# General > Member's Lounge > Nature and Conservation >  What are your Natural Interests?

## budak

Not that there are unnatural interests, but I want to probe and find out if forummers here have other areas of natural pursuit besides aquatic flora and fauna. I myself enjoy a wee bit of HDB gardening (particularly plants in the aroid and ginger families), some casual birdwatching, readings on evolutionary science (Dawkins, Gould, Midgely, Lorenz etc), and the biodiversity of Southeast Asia in general. 

I hope you will share your thoughts and queries on all these (non-aquaria) related nature topics.....

----------


## TanVincent

I do have some HDB gardening going on in my flat. Not that I am a particular pro at it but still they are doing alright. Most of my potted species are of the cactus family. Currently, I am trying to populate the marsilea crenata in pots.

Cheers
Vincent

----------


## budak

I am currently growing mostly aroids like Aglaoenemas, Money plants, Spathyphyllums, Alocasias as my unit gets very little sunlight. Also have some emmersed echinodorus and crypts, the latter grown in glass jars/containers with a plastic wrap on top to retain humidity. 

Vincent, was your Marsilea obtained emmersed? I can't seem to get the submersed form to re-convert back to emmersed growth.

----------


## TanVincent

Hey budak.

I have 2 batches of marsilea, one emersed while the other half submersed. The emersed batch does pretty fine. The half submersed batch dies off, but I spotted new leaves sprouting this morning. Utter elation.

The soil I used to grow the the marsilea is a potting mix with peat moss, coconut husk, rice husk and burnt soil. I am using normal garden fertilizers and once a week dose of NPK.

I do have some orchids growing in my corridor, I am kind of facinated by them as well.

----------


## TanVincent

Speaking of orchids, I went to Murai farmway hoping to find some fertilizers for orchids. I browse through their shelves and found out that orchid fertilizers are nothing but 30%N, 30%P and 30%K. I told the attendant that I think I can come out with that mix myself.

Cheers
Vincent

----------


## budak

Vincent,

If I am not wrong, the Botanic Gardens is holding a sale of orchid and some other plants this Sunday at the Visitor Centre..... would be interesting to go and perhaps ask the staff there about their fert regime....

----------


## TanVincent

Hey,

I would certainly do that. Is it at the Orchid Centre where you have to pay admission to go in?

Cheers
Vincent

----------


## budak

See the announcement here. The visitor centre is accessible via Cluny Road, and there is a free carpark under the main admin building. The website's events pages also lists upcoming courses for growing orchids and houseplants, but these cost about $80.... 

You should go and see the renovated Symphony Lake (where concerts are held). It's now done up as a proper marsh habitat with several aquatic and swamp plants, and there are many fish species too.

----------


## TanVincent

I think I should. I am a regular visitor to the botanical gardens before my little one is born. Now it is about time to bring him to stroll the parks. I will be heading down there this Sunday with a friend of mine who is also an aquaria and orchid fan.

Thanks
Vincent

----------


## Davidd

Sorry to butt in on the enthusiastic orchid discussion;
will the sale only be on this sunday?

Orchids seem to be some of the most viable floweringplants for the HDB environment.

currently searching for affordable cattleyas.

----------


## lorba

I started keeping aquatic plants emerse some months ago. I only focus on echinodorus and cryptocroynes.

So far, I have E. Ozelot, Marble Queen, Oriental, Rose, Uruguayensis, Parviflorus. A Barthii and Rubin is still under conversion period in my kitchen.

For the crypts, I admit I dont have a conducive environment for them. They are potted and place along the corridors too, recieving 4-5 hrs of sun light. Species that I have are Wendtii 'tropica', Costata, Beckectii, Griffithii, Griffthii from thailand, Cordata var Blassii, Cordata var Siamensis, Lingua, Pontederiifolia, Pygmaea, Ciliata and Parva. Of all, only Wendtii 'tropica' had the best growth.

----------


## TanVincent

I could not resist the temptation and bought a spider orchid at the pasar malam store near my place  :Smile: 

Cheers
Vincent

----------


## LiquidFX

Actually, how would you define what is nature and natural?

----------


## lorba

Nature is the environment and Natural is outcome of living on and struggling to survive.

But in our case, we are talking about 'Natural' in our makeshift 'Nature'.  :Smug:

----------


## LiquidFX

[quote:777e95e2aa="lorba"]Nature is the environment and Natural is outcome of living on and struggling to survive.

But in our case, we are talking about 'Natural' in our makeshift 'Nature'.  :Smug: [/quote:777e95e2aa]

Thats what I thought too  :Smile:  No offense, but strictly speaking, I think plants in pots aren't natural  :Smile:  And to add on, fishes in tanks aren't natural either  :Grin:

----------


## lorba

Of course not, I think so too. But, hey, can't help it!! I can't be digging out a chunk of bukit timah to enjoy the little bit of 'Nature' within reach.  :Smile:

----------


## budak

From the view of physical science, there is nothing in this world that is Unnatural, as long as the law of physics (and its progeny chemistry and biology) are obeyed. The only "Unnatural" things or events would by definition those that goes against these laws, e.g. turning water into wine (without the aid of grape juice and oak barrels) or Microsoft going open-source (*ahem*), i.e. the "Supernatural".

----------


## LiquidFX

[quote:4ea7b786a3="budak"]From the view of physical science, there is nothing in this world that is Unnatural, as long as the law of physics (and its progeny chemistry and biology) are obeyed. The only "Unnatural" things or events would by definition those that goes against these laws, e.g. turning water into wine (without the aid of grape juice and oak barrels) or Microsoft going open-source (*ahem*), i.e. the "Supernatural".[/quote:4ea7b786a3]

That's another definition too, but a bit overly wide since that would mean that you will have to accept everything under the sky that is in accordance with the laws of physics like facism, slavery, murder as "natural". There would not be anything unnatural if you believe that everything has an explanation that is in accordance with the known and yet-to-be-discovered laws of physics. If that's the case, such believers could talk about ANYTHING in this thread.  :Evil: 

I think lorba's definition is the "popular" definition here, or the definition as most of us in this forum understands it.

----------


## budak

To add on, one must also avoid the mistake of equating "natural" with either good or evil, at least from the point of human welfare or that hazier concept called morality or ethics. The argument of "unnaturalness" appears to be a convenient label for things that some people disapprove of, which seems strange, when much human activity could be considered as going against the grain of nature, in the sense that man exercises control over his environment and own physiology beyond that which is determined phenotypically, as is the case with most other creatures. Is not the wearing of clothes "unnatural"? What more artificial contraception, or the practice of religion and belief in the afterlife?

----------


## LiquidFX

[quote:e969d44250="budak"]To add on, one must also avoid the mistake of equating "natural" with either good or evil, at least from the point of human welfare or that hazier concept called morality or ethics. The argument of "unnaturalness" appears to be a convenient label for things that some people disapprove of, which seems strange, when much human activity could be considered as going against the grain of nature, in the sense that man exercises control over his environment and own physiology beyond that which is determined phenotypically, as is the case with most other creatures. Is not the wearing of clothes "unnatural"? What more artificial contraception, or the practice of religion and belief in the afterlife?[/quote:e969d44250]

Yep, I wasn't equating the definition of natural with good or evil, but I was trying to show how contreversial that definition you posted might be. Sorry fo the misunderstanding.

That's why I believe its difficult to generally define natural/unnatural.

However, if we base our definition on the "popular" definition posted by lorba, I'm actually curious as to how one could say they love nature and yet their hobby is pulling out parts of nature from their natural environment into artificial ones?

----------


## Davidd

[quote:78db9c39e5="LiquidFX"]

However, if we base our definition on the "popular" definition posted by lorba, I'm actually curious as to how one could say they love nature and yet their hobby is pulling out parts of nature from their natural environment into artificial ones?[/quote:78db9c39e5]


Keeping aquariums or growing houseplants is a matter of utility and practical convenience for those who want a glimpse of nature but are living in built environments (that means all of us). 
A cynical view would be that we objectify nature and insist on our idealised visions of nature to give us the pleasure and relaxation we need. Nature becomes a commodity. For all Takashi Amano's claims, his 'nature aquariums' are idealised visions of nature, affected more by aesthetic considerations. His nature aquarium is perhaps nature commodified.

Where then is Tennyson's nature, 'red in tooth and claw'?

But then consider 2 people; one spends his leisure thinking about how to get his fish to breed or how to get his plants to flourish, and the other thinks houseplants only breed mosquitoes and invite bugs into the house. Give him a new plasma TV anyday.

When news of a local natural habitat being threatened is seen on TV, who will react first?

----------


## budak

I have found that some people, not least many nature lovers, find the very idea of keeping pets, even fish, at home, abhorrent. To me, however, the desire to create a niche of nature, be it an aquatic garden or a cove of orchids on one's balcony, speaks of man's innate need for the sense of release, growth and spontaneity that only other living beings can bestow on himself. There are of course, ugly sides to it, from the craven likes of many red-neck luohan keepers in the recent year to the unsatiable greed of rare orchid hunters in Florida, but the sheer popularity of aquaria and HDB corridor gardening indicates an unexpressed wish to escape the mechanical drives of a regimented life alienated from a time when people could feel the earth and its bountry closer to their feet.

Nature is by no means an angel and promises no idylls. But I fear that the further this generation departs from an understanding of even the creatures that dwell at their doorsteps (with children who have never even seen a live chicken and cry blue murder at the sight of a dog or lizard), the more likely are they to take a path where they neither know what they will lose, nor why.

----------


## LiquidFX

For every fish or plant you see in the LFS, there are probably a few you did not see that died in transportation, packaging etc. There would be more still to die from wrong fishkeeping/planting and newbie methods. I expect the death rate for wild caught varieties would be much higher due to the poaching and acclimatization process. How does one say they love nature and then live with the fact that their hobbies are partly the cause of these deaths?

One of the most often heard arguments are that these hobbies would encourage people to love nature more and thus be more compassionate and contribute more towards nature conservation. However, after the person gets the love of nature from the hobby, I presume one could let go of this potentially harmful hobby that contributes to the despoiling of nature and STILL contribute to nature conservation. However, the opposite seems to be the case. Fish hobbyists who become nature lovers remain fish hobbyists.

The same people would also argue that there should be a balance between having pets to encourage new nature advocates and conservation of nature. However, from what I perceive, in a world where fish hobbyists continue to keep fish (regardless of how much they love nature) and new fish stocks are required for encouraging new people with nature awareness, there seems to be a positive feedback loop that will lead to greater demand for fish and disasterous consequences in the long run.

Another argument would be that the fish/plants population would not be harmed by the hobbyist industry that operates under proper management and supervision. However, resources used for these management and supervision of the hobbyist industry could be even better used elsewhere, such as buying more land from governments for conservation.

Yet another argument would be that most of the fishes/plant stocks in LFS are bred in farms and thus do not harm nature. But regardless of whether these fishes/plants grow up in farms or the Amazon basin, they are still part of nature. Which nature lover would want to see mass produced, inbred, overcrowded animals who should belong in the Amazon Basin die in the hot sun in polyurethane plastic bags during transit to the overcrowded LFS or die of horrifying diseases that are extremely rare in nature or just being killed by newbies through improper methods?

Anyway, sorry if I offend, but there is no other way to put forward what I think.

----------


## lorba

I am sure nobody is offended, in fact, after reading what you wrote, some might even feel a little guilty and ashamed  :Opps:  

But well, the fact is, we can't change this very old trade. It is completely useless to say, form a big group of people and go on to the streets striking. This trade rakes in millions for Singapore and businesses to many other countries. It is quite impossible to throw it away just so.

The group that claim to be nature lovers is not big, and the true nature lovers who doesnt keep any pets at all are even nicher. Every 1 nature-lover-fish-hobbyist you see out there, there are 100 who knows the clown anemonefish only by Nemo, and the fact that the water it requires is salted. By introducing this hobby to these people, they can hopefully learn to appreciate nature and life, and eventually, contribute a part to conservation. Since we are unable to totally stop it, what we can do is to help improve the situation. 

The management and supervision of the hobbyist industry includes the protection of nature reserves, licensing for collectors (collection is limited according to type of fish). Licensing and limitation on catches help to control, maintain and protect the existence of the wild fishes population. Without this, you can imagine some species being wiped out by nets of unlicensed collectors. On top of this, through farm breeding, some if not most of the nature locations are saved from disturbances and destructions which may potentially, definitely be caused by the collectors.

----------


## LiquidFX

Thanks lorba.

Actually, reducing fish trade is not the primary concern. I am just curious as to how one could simultaeneously claim to love nature and yet have a hobby that harms it.

I would think that after introducing the hobby to generate nature awareness, the fish lover who learns that his hobby is harmful would stop the hobby, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The fish lover still continues with the hobby and claims that he loves nature simultaneously.




> The management and supervision of the hobbyist industry includes the protection of nature reserves, licensing for collectors (collection is limited according to type of fish). Licensing and limitation on catches help to control, maintain and protect the existence of the wild fishes population. Without this, you can imagine some species being wiped out by nets of unlicensed collectors. On top of this, through farm breeding, some if not most of the nature locations are saved from disturbances and destructions which may potentially, definitely be caused by the collectors.


I think I answered these objections in my post above

----------


## geoffrey

> I am just curious as to how one could simultaeneously claim to love nature and yet have a hobby that harms it.


I guess it is impossible to be a purist. We owe nature for our livelihood-food, shelter and entertainment. We take from her so very often. What is important here is to know that she can't be giving infinitely and she falls ill if abused.

Paradoxical it may be but I think it can be done; with education, with creating awareness. Explaining what should be done and what should not to sustain the delicate balance between our needs and the needs of Nature is essence here, not total abstinence.

Like mono-cropping, this will not go on forever. The soil needs to be revitalised. How? Blatantly fertilising with commerial fertilisers or the natural way of planting peanuts? Which is better? Why?

Ikea, if I am not mistaken, plants a tree for everyone they down. Marakoopa cave gets regular scrubbing, after visits by nature-loving visitors, to remove spores of non-indigenious algaes, moss etc. Some, unfortunately not all, in the aquaria industry play their part too, like Tropica.

More industries are becoming more societal in their businesses. And this, together with the advent of Green Parties, did not come about out of the blue but rather, through the consolidated efforts and lobbying of many individuals, nature-loving hobbyists included too.

----------


## d2hpeter

"Microsoft going open-source"  :Grin:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:  
I like this!

I hv started keeping fishes in aquarium since primary school and started Planted tank recently because i appreciate the beauty of it. And i hv started to read books on its ecology.
I also like nature Photography.

It is interesting to read all the opinions in this thread.
My personal thinking is that if each of us could just be a bit less wasteful in our lifestyle, a lot of toxic waste from factories all over the world would not flow into rivers, a lot of forests would not be gone....by drinking a can of coca-cola, great damage is created "upstream" eg mining, processing of aluminium ore etc --> toxic waste-->destruction of natural habitat.....
Taking some of the fishes from nature so that we can appreciate their beauty, i think it is still not so bad, they still can replenish.
But if you destroy their natural habitat, most likely they will be gone forever.

----------


## aqnut

take a look at e-trails! it has almost covered Singapore!

http://www.molluscan.com/explore

----------


## Aeon

I think the best way to preserve nature is to let nature take its course.
We took wood to build houses. We used stones to start fires. We ate fruits and berries from forests. We killed animals to make stew. We harvested birds nest for profit. We mined for metal. There are so much we take from nature. Taking fish to beautify and appreciate nature is one of them. There is nothing wrong. Saying keeping fish destroys nature is simple minded. 

Taking nothing will not preserve. Replenishing after taking will. We died and return to nature as nutrients for the plants. All our biodegradable wastes become basic elements and return to nature. It is a ecosystem of equivalent trade. So there is no point in arguing that fishkeeping harms nature. Even walking through a trail kills some grass.

When one starts to think as a whole. Nature, its living organisms and everything in it as one. It's not hard to come to easy answers because Nature answers it for you. Just like in an aquarium. When you damage plant life, new algal life emerges, when you revive plant life, algal life subsides. Nature knows how to replenish itself but often too slow to catch with the rate of destruction by Man. That is where we should work on.

----------


## LiquidFX

[quote:b07bf3c311="Aeon"]I think the best way to preserve nature is to let nature take its course.
We took wood to build houses. We used stones to start fires. We ate fruits and berries from forests. We killed animals to make stew. We harvested birds nest for profit. We mined for metal. There are so much we take from nature. Taking fish to beautify and appreciate nature is one of them. There is nothing wrong. Saying keeping fish destroys nature is simple minded. [/quote:b07bf3c311]
Hi Aeon, all the activities you mentioned harms nature in one way or the other. Your argument is hard to follow, but do you mean to say that since we have already taken so much from nature, it doesn't hurt to take a bit more?

[quote:b07bf3c311="Aeon"]Taking nothing will not preserve. Replenishing after taking will. We died and return to nature as nutrients for the plants. All our biodegradable wastes become basic elements and return to nature. It is a ecosystem of equivalent trade. So there is no point in arguing that fishkeeping harms nature.[/quote:b07bf3c311]
Is the nutrients in your body when you die enough to grow the several tons of food you have eaten in your life? Is it enough to grow the several acres of forest you must clear to build houses/furniture/paper? Is it enough to clear up the pollution and CO2 you emit throughout your life? We are taking more from nature than we could give back.

[quote:b07bf3c311="Aeon"]Even walking through a trail kills some grass.[/quote:b07bf3c311]
Same argument as above? (i.e. we already do some damage, it doesn't hurt to do more)

[quote:b07bf3c311="Aeon"]When one starts to think as a whole. Nature, its living organisms and everything in it as one. It's not hard to come to easy answers because Nature answers it for you. Just like in an aquarium. When you damage plant life, new algal life emerges, when you revive plant life, algal life subsides.[/quote:b07bf3c311]
This is a simplistic and unrealistic view of nature.

[quote:b07bf3c311="Aeon"]Nature knows how to replenish itself but often too slow to catch with the rate of destruction by Man. That is where we should work on.[/quote:b07bf3c311]
That is how nature comes to be harmed to the point of no return. When its too slow to catch up. Have you studied control systems before? There is such a thing as a runaway process you know?

----------


## lorba

[quote:bed60ee801="Aeon"]I think the best way to preserve nature is to let nature take its course.
We took wood to build houses. We used stones to start fires. We ate fruits and berries from forests. We killed animals to make stew. We harvested birds nest for profit. We mined for metal. There are so much we take from nature. Taking fish to beautify and appreciate nature is one of them. There is nothing wrong. Saying keeping fish destroys nature is simple minded. [/quote:bed60ee801]

I agree that putting the "nature destroyer" tag on fish keepers is a bit too much, as I am one of them!  :Confused:  

But well, we must realise that there are many habitats destroyed in the course of collections. Thousands of fishes had died before the few hundred reaches your LFS shop, to face a quick or slow death depending on how the shop keeps them.

Many species of animals and fishes vanished from planet Earth in the recent years and many more went into the endangered list. Habitats of monkeys, tigers and many more are shrunken or destroyed for the sake of wood collections, fur and skin. These decreased the living areas of the animals and to nearly the point of extinction for some. Not mentioning many other serious damages (such as coral reef) that was caused due to the hobby and simply to fill our stomach.

How can we replenish them and how can we say there is nothing wrong? Keeping fish was, is, and will destroy nature. It is only the matter of the speed and scale.

----------

