▲ 102 ▼ ‘Darwin’s oak’ to be felled to make way for Shrewsbury bypass (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by mondoman712@lemmy.ml to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk 20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) In the picture there sure is a lot of area around the tree... But hey, if they have a hard on to cut down old significant trees, who's to stop them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (3 children) Significant because of its age? Sure. Significant because of its tenuous ties to Darwin? Someone named it Darwin's Oak a couple years ago to gather public sympathy against the project. You could argue against any development in the area because "Darwin may have walked on these grounds and threw rocks in this stream as a child". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] scrchngwsl@feddit.uk 6 points 2 years ago Yeah I'm all for keeping old trees like this one but that's because old trees are good in and of themselves. I care less about Darwin possibly having climbed it 200 years ago and more about little boys and girls climbing it 200 years from now. Nobody will be driving on that bypass in 200 years but I do hope that children will still be climbing trees like this one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Ah yes. Darwin's stream. We should protect that stream. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sizzler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I can tell you there's fuck all chance Darwin was near it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (3 children) Significant because of its age? Sure. Significant because of its tenuous ties to Darwin? Someone named it Darwin's Oak a couple years ago to gather public sympathy against the project. You could argue against any development in the area because "Darwin may have walked on these grounds and threw rocks in this stream as a child". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] scrchngwsl@feddit.uk 6 points 2 years ago Yeah I'm all for keeping old trees like this one but that's because old trees are good in and of themselves. I care less about Darwin possibly having climbed it 200 years ago and more about little boys and girls climbing it 200 years from now. Nobody will be driving on that bypass in 200 years but I do hope that children will still be climbing trees like this one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Ah yes. Darwin's stream. We should protect that stream. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sizzler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I can tell you there's fuck all chance Darwin was near it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] scrchngwsl@feddit.uk 6 points 2 years ago Yeah I'm all for keeping old trees like this one but that's because old trees are good in and of themselves. I care less about Darwin possibly having climbed it 200 years ago and more about little boys and girls climbing it 200 years from now. Nobody will be driving on that bypass in 200 years but I do hope that children will still be climbing trees like this one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Ah yes. Darwin's stream. We should protect that stream. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sizzler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I can tell you there's fuck all chance Darwin was near it. permalink fedilink source parent