[milesrout]

The "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain. Are moors not natural landscapes because they were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago? Is it natural when animals do something but not when humans do it? Or is it natural when hunter gatherers do something but not when agriculturalists do it? Or is it natural when non-industrial people do it, but not when industrialists do it? And why does your chosen definition matter? Is the natural landscape better than human-modified landscapes? Is a change always fine if the starting point was created by humans?

If you replaced the ancient figures carved into the chalk in England with wind farms would that be fine because they arent natural features?

[ascorbic]

> The "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain

It's quite simple: there is none. Moors are created by farming and logging. All woodland has either been planted and managed by humans, or self-seeded on land cleared by humans. Aside from a handful of tiny patches (which are questionable) there is no primeval forest in Britain.

[walthamstow]

It's unclear what point you're making with reference to the blanket ban on onshore wind. I wouldn't like to see turbines on Cerne Abbas or Dartmoor. Nobody wants that, as far as I'm aware?

I would like to see more of them on the generic grass/wheat/rape fields that cover much of England. That was prevented by the blanket ban.

[devnullbrain]

You can't find a principled stance for a naturalistic fallacy.

[rsynnott]

I mean on that basis you could say that Milton Keynes is natural because humans did it.

[milesrout]

I think the point is more that none of it is really "natural". But also yes? We are animals.