay-sayer along with you ???
Although I hesitate to point it out due to the deservedly bad reputation the practice now enjoys, 'interventions' are attempts to create good epiphanies in those persuaded to experience them. If you don't already know in an intervention the subject is persuaded to enter a rehab centre - but apparently all too many back fire. Possibly due in great part to the infertility of the subjects psychic garden soils making it impossible for the seeds of wellness & wholeness to take root - let alone grow & ultimately blossom. The manner in which cults recruit new members by seducing them from off the streets where they live as homeless
Seth Itzkan
I feel I know much better now, and I certainly feel much better. My body evolved to get the protein and fats of wild animals, including ruminants, birds, and fish. The ecosystem of the earth evolved to have these animals integrated into it, keeping the plants, soil, and waters healthy. What was not part of the natural pattern, was grain fed ruminants and fish, nor devastating agriculture. That's a new thing that is bad for the planet and people. So, the problem wasn't animals, it was modern animal production. If we can manage animals in a new way, that is restorative, and has the proper balance of nutrients and such, then the initial claim on why it is important to be a vegetarian is no longer necessarily the case.
The tough idea to finally get, was that livestock - properly managed - are actually part of a climate change solution. In fact, to take it one step further, they are essential. You can't mitigate climate change without them, because you won't be able to reverse desertification on most of the worlds degraded grasslands unless livestock are reintroduced in a restorative manner.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I don't want to sound like a smart alec, but it came across my mind that it might be lucrative to buy deserted land for cheap and set up cattle ranches rather than persuade scientists and governments with data. Then use the money to promote the cause while getting rich, feeding people, and saving the world. What a wonderful way to "take advantage of the nature". Is it a silly idea?
Comment deleted
Juliette Zahn 50+
Steven Rich
The following is as plainly and calmly stated as I can make it. The unquestioned, uncritical, emotionally-held belief that "simply leaving nature alone to heal itself" will solve most nature-related problems in the seasonal rainfall lands described in the talk is nothing but a self-ssued licence to kill nature--without limit--in any way the myth's adherants believe is "Natural".
I--and everyone else I know with long experience and/or scientific awareness of successfully solving problems in nature (whether they know it or not) are in fundamental agreement with what Savory's actually saying.
If we let go of our culturally-issued "License to Kill Everything As Long As Somebody Says It's Natural" and find out what dynamics actually heal and kill ecosystems--the terrible awareness of the "coming storm" sets in--as ability to tell life from death increases. Example: Severe-intensity forest fires are measurably (and almost always) up to 3 orders of magnitide WORSE in terms of soil loss, soil sterility, habitat loss, species loss, downstream aquatic organism and aquatic habitat loss etc.--than CUTTING and HAULING OFF EVERY TREE. Please question the assumptions driving governmental and NGO policy and driving skilled rural people off the land.
Linda Hesthag Ellwein 50+
Sean Brother
Janet Clark
On ecosystems science and “management”: these are complex systems just as are our living bodies, and our societies and organizations. The best interventions I have seen in my work are present in Savoy’s work: respect for and effort to understand existing system dynamics, agile strategies for influence, flexible and participative decision methods, and respect for feedback. Hard science only plays a role in the “understanding” bit, and the initial design of strategies, and suggestions for response to feedback. The rest is a wild and wooly ride. You know your systems “lives” when you audit it for results, and this is proof enough. Look at quality management, rejected in this country until so many success stories caused almost all big companies to adopt the system of management that was working.
Population growth goes down with improved lives, and green land growing good food can do that. Sign me up.
Ed Schulte 50+
Or said otherwise ...people don't know when they don't know they don't know....
The recent Sheldrake thread kaffle is a good working example ....the speed of light ...to narrow the example down.
There are "other" types/qualities of light beside material (reflected) light and that light is beyond any "concept" of speed or time.
For myself the Savory presentation had many many .."who wait a minute" pauses in it....I am an old farm boy so I know the difference between cow pies and BS ..I have also done a lot of travelling across open Ranch range land (previously
Buffalo ) and so know some of the "sensitivities" only the ranches themselves can explicate. In short these grassland are a sacred as earth intelligence can communicate to HUman intelligence.
But that said I also saw/hear/felt many "Yes" gut feel intuitions in his presentation....point that would be best left to ranchers and herdsmen on the african plain to confirm or reject
And that leads me to how I can respond to your question "how do you respond too" ....I go to the folks who are in most direct contact with the subject at hand...not the "well-meaning" or the current crop of 'say anything politician/bureaucrats in order to keep my job'.
And so to your final question "What ideas have you believed and been completely wrong" ( Lady you sure have a mixed bag question here but anyway)
well for one. That "beliefs" can be a legitimate substitute for "Ideas". One has to be Very observant of ones Emotions and how they influence one's 'Desire-thoughts' vs 'thought-desires'
Linda Hesthag Ellwein 50+
As an old range rider (or should I say 'former range rider' ;), you're aware how large these expanses of land are! Many ranchers practice Holistic Management around the world with success, and a problem lies in how we define success. Success in this process dictates working toward your goal which generally includes healthier land - in addition to goals for the people, finances, even quality of life. When working towards something as complex as natural systems and human behavior, the results vary. Obviously, it is not a controlled environment.
A great barrier to making large scale change on America's public rangelands has been our bureaucratic process which limits flexibility as it relates to grazing and livestock. Regulations prohibiting flexibility and numbers was the result of logical decision making based on traditional grazing practices in the past that resulted in severe over grazing. This remains an issue on western lands, particularly when riparian health is also an important consideration and a public concern. In the end, the bottom line will be society's willingness to explore all possibilities to reverse global climate change - and this might be another important and feasible solution towards that end.
edulover learner 10+
peter germane
This same perspective makes me hesitant to fully embrace Savory's conclusions. Not that I disagree, but as a layman I would like to see his work and the work of others who support his position, evaluated by an independent and apolitical group (maybe this has been done) and given more air time among policy makers. This is potentially a huge thing, and appears to have some credibility, so seems to me very risky, given what little I know, to ignore.
I am skeptical also that even if he is correct on all accounts, it will make a huge difference. We have known for decades that some of our activities are harmful - clear cutting in South America and Asia, for instance, to create cattle ranches or mono-cultures which feed the west. Much of this feeds into climate change as well, and is easier to grasp, yet these activities continue.
So, with solutions in hand, how do we get them properly prioritized and implemented broadly enough to make a difference?
David Attenborough makes a good point about the pressures of population growth being the root problem to many of the worlds ills. I think he is correct, yet, as he points out, it is not openly discussed. If population pressures did not exist, we wouldn't need to heed Savory and other like him to the same degree. Nothing real is being done to curb population growth even though the problems it brings are many and obvious.
worth watching
http://www.thersa.org/events/video/vision-videos/sir-david-attenborough
Mike Colera 10+
Please don't consider my response to climate change as nothing or that is is propaganda. Climate change is real and it is ongoing. My "problem " is with those who say that it was caused by Western Industrialized Nations and if they stopped burn fossil fuel and let the rest of the world burn fossil fuels, the climate would stabilize and all will be right with the world.
PS. NASA scientists report that they are concerned because of the fall off of sun spot activity. Sun spots have recently followed an 11 years cycle high and low peaks. In some cycles there were double peaks some two years apart. 2013 was supposed to be a peak year and little activity is shown. The concern is that in the 500 year record of sum spot history, a long period of inactivity correlated with the mini ice age that affected the northern hemisphere is the middle ages. Extremely harsh winters in Europe and North America, if we start a long period of inactivity?
peter germane
As for choices, they are already being made, and often by those who do not make the sacrifices. The choice to let things play out, to make no changes, once one knows the cause and effects with reasonable confidence, also has consequences and carries with it moral responsibility
Mike Colera 10+
The glass is half full.
Travis Jonquil
Juliette Zahn 50+
Is this your response to my long explanation to you? If yes, it is showing up out of sequence and makes it hard for readers who may try to follow. When you use the "reply" button on the upper right of a given comment, yours will end up in the right spot.
To the left of this comment here you will see either 1,2, or 3 arrows.
When there are 3 arrows on a comment you won't see a "reply" button because there is none.
At that point you can still keep your reply in "sequence" by going to the first comment in that string (the one you had initially responded to) and click "reply" there. That way we keep the conversation in flow like a beautiful waterfall :-)
Also there is a Thumbs up button on the upper right side (next to 'reply'). When we give a comment a thumbs up it indicates to the conversation member that we appreciate their comment, and we find it helpful. I do this to comments I come across on my "learning path" that I feel people who might pass by there after me will benefit from reading. I rejoice when I go back and see the increased number of Thumbs on that same comment.I love that I made others read something that I learned from.
I like what you said about ASSUMING. I was a math and science student and my mind was trained to assume things because that is how reliable math and science are. Later I had to learn that assumptions are exactly what don't not work when it gets to people and life.
~Cheers
John Locke
I believe the only way to stop out prejudices from unfairly shaping decision making is to attempt to eliminate prejudice in the first place, keep an open mind, stay objective, and let facts determine the solution.
I am in favor of anything, cow or not, that could help save the world.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Problems usually arise at the level of the elite, the rich and influential, who are usually in the minority, and who stand to gain from the established order.
Communities that are bearing the brunt of oil spills and desert encroachment do not need too much preaching to agree to solutions. But if multinationals (faceless and usually based in the world's big financial centres) are thrown in the mix, then everything becomes complicated since money is involved.
So, instead of a search for solutions, it becomes all talk and talk; jargons and calculations and debates that offer little or no relief to the victims of the power play.
Mike Colera 10+
That is not to say that I don't have beliefs that are challenged when solutions are presented to global
problems. And what are those Global problems that I find challenging?
The list would be too long, but just a few.
My favorite is global climate change.
To hear the "problem" : Global climate has be in a steady state until 200 years ago when the west (Europe and North America) started an industrial revolution that used an increased amount of fossil fuels adding more CO2 to the atmosphere making the temperature go up. Etc, Etc. A lot of scientists all over the world have irrefutable evidence this is true.
Why am I reactive: Because, the same story was told in the 1970's, only we were going to enter an ice age. The science was just as irrefutable. And don't tell me that they are smarter now then they were in 1970.
My examination of Global Climate tells me that the globe has a range of climates from a giant snowball to a
hot house sauna. It has always been changing and it will continue to change. Any scientist who tells me that man could stop it. I will say, "I want to check on what you're smoking"
Is that a deep enough held belief?
Allan Macdougall 50+
If you eat beef, then you are a player.
Mike Colera 10+
Since this post, I contacted a rancher friend. He tells me that pasture rotation is a prime consideration in herd management. I explained Savory's position and he agreed it made sense. But, he said that such practices could be insurmountable. If he could get past restrictive herd movements across private lands, federal lands, natural barriers and man made obstacles. There would be losses occurring in any such long distance move of the herd. He referenced cattle drives of old times where animals were herded hundreds of miles to market. Losses were substantial. More then could be absorbed by modern ranching.
So, the question begs, how could Savory's program be implemented?
carolyn mcauley 20+