1. Yes… a little dodge… dont mean that in a tabloid anti-immigration way but an ecological carrying capacity way. personally i think the nationstate is redundant and we need to be dissolving these artificial boundaries as we move into the century.

2. yes we are nature but we are also destroying nature… a paradox. actually maintaining a high density in cities is crucial. the best way for ecosystems to recover is to be left alone for a while. so to let fish stocks recover we can have large no fish zones. for the UK countriside lets increase te areas of natural woodland. we can’t expect to use all the available land for agriculture, cities and roads etc and ecological services to keep be provided (clean air and water etc). so the answer is live more densly and increase wild areas.

Political activism and Environmentalism are yet to fully mix with plenty in this country. Rather like the earlier comment on man and nature, some still see politics, the economy and the environment as slightly incestuous cohabiters of a one bed flat; mingling together sometimes openly but often any two are quietly attempting to rut in the bathroom behind the other’s back.

1. Overcrowded island. Well, not really. Over 90% of the UK population lives on 7% of the land, i.e. 93% of the land is not very crowded at all. Belgium and the Netherlands both have higher population densities (OK, so we are quite dense, but people go on about this way too much, normally because they are racist and don’t realise how badly we’ll need skilled agricultural workers and tradesmen, i.e. immigrants, to survive the coming times)

2. Sprawl “into nature”. This sentence maintains the false illusion that we humans are somehow separate from nature which is one of the fundamental causes for the multifarious and varied dire predicaments we find ourselves in.