Problem in berrypicking

We have a problem due to Russian attack against Ukraine. And I am not talking about military threat but berry picking.

In Finland we have considerable amounts of berry production. There is a good reason for it as our summer days are extremely long, which results in high amounts of taste-giving aroma in the berries. 

The problem arises from the fact that many berry growers have hired Ukrainians to work in the field during recent years. Now Ukrainians are not available due to the Russians, Finnish kids are not any more willing to search jobs from farms, and refugees and asylum seekers from developing countries rather live with social subsidies than spend their days by working for a salary.

Now the fear is that the excellent yield of strawberries cannot be picked in the short time frame available between their ripening and rotting. The question arising is: what will be the future of a society, where no one is willing to earn their living by somehow unpleasant work. 

Not youngsters, not unemployed or not immigrants. And taxpayers pay to all of them for doing nothing in the name of social security.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
A new route for the Ukrainian crops

 

A new justification is needed for environmental activists

Biodiversity crisis is one of the big environmental issues today. Although the problem is worst in the low latitudes, the topic is intensively discussed also in the European Union, which is in a process of preparing a stringent legislation to save the environment. 

In its current form EU biodiversity strategy would have serious effects on the Nordic forestry, which in Finland gives work to almost 100 000 people, and forms the basis of almost 20 percent of the export value. Despite these economic facts, a considerably higher amount of wood is growing in the Finnish forests now than was hundred years ago.   

One of the keystone species for biodiversity in North-European forests is bilberry. It is a valuable berry that many people are picking in forests, but it also is an extremely important source of food for many wild animals, especially birds - but also the king of the forests, bear. 

The environmentalists have for decades claimed that current forestry practices are reducing the amount of bilberries, and through food chain many other animals (example). The scientific basis supporting their claim are old investigations that showed bilberry area to have reduced between years 1950 and 1995. 

Now a new investigation is ongoing and its first results show that the forest area covered by bilberries has not reduced since 1995, but in contrast it has increased. Therefore the bilberry does not suffer from Nordic forestry, which has intensified between all those years, but may even have benefited on its current practices. 

Neither will many birds suffer from the lack of bilberries, but their reducing numbers result from some other causes. And those may or may not be related to forestry.  

In my opinion this little example demonstrates extremely well the problem typical to fanatic single topic movements. They have decided beforehand - based on their ideology - what is the problem they are opposing, and thereafter they search for evidence supporting their view from wherever that can be found. 

Therefore I do not expect truth about bilberries in Finland to change the opinions of environmental organisations towards commercial forestry. Instead, they will find other issues that seem to support their ideology. And use them against economic activities, that they have decided to oppose. That is, the Nordic forestry.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
Climate change raises dishonesty in the Finnish media