Talk:Lupinus nootkatensis

Article created. TeamZissou (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In this article (23 March 2012) the writer mentions “problems” in that the L. nootkatensis grows “unhindered” where other “native” Icelandic plants “find it difficult to root in the loose, eroded soil”. The reasonably understood meaning of this statement is simply that the L. nootkatensis should not be there, because it is not “native” and it grows where “native” plants do not grow.

If the writer is not my compatriot, i.e. Icelandic, he or she seems at least to have been uncritically influenced by the reactionary convictions that are far too common up here, even among educated persons. The significance if L. nootkatensis for Iceland is its great capacity to make Iceland a better place for all life. But it is also remarkable for having become become a symbol of different views on matters of such subtlety and complexity as how man should interrelate with the nature of which he himself is a part. Peoples’ notions about “native” plants and “alien” species are obviously more anthropological than ever botanic. This subfield of anthropology is fascinating. It fully deserves a high-quality article for itself, which then should be given an appropriate and descriptive title – not concealing fixed ideas or prejudices under, for example, plant names.

Speking as a human, I say that vegetation is better than naked ground. Lieber grün als gold. Better blooming than barren. And a plant that procreates in a place is “native” to that place, irrespective of whether it satisfies the aesthetic preconceptions of any humans in the vicinity, and even if it was originally brought there by humans. 85.220.48.91 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Togifex (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Iceland is extremely species poor due to its position and because it was never connected to a continent. Species from similar climates in the Amur, Pacific North West, Aleutian Islands, Himalayas and Tierra del Fuego would be a good addition to Iceland's flora. All these places have cool, wet summers and cold winters. Some species are detrimental, but others can be complementary, and that's what conservationists here in Britain can't seem to understand. Non-native to them means an invader that must be exterminated, it is daft.

Kentynet (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, they are even willing to prevent nature from having its course, calling such efforts “conservation”. They look at nature strictly anthropocentrically, forgetting at the same time that they are themselves a part of nature. While trying to align nature to their own preconceptions as to how nature should be, they assert that they are serving nature, but not their own preconceptions.

It must be legitimate to refer to some species as ”invasive” or “aggressive” (in addition to the supreme IAS, which is homo sapiens). Such species must of necessity be defined from a human standpoint, as we cannot adopt any other. These are, in my understanding, species that man perceives as harmful to his industries and desires. Since nature is impartial but you use the word “detrimental”, I believe you agree. We humans have no choice but to be on guard against such species, but very many among us use such concerns as a means of attempting to force their own will upon nature.

This is a complicated matter, because in considering such questions subject and object merge into one. Many trends of thought must be considered, including, say, historical or nationalistic human identifications (that have nothing to do with nature outside of ourselves), even notions akin to those of “racial purity” applied to biological entities and ecosystems; the “conservationist´s” desire to turn his surroundings, or even the entire world if possible, to a museum of how he (more or less erroneously) thinks it was or must have been at an arbitrarily selected point in time; “green” ideologies and notions of nature’s “rights” on par with the rights of humanity, and also proper understanding of the statements in Matthew 5:13-14. Is Gaia (or Fjörgyn) taking a place at Mammon’s (or John Frum´s) side as our supreme deity? I wonder.

I agree wholeheartedly about the places you suggest for introduction to Iceland of new plant species. Some of these suggestions have already been acted upon. But many people are wary of them, as of the Lupin. In fact Icelandic nature protection statutes make use of such terms as “original” in the context of vegetation, and, believe it or not, can be interpreted as attempting to make the year 1949 the standard of reference as to how its species distribution is to be (the Lupin was introduced here in 1953). This is what many people, politicians and scientists not excluded, perceive as respecting nature and accepting our place within it – declaring a halt to ecological adaptations in a changing world. King Canute is indeed still with us.

These observations may be aside from the proper topic of the short Lupinus Nootkatensis article, and although I think they are justified by the article, I apologize for that. A more pertinent remark for the article is however that in Iceland the Lupin has been shown to give way to various other species with time, just as it is said to do in its original habitat. Its root bacteria gradually improve the soil to an extent where it yields. In lowland SW-Iceland this may take some four decades, and possibly more in other places. During that entire period short-sighted and short-lived humans will have to suffer before their eyes a plant which great-granddad had no idea of. I see no reason for compassion on that ground. The Lupin is, like some other plants from the same part of the world (for example picea sitchensis and alba; 'populus trichocarpa, and various willows), a most valuable and welcome addition to Icelandic flora.

The writer also states (18 April 2013) that in Iceland, the plant has been used to combat erosion. A more exact statement would be that it is used to re-vegetate areas already eroded, of which there is plenty. Although this slight inaccuracy does not justify any serious doubt of the writer’s knowledge, I would rejoice if the article were rewritten by a person able to view other living beings in a less anthropocentric way. Togifex (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)