Are Wetlands Worthless Because They Are Inedible?

I  kept an eye out, but I didn’t find my favourite poster in reply to Murray Darling Basin Plan, but I did fine this gem.

What an idiotic statement.

Using this logic, we could effectively argue a great many things as pointless… I mean, one cannot eat their shoes, a household brick, a car, a bathroom, thus are all these things meaningless?

There are good arguments for what ought to be taught in schools – critical thinking and information analysis being the most obvious – yet I feel the most important should be human ecology. It is a pet peeve of mine which motivated me to write The Human Island.

We often hear our species referred to as an “apex species / predator” yet this only counts if we have an apex. Simple single celled organisms require very little to persist. With all that our species requires, from the simple life in our gut to the massive trees that condition the atmosphere, modify the hydrological cycle and provide buffers to storm surges, we are very dependent upon our ecological webs. A point easily forgotten deep in the sterile urban landscape.

We don’t eat wetlands, fresh or saline, but we do eat the fruits of wetlands, whether it’s fish species or birds. These also provide a second level through feeding and fertilizing other species and environments elsewhere. Wetlands are nurseries for fish and birds that tend to migrate.

On the other hand, we drink water. Fresh water is limited and very insecure in Australia at the best of times.

How does using water in the following way, in the middle of summer, in the same arid inland location?