Map of the Week: We are animals
"A man is related to all nature."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
We are animals.
Humankind likes to kid itself that it is superior to other creatures (language, music, sense of humour) - but Shakespeare, Elgar and Coco the Clown won't stop us contracting swine flu.
It all comes as a bit of a shock. We have long attempted to tame the natural world, to treat it like a wilful child. As someone once said, "a lawn is nature under totalitarian rule".
But our failure to control a brainless bug - one that still has the audacity to imagine that we're down there with the pigs and the chickens - preoccupies our politicians and press.
No, nature will not be tamed. And there is a good reason for that: we are part of nature too. This was brought home to me the other day when studying the maps and archives of Britain's oldest nature reserve, Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire, recently posted on the internet.
When the National Trust bought the first two-acre strip exactly 110 years ago this week, it was assumed that one man - the "Keeper of the Fen" - could keep a watchful eye on the landscape, and that nature would pretty much do the rest.
But the NT had made a fatal miscalculation: fatal, at least, for the swallowtail butterfly and the fen orchid.
The fen was the product of complex interaction between plants, birds and animals. And fundamental to its existence were the apparently destructive activities of one animal in particular: man.
Here is an irony. The government, anxious to protect another fragile habitat, the peat bog, wants 90% of composts and soil improvers to be peat-free by next year. But the end of peat digging at Wicken Fen has contributed to the local extinction of the delicate and beautiful fen orchid (see image, right, by Peter Wakely/Natural England).
The orchid was last seen at Wicken on Poor's Fen, an area of land given over to the local parish for the church poor to come and cut peat for their own use. These activities helped this fragile flower by reducing competition from more vigorous plants. Once the poor no longer needed peat and could get coal, the peat diggings stopped and the fen orchid was overwhelmed.
Victorian entomologists and naturalists, including Charles Darwin himself, knew the richness of the habitat. Some bought up tracts of fenland to create the reserve - but, posits the Wicken website, if they returned today, "they would surely ask whether the National Trust were the worthy guardians of their beloved Fen".
The rural culture - which had cut the sedge for roofing and animal bedding - disappeared and the fen violet along with it. Its seeds may still survive in the peaty soil and occasionally a rare plant will push through the surface if the land has been disturbed, but the violet has not been seen at Wicken for more than a decade.
Without human intervention, the fens quickly became covered in scrub and vital habitat was lost. That iconic species of early entomologists, the swallowtail butterfly, has gone despite attempts to re-introduce it.
Swallowtail butterfly, from the Wicken Fen website
The extract below from the data now on the site reveals how, in 1851, RA Julian "saw great quantities of swallow-tail butterflies".
The insect was re-introduced in the 1990s; Tim Bennett reports the project has now failed. The swallowtail has left Cambridgeshire.
Montagu's Harrier bred at Wicken until 1947. But the Wicken committee decided that its preferred site should not be cut for sedge in case the birds were disturbed. The land went to scrub and the harrier flew elsewhere.
These days, conservationists ape the principles of the ancient harvesters to protect what is left of the fen. Sedge cutting (see image from Wicken website, right) takes place every three years in mid-summer and "brinking" and "slubbing" (two excellent Scrabble words) help manage the water courses.
Such intensive conservation management has its critics, though. Some believe that we should move to an "extensive" or "naturalistic" management programme. Instead of trying to counteract nature, man should work with it.
So, for instance, grazing animals would be free to eat where they please, as the Wicken website explains:
"Several seasons of dry weather will concentrate the herbivores in the areas where water can be found and grazing is lush. This concentration will reduce the growth of vegetation in these areas whilst at the same time significantly reducing grazing pressure in the dryer areas. Most aquatic or marginal plants will be suppressed in the wet areas with reed beds giving way to wet grassland. In the dryer areas where grazing is reduced, taller vegetation will ensue, eventually leading to woodland. As the weather follows its cyclical path and seasons become wetter, the reverse will happen."
This is a much less predictable approach to conservation but, it seems to me, it is a philosophy more in tune with an acceptance that man is not god. We are part of nature too.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Yes we are part of nature, Mark, and not the Lord of it.
On that basis we are animals, although rather superior to all others in the brainbox department.
Anyway who are Shakespeare, Elgar and Coco the Clown ? They are simply humans with a gifting. But to many they are a rung on the Snob & Society Ladder, people to be venerated, not because we like or appreciate their work, but because it is the IN thing to say.
Yes, let's abolish snobbery and let's get back to nature.
Complain about this comment
man has done many things to this his home planet that accumilate to a degree of disreguard for the future, sadly man is overly destructive and will ruin itself and this planet before too long.
nature will out in the end and mankind will suffer greatly.
is it too late to turn things around saving whats left for future generations ?
we can only hope so becouse otherwise mankind is doomed on this its home planet.
Complain about this comment
We have forgotten how to learn to live with nature as one of the species here on earth. We may be the only species to be aware we are alive(as far as we know so far)but this does not make us superior. Every species has it's strengths and weaknesses. One of mankind's weaknesses is a propensity for arrogance and this feeling of superiority at being above the rest of nature. It could yet prove to be our downfall.
Gaia is alive and well.
Complain about this comment
There is very little land left in the UK that has not been interfered with by man at some stage. If UK land was left to itself in most cases trees and scrub would dominate and so this is why in many area of lowland heathland grazing animals are being re-introduced so that this does not happen and the biodiversity of the heathland is maintained.
In the national parks in the USA even fire is deliberately used to manage the ecosystem: http://sequoia.areaparks.com/parkinfo.html?pid=3778
Complain about this comment
It surely depends on the habitat and on the desired outcome. It may indeed be that some locations are more scenic or enjoy greater diversity because of past human activity, but that musn't become a pretext for eroding protection where it's needed. It's all a reminder that "one size fits all" uniformity's not the best way to go about things, in any sphere of policy.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton writes: "Humankind likes to kid itself that it is superior to other creatures.."
and janchild (#3) writes: "One of mankind's weaknesses is a propensity for arrogance and this feeling of superiority at being above the rest of nature."
yes, but why?
IMO, the belief in the "one god", ie. the Abrahamic "god" is to blame. religious types, for the last 2000+ years, have taken it "on faith" that people were created to lord it over the rest of nature. and now we're facing a growing environmental disaster that may see humans, along with many other species, become extinct.
Complain about this comment
Apologies for being a pedant but as a man who loves maps and has enjoyed reading this blog in the past it has to be mentioned that Wicken Fen is in Cambridgeshire and not Lincolnshire.
Complain about this comment
The conservationists start with the premise that 'threatened' species are savable by human intervention. This is falasy. Nature abhors constantsy and constantly reinvents itself to increase biodiversity. Older models may regretably fall by the wayside, but without this rigourous selection of the fittest we would have a lifeless planet. Yes by all means, where it is clear that humans are instrimental in a species demise, lets do something about it, but please lets not forget the funimentals when putting it into practice.
Complain about this comment
You are not a pedant, strumpfe - but I am a fool. It should, of course, be Cambridgeshire. I have amended the text above. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
It seems that we humans are "adjusting" the ecology in which humanity was nurtured for a very long time, such that it will cease to support humanity at all in the end.
We're just part of a highly complex system - Nature - and every species that goes extinct represents the ecology adjusting to a different level. Eventually it'll be our turn to go. Inevitable. Question is "when"?
Complain about this comment
The greatest enemy of the environment is the environmentalist.Well meaning they may be but as soon as nature feels the hand or the heavy tread of man, it changes course. Since the RSPB made raptors fashionable, skylarks and song birds have started to disappear, the Atlantic salmon group,set up to save the salmon has probably caused the demise of both salmon and the brown trout in Scotland by interfering in what was a delicate and self sustaining system. Game reserves by their very nature mean human interference and spell the end for one species or another.At the moment, grey squirrels are being culled to save reds, yet in Scotland in the early part of the twentieth century they were reintroduced when nearly extinct only to be culled mercilessly between the two great wars. If the environmentalists would butt out for a while , some of our endangerd species might just do what nature makes them do ; survive.
Complain about this comment
If a man can live harmoniously and make a connection with wild bear and I can communicate and understand my cat then that means that there's little difference between us. This whole notion of thinking that animals can't love, reason or feel pain is bunk. As a human race we've been hurting and torturing sentient beings. That's unforgivable. If people stopped objectifying animals, maybe they'd stop eating them too.
Complain about this comment
Since man retreated into his cities and left the cultivation of the soil to those who are deemed witless peasants we have seen the progressive alienation of man from his natural environment. Yet urban man still looks down on the carrot-crunchers as dim-witted inbreds.
Having observed the recent various levels of panic associated with the advent of swine flu one can only pity urban man in his arrogant ignorance.
Mother Nature will always have her way and, whilst mankind might be able to duck and dive for a while, the limitations of our natural environment will always constrain us.
Anyone who has worked with or lived with animals knows they are like us, just different. Generally we live a bit longer, can communicate our culture objectively, and know how to use tools. Those are the only differences.
Complain about this comment
This is a very well written article with some beautiful content that is also a timely reminder of how fragile the eco-system is in these Islands as well as the wider World.
Diligent and refreshing use of research by you Mr Easton: Great to think it is possible that beneath the urbane, sophisticated exterior of a BBC News Editor there beats the heart of an old style admirer of rustic, rural Britain who recognises the value of 'Ferae Naturae'.
The 'Wen' have encroached on every valley floor, meadow, waterway, thicket, hill and mountain, so, true wilderness is hardly defined, but there is still need of someone with an eye for and pride in the remaining fragments of real countryside.
Ever thought of persuading your BBC bosses of the need for a modern Cobbett's 'Rural Rides', Mr Easton?
Complain about this comment
Mankind is special only for our arrogance and hubris. After we have changed the ecosysyem so much we become extinct, it won't take very long (in relative terms) for the natural balance to restore itelf and the damage we do to be ameliorated.
We like to think of ourselves as "superior" but modern man (with art etc.) has only be around about 50,000 years. We have only had writing for less than 6,000 years, a tiny period of time in the history of Terra. And we say the dinosaurs "failed" when they were around for tens of millions of years.
Fools that we are...
Complain about this comment
I should think that to every other creature on this planet, we are a greater danger than swine flu is to humans.
As we write, plant/crop seeds are being replaced with new improved varieties, safe as houses we're told, but the resultant loss of bees is a significant reminder that unless something is tested for many many years if not decades, then we will not be fully aware of prospective negative changes & dangers. USA is having to import bees from Australia, just so they can pollenate their crops, without bees, humans will struggle, yet we are inundated with Swine flu reports of a very very few people dieing instead of the bee danger which can kill millions via non pollenation of world food supplies.
More & more our planet is dieing & non human species are being decimated, parts of the eco system that every animal relies upon are being destroyed.
See any misbehaved crowd of humans & you can see how bad their animal habits are. Nazism proved beyond doubt how animalistic humans can be, but human animal traights are not the same as other creatures. We will destroy just for the sake of it. Destruction has been humanities course/direction for a long time, our animal behaviour is no different to that of any creature that devours all its resources, leading to near extinction before remaining survivors can carry on the same traits.
Complain about this comment
badgercourage and 315.
At last!
We agree on something!
The decline of Homo Sapien is just around the corner but how many other species will we take with us!?
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip
I'm not particularly worried about the exact number of species we take down with us; it will doubtless be large but species are dying out all the time. It'll be a shame if it's an unnecessarily brutal downfall for the rest of the plant and animal kingdom, but nature is like that - our notions of guilt and pity are irrelevant. Personally I'm fond of kingfishers and it'll be a shame if they are lost, but other equally beautiful birds will evolve, we just won't be around to appreciate them.
The problem with us homo sapiens is that we have an inflated view of our own importance and no conception of time. Most people think that anything that happened more than 10 years ago is ancient history, and don't care about the future so long as they are not personally inconvenienced. Ask a 25 year old if they can conceive of life without credit cards or mobile telephones...
That half-life of plutonium 239 is about 24,100 years so in 50,000 years, a tiny amount of time, even the crap from our nuclear power stations and weapons will be neutralised. And all the little bits of plastic will be gone long before then, most of them will degrade in less than 1,000 years.
After we are gone something else will doubtless take our place eventually, that's how evolution works. Terra will just adjust and change slowly, as it has done for billlions of years...
Complain about this comment
Coco the Clown gave me my first lesson, at age 8, in the devious nature of adults. My mother took me to Bertram Mills Circus at Olympia in West London, where he was top billing. I spotted him signing autographs and ran over to get him to sign my autograph book. Imagine my shock when he refused. He told me he would only sign the offical programmes - on sale for 2/- (that's two shillings, or 10p in today's money). My weekly pocket money back in 1963 was 6d (2.5p), and my mum had blown my birthday budget on our two tickets. Back then, our budget didn't stretch to include expensive programmes. 2/- plus some Luncheon Vouchers was going to pay for our dinner at Lyons Corner House. So no Autograph, and I spent the the rest of the time at the Circus, and often over the last 45 years, contemplating how come Coco was so commercially minded towards an 8 year old. My conclusion - and the link to conservation - is that life can let you down when you least expect it. People let you down - because they have their own agenda, or lack empathy. We shouldn't let children down - especially by making them pay for something that is theirs by birthright. We also have to put disappointment behind us and move forward. What we must not do is deceive ourselves adults will "always do the right thing". I'm frightened that we actually pay wealthy Farmers to keep fields fallow (out of use), when we should be growing food to sell in the market place. That should mean prices in market place will remain low. Enough of Britain is naturally set aside to support wildlife. We don't need government (a bunch of clowns) to pay bizarre subsidies, under the most muddle headed thinking, in a way that benefits special interest groups economically, to further the interests of those modern day Coco's.
Complain about this comment
Very interesting points here Mark and just goes to show that Nature is not a static museum, but a living changing organism and that we have no right to try to keep everything in a fixed state. In fact as you show even our "trying to help" does as much harm at times.
@badgercourage
Sorry to be picky, but your maths are off by quite a bit. Half-life means the time taken for a radioactive substance to reduce by half. It then takes the same time for what's left to reduce by half again.
With your figures taking the half-life of plutonium 239 to 24,100 years this means that in this time a ton would reduce to half a ton. It would then take another 24,100 years for that to reduce by half (quarter of a ton) then another 24,100 for that quarter to reduce to an eight of a ton then another 24,100 years for that to reduce by half again. This continues all the way down so that even when there was only a gram of it left it would still take 24,100 years for that single gram to become half a gram and so on and so forth.
Complain about this comment
I presume you are writing this stuff in your spare time. Otherwise public money would be spent on us receiving philosophical direction and opinion from a hack.
Why dont you get out there and do some reporting and keep your opinions to yourself?
Complain about this comment
KennethM and #21.
I have absolutely no brief for BBC Journalism but you are completely out of order with your ill-advised jotting!
Mr Easton is what the BBC term their Home Editor: In general he most certainly does cover what can be loosely described as affairs-issues generally concerning the United Kingdom.
This article directly relates to the natural habitat of the British Isles and the effects of modern day life inc. environmental policies upon the land Britons inhabit.
I can conceive of nothing more important than an occasional Report referring to diverse and yet intertwined issues of ancient and modern land-management-ecology-preservation-conservation and human development.
As one who abhors name-calling I find myself unable to avoid it in this instance: Your comment is both priggish and prattish! Shame on you!
Complain about this comment
It's actually beavers that are the missing ingredient not mankind. They would control the scrub, manage water levels and provide the right conditions for all the natural fenland species.
Complain about this comment
You completely miss the point Mark. If humans are just animals and a part of nature then anything we do is "natural". Whether it be fenland conservation or building skyscrapers. And to say we should or shouldn't do something beacuse it's not natural is lacking in logic. Why is an african peasants mud hut more natural than my brick semi. They're both made from materials from the earth. Why is riding a horse more natural than driving a car?. They both use oragnic fuel (albeit the cars has been dead for millions of years). What people really mean by natural is less developed. That we should go back to doing things how they were before the 2nd world war or before the industrial revoluion or some other arbitary point in time. If man is merely a part of nature then surely he is only restricted by its laws. And nature doesn't have any. That thing we call nature is merely an eternal war of attrition. The point is we are above nature because we have morality. If we are not above nature then morality is meaningless and all this philisophical debate is pointless.
Complain about this comment
Er.. am I missing something here? Most of the comments seem to suggest that man is unworthy of being on Earth at all whereas it is clear from the article that as an equal part of the ecosystem, man has created some environments in which a wide variety of plant and animal species can flourish: it appears to be conservation efforts that have made Wicken Fen less attractive to the swallowtail butterfly, Motagu's Harrier and the fen orchid.
No doubt other species have found Wicken Fen more to their liking but herein lies the dilemma. The 'man is bad' argument applies equally to conservation efforts; even by doing nothing we are interfering with the environment to the extent that some species will disappear while others develop. When man becomes extinct - as so many here gleefully predict - who will then ensure that Wicken Fen will be subject to the 'principles of ancient harvesters' (men) and who has the arrogance to say that this or any other given state represents the perfect 'natural' environment?
So why do so many of you beat yourselves up about man's place in the world? Even those ancient harvesters changed the environment from the one their parents knew as did their parents before them ad infinitum. Our children will do the same: it's part of our nature.
Complain about this comment
Such a perspective on our species impact could or should also perhaps be considered in relation to many other aspects of life on this planet? The world we have created and the fundamental behaviours of contemporary man could be said to have become so out of tune with the universal 'balance of differences' by which the planet has thus far thrived, that we are perhaps proving, within the natural evolutionary system that created us and all else, that instead of being the top of the animal pyramid, we are actually a danger to the whole!
If this be the case, it would be interesting to postulate how our extinction may come about or what events may culminate in reducing our population to almost extinction, allowing those left to come to but one conclusion....that man can never again live as before and work against the system of life that created us?
Complain about this comment
I think this blog is a little harsh on those whom have tried to manage Wicken Fen, The author should remember that when Wicken Fen was purchased there were still large areas of undrained fen in the locality and much wetland elsewhere in East Anglia. Progressively not only has almost all of the surrounding wetland been lost but also the fringes of agricultural holdings are far less friendly to most forms of wild life and the local waterways, such as the Cam and nearby lodes have had their fauna and flora destroyed by agrochemical use, extensive mechanical dredging and very heavy recreational use by motor boats. In addition as the surrounding water table has been reduced by ever greater drainage, the fen itself has been drying up leading to the predominance of scrub woodland. Sadly Wicken Fen has become an isolated island and it is unsurprising that it is very difficult to maintain it as a viable habitat for many of the organisms that once were common in East Anglia. Hopefully many of the excellent long term projects to extend the amount of wetland habitat in East Anglia, not least those for Wicken itself, offer some better hope for the future. Perhaps the author should volunteer to spend a weekend helping at Wicken Fen and leave his laptop for the real world.
Complain about this comment
Well since we are part of nature, why all the double standards with us apparently being so 'evil' and unnatural.
Even our concrete buildings and steel skyscrapers are natural constructs, they certainly weren't built by gods anyway.
I doubt anyone would complain about all those organisms millions of years ago releasing nasty oxygen and killing everything.
Of course we should preserve 'nature' other than ourselves, but let's not kid ourselves, it is not somehow 'good' while we are bad - we are both just natural, and everything we do, from landing on the moon to restoring fens will always be so.
Complain about this comment
As self proclaimed guardians of this planet we are continually forcing nature in various ways. From the early agricultural manipulation of our lands 5000+ years ago to the present day, we have forged our way in this world. Just as every other animal has done.
It is our industry that causes so much change; pollution, climate change, altering the natural order of things, but that, in itself, is natural too. If we are of nature, then what we do comes from nature. If man is an animal, then man is of nature, so man-made is natural.
We effect change in what we do. Spiders eat wasps. Bears eat Salmon. Lions eat pretty much anything that gets in the way. Are we to become like the humble Panda, eating only bamboo.
Our micro-management of the environment carries more danger than letting it be. We are part of it, not keeper of it. Limit damage, but allow nature to repair. It's a force not to be reckoned with, certainly not by us.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS