The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Environmental protection and landscape photography

dave.gt

Well-known member
It is sad, actually, it is horrible.

Other studies have found microplastics in our toothpaste, in fish, our freshwater streams and ... well, let's find out where they have NOT been found. To make it worse, no one really knows the full impacts of that material in our environment, food chain and our own bodies.

I cannot think of anyone I know outside of academia, that even knows about the presence of plastics everywhere. They probably are so busy with their own lives and tune out what little Environmental news is presented in our media. They simply can't be bothered to care.

Maybe they will when they find they cannot get to see the amazing landscapes (yes, the same ones that we photographers enjoy) because the sites will have been damaged, destroyed, or simply closed due to the lack of protection they deserve.

I'm with you, Will, laugh? Or cry?:banghead:
 

Boinger

Active member
Yes, that is now in the human food chain: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...lastics-found-90-percent-table-salt-sea-salt/

Another thing we are finding in our drinking water supplied is medication because people flush their old meds down the sewer system: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-the-water

And then their is agricultural runoff, also mentioned in the Harvard Health link above. And as you know Darr, in Florida, city and agricultural runoff is feeding the red tide problem. 90% of Florida's coastal waters is hypoxic, primarily from runoff. Rising ocean temperatures is making that worse as the warmer the water, the less oxygen it contains. Coral bleaching in Florida has been on the rise as well.

But look on the bright side, water conditions don't impact off-shore oil extraction. (What could possibly go wrong?)

(I don't know if I want to laugh or cry :bugeyes: )
Well it always comes down to financial incentives doesn't it? For a few billionaires to exist a billion creatures should die? Sounds about right to me.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I'm not a landscape photographer and I rarely go to "beautiful" places. However, I have the privilege of having a day job that takes me to many of the ugly places, places that are smelly, polluted and that are the sources of overfishing, soil destruction etc. Ironically, I spend a lot of time on polluting airplanes to sell machinery that recycles and conserves byproducts from meat and fish production, an important protein source. Hopefully, I save more energy than I spend.

On most of my journeys, I try to photograph and document those place and not least the people there, trying to describe why those places function like they do and the challenges they have trying to improve their lives, but also the environmental improvements that they make, improvements that affect their own lives as well as the lives of others.

I have two plans for those photos and other material that I make, one short term and one long term. The short term plan is a blog that will go online this year, a combined photography and environment blog. The long term plan, which will probably only materialise when I retire from my current job or at least reduce my working hours, is to make 5-10 minute videos about places that few people visit, the people there, and how those places and those people are important pieces of our big life puzzle too.

Thank you for starting this thread, Vieri. The subject is very close to my heart and mind. I truly believe that every single person's action is important. We all have to do our bit. Unfortunately, too many people believe that their potential contribution is too small to count. It's easier to think that way...
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I know. I have something to say, but it would probably be politically incorrect! A lottery system for entrance comes to mind.
The other question is what does "wilderness" mean in 2019? While these places are spectacular, they are not wild. And this was Aldo Leopold's point about creating our National Park system, it should be built in such a way to preserve wilderness. There are places that are wild, but they are also under pressure from human encroachment, both in terms of recreation and development. To Dave's point about government regulation, our politicians know that the environment is not a voting issue. There is only one way that changes...
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Yesterday, we took a few hours to drive to the old Covered Bridge not far from here. The old Red Oak Creek Covered Bridge is not beautiful by any means, but it remains remarkably unspoiled by crowds and litter.

Despite the one picnic table, a garbage can and its rural location, it is clean and lonely. As we drove up to the site, dodging a 300 lb. runaway hog/pig on the road approaching from the West, we were pleased that there was only a single SUV arriving from the opposite direction. Emerging from the vehicle were two women, apparently a grandmother and her granddaughter who was driving. They spent a few minutes taking pictures with their phone, and we chatted a few minutes more. Soon, they left, and I set up my tripod and observed the old Bridge. Nothing has changed in the years I have visited the old wooden structure. I have never seen more than one car in each of my visits over the last ten years.

I was reminded how important Vieri's call to action is for all of us. Leave no trace and return with only photographs and memories.

I would miss this old Covered Bridge if it were suddenly not there, or ruined by a lack of concern. And, yet, on a rural dirt road (the East side), there is a part of history that still stands 180 years after construction. The residents near the old Bridge seem to care more than the tourists we see at popular locations around the world.

The psychology there is depressing in a way. I guess we humans are always looking for self-fulfillment at any cost, in general.

But, in our own backyards, there lies hope.:thumbup:
 

Smoothjazz

Active member
I have been inspired- in part by this discussion, to do something new. I told my wife and two kids that from now on when we fly anywhere we will also go online a find a website that allows you to order a number of trees be planted for a fee. I have found a few sites that look reputable, and the price is not too much at all. I will have to determine how many trees we will each have to have planted to offset our flight. Anyone else doing this?


John

Interesting video from an artist, David Yarrow. Thanks!:)

There is no end to the artistic views of environmental concerns, but I happen to have been attracted by the power of the written/musical messages like the lyrics and song below:

https://www.google.com/search?clien...hVnleAKHR2vDXgQ1QIwFnoECAUQAg&biw=320&bih=529

Video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gGLuM2IcDJ8
 

vieri

Well-known member
I have been inspired- in part by this discussion, to do something new. I told my wife and two kids that from now on when we fly anywhere we will also go online a find a website that allows you to order a number of trees be planted for a fee. I have found a few sites that look reputable, and the price is not too much at all. I will have to determine how many trees we will each have to have planted to offset our flight. Anyone else doing this?


John
Hello John,

that's a great idea, I do too and I am now in talks to decide which of these organisations to support to offset my Workshop participants' carbon footprint - basically, I will pledge part of my fee towards planting trees, I think in the order of 200 per person per Workshop. I will announce on my website which organisation I will support as soon as all is finalised :) Perhaps it's not much, but it's a start!

Best regards,

Vieri
 

Frankly

New member
The solution is to reduce the population from almost 8 billion to a sustainable carrying capacity not unlike any other animal.

Our technology, prosperity and leisure time has allowed millions of people who would otherwise be too weak or unsuited to survive to flourish and pass on dysgenic genes to a greater number of offspring.

Our charity and good intentions has fed millions of people who have bred many times million people all consuming and polluting.

The early environmentalists understood this 100 years ago. They advocated for population control. Eugenics was not the boogeyman topic it is today.

The facts haven't changed in 100 years, only the beliefs of the people. I think our elders were quite a bit wiser than we are now.

Watch the fury that follows my post as people try to rationalize the hard cold fact of having too many people for us to sustain ourselves. Please don't reflect that overpopulation of animals usually results in the complete, total destruction of the herd.

Electric cars, global socialism, etc. are all romantic utopian notions. The realistic practical solution starts with birth control tied to food and aid. If someone can not sustain themselves independently then they are not equipped to have children.
 

Bugleone

Well-known member
It's always assumed that everything in the human world will go on growing and governments all have their 'projected growth' figures to fuel their authority and actions,...witness the current UK preoccupation with building new houses on every beauty spot to house our "vital" immigrants........

However, much of the earths problems may be self-correcting. Some important factors are often completely overlooked and to take but three;.......The average sperm count is now less than half that of 40 years ago and nobody seems too concerned despite vast numbers of young people having fertility problems now. ........The bee population has now halved in less than 25 years and govenments give micoscopic funding to this with great reluctance. And finally, cancer rates are up massively on 30 years ago when one in 5 were likely to develop the disease.....latest projection if that half the population will be afflicted in western countries......
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
It appears we are straying off topic in regard to Vieri's original intent. What can we do , as photographers, to preserve our environment, particularly those locations that are stressed already and the future endangered locations?

In my take on his question, the point is what responsibilities do I/we have? What can my images, my writing, my books, my social interactions, and my words contribute?

In a former life, my post-graduate education was in Environmental Planning and my professional work involved years of environmental analysis for hundreds of major projects and that was when photography became important to me.

Now, times are different, as my many roles in life are completely different but I need to see what I can do, personally, as a photographer. It promises to be an interesting quest for discovery.:thumbup:
 

bensonga

Well-known member
If someone can not sustain themselves independently then they are not equipped to have children.
I didn't realize you were living "off the grid", growing your own food, producing your own energy for transportation and heating requirements etc. There are a few people here in Alaska who live that life and take it seriously. It involves many sacrifices and hard work. I don't think any of them are forum members on GetDPI. My hat is off to you if this is indeed the independent life you lead. Personally, I prefer a life where I don't have to sustain it independently of the work so many other people expend to produce the food, energy and products I consume every day. Many of us here are fortunate to have the financial resources to enjoy a lifestyle which is far beyond anything we could achieve independently.

Maybe you didn't really mean "independently", you just meant to say buying the stuff you need or want, assuming someone else was able and willing to make it for you. In that case...I wish you the best of luck if you ever have to actually grow or make it "independently" (i.e. not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.)

I do agree that population growth is a serious concern. The biggest factor here is with population growth and excessive cosumption in developed countries. These consume a vastly disproportionate share of the earth's resources and have a much greater impact on the carbon pollution posing a threat to all life on our planet. Myself included of course (which is one reason my wife and I chose not to have any children).

Gary
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The solution is to reduce the population from almost 8 billion to a sustainable carrying capacity not unlike any other animal.

Our technology, prosperity and leisure time has allowed millions of people who would otherwise be too weak or unsuited to survive to flourish and pass on dysgenic genes to a greater number of offspring.

Our charity and good intentions has fed millions of people who have bred many times million people all consuming and polluting.

The early environmentalists understood this 100 years ago. They advocated for population control. Eugenics was not the boogeyman topic it is today.

The facts haven't changed in 100 years, only the beliefs of the people. I think our elders were quite a bit wiser than we are now.

Watch the fury that follows my post as people try to rationalize the hard cold fact of having too many people for us to sustain ourselves. Please don't reflect that overpopulation of animals usually results in the complete, total destruction of the herd.

Electric cars, global socialism, etc. are all romantic utopian notions. The realistic practical solution starts with birth control tied to food and aid. If someone can not sustain themselves independently then they are not equipped to have children.
Fertility rates are going down all over the world except in Africa. The more developed, the faster it sinks. Thailand, which had a rate well over 6 just 40-50 years ago is now down to 1.4-1.5 and sinking. This will result in a shrinking population a couple of decades from now. Countries like Japan already have a shrinking population, and even Bangladesh is down to a fertility rate of under 2.4 which is less than needed to sustain the population.

These are all good news. The question mark will be Africa.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
The solution is to reduce the population from almost 8 billion to a sustainable carrying capacity not unlike any other animal.

Our technology, prosperity and leisure time has allowed millions of people who would otherwise be too weak or unsuited to survive to flourish and pass on dysgenic genes to a greater number of offspring.

Our charity and good intentions has fed millions of people who have bred many times million people all consuming and polluting.

The early environmentalists understood this 100 years ago. They advocated for population control. Eugenics was not the boogeyman topic it is today.

The facts haven't changed in 100 years, only the beliefs of the people. I think our elders were quite a bit wiser than we are now.

Watch the fury that follows my post as people try to rationalize the hard cold fact of having too many people for us to sustain ourselves. Please don't reflect that overpopulation of animals usually results in the complete, total destruction of the herd.

Electric cars, global socialism, etc. are all romantic utopian notions. The realistic practical solution starts with birth control tied to food and aid. If someone can not sustain themselves independently then they are not equipped to have children.
It is true that birthrate decreases as education levels and GDP per head of population increases.
Most long term analysis based on these findings conducted from multiple studies around thee world indicate population is likely to peak around 10 billion and then begin a highly probable irreversible decline from there to stabilise long term at lower levels than today.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The solution is to reduce the population from almost 8 billion to a sustainable carrying capacity not unlike any other animal.

Our technology, prosperity and leisure time has allowed millions of people who would otherwise be too weak or unsuited to survive to flourish and pass on dysgenic genes to a greater number of offspring.

Our charity and good intentions has fed millions of people who have bred many times million people all consuming and polluting.

The early environmentalists understood this 100 years ago. They advocated for population control. Eugenics was not the boogeyman topic it is today.

The facts haven't changed in 100 years, only the beliefs of the people. I think our elders were quite a bit wiser than we are now.

Watch the fury that follows my post as people try to rationalize the hard cold fact of having too many people for us to sustain ourselves. Please don't reflect that overpopulation of animals usually results in the complete, total destruction of the herd.

Electric cars, global socialism, etc. are all romantic utopian notions. The realistic practical solution starts with birth control tied to food and aid. If someone can not sustain themselves independently then they are not equipped to have children.
Let them die and reduce the surplus population--Scrooge, A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens

Eugenic was and is a horrible idea. The fact anyone is still even entertaining the idea is chilling. I suggest a history book or two.
 
Top