Chris Perley,

I think that you are confusing  interests with positions (in discussion with
you on this list) through  your 'a prior' terms of reference re preservation. 

Some people are expressing an interest, but not a position. So you often
resort to characterization of the people that you disagree with, and
characterization that does not win you support from the people that you need
support from. 

In general the discussion has been going like that for over a month. Those
with interests in conservation express an interest in the facts and
principles, and the others express a position with respect to an issue (i.e.
my bad experiences with 'preservationists' down under NA) (usually regarding
the environmentalists character: Mintner, Budiansky, etc.). The
environmentalists on the list talk about the issues of concern, the
anti-environmentalists talk about the environmentalists and take positions
against them. 

Environmentalists are not concerned about persons as problems, but only
about the issues. 

We make no progress discussing real issues that way, being at  odds.  

On the one hand to acknowledge 'intrinsic values' and preservation, but on
the other hand to acknowledge utilitarian 'privilege' viz sustainability, is
to make progress. None of us on this list are informed enough to agree one
way or the other way with the thinking about low impact exploitation that is
not abusive of the productivity of forested ecosystems, however. Given the
'one side' of the fence, and then the 'other side' of the fence, it is
glaringly obvious that some 'a prior' is operating here in the analysis
which has a foundation in economics (and religion/philosophy). Why does a
forestry have to be profitable only to one firm? Why not envision a strict
subsistence type of forestry instead dependent on ecotourism, botanical
forest products, and non-timber forest products? 

Why does banning tree harvesting imply 'preservation'? Yosemite National
Park generates well over $ 200 million per year in a valley that is about 20
square miles. No trees are harvested. Only tourists come. 

Lets be clear. The preservation of the Antarctic continent generates
science, tourism, and value. If I go to work and build a chair from willow
taken from the forest, or make a huckleberry pie, and offer that for sale to
a tourist, then does that not constitute a 'utilitarian use of the forest'?
Why must the use of one or two tree species be the a prior rule in whether
or not 'preservation' is good or not? 

One the one hand to support preservation, on the other hand not to support
preservation, that is the question! (The devil is a divided soul). But
preservation means different things to different people. We can get no where
if one person is using the term 'perservation' negatively, and the other
person is using the term positively. We need to appreciate the fence which
is not there in reality. The reality is that we have put up a fence because
we are talking about two different things: the environmentalist are talking
about the interests of all, not the individual interests of one person. 

 The argument for exploitation  begins to become weak when the proposition
is made to ridicule the 'religious' sentiments of persons that  in general
have a distaste for the over-exploitation of trees. 

There are many arguments that are made against persons who hold religious
and philisophical values. They exist each day, each hour, but the fact is
that if a person believes in an object, there is nothing wrong with that.
It's Okay. But to deny that object does not exist, when in fact it does
exist, is the worst form of intolerance since it is pure hatred of the
other. It is a violation in principle of their existence. 

Ridiculing adults gets them 'angry' and gets them to say things. We are not
kids either...kids don' always say things in response to ridicule. 

This is like saying that a person's beliefs have no support (no foundations
to anything in existence, we're just Pavlovian puppies) in some more archic
(principled) sense. But I am here to say that 'religious' beliefs are the
foundation apon which people thrive and find meaning each day. The essence
of the religious life is to celebrate the having of children and the
celebration of the sharing of food. This is universal in the world.  It is
necessary for happiness to have beliefs that transcend mere experience. A
potato is only a potato but the garnish of moonlight and stars in the
evening make the moment unforgetful. 

Not all of us can bow down before the sacred altar of Mammon each day and be
happy.  

We cannot find God in the market because God exists everywhere. Indeed if
you find have to search for God then you will not find God. You are better
off turning your back, and ignoring God (Patanjali: Yoga Sutras). (big hint
there) 

If I was to agree with (a prior) on the goodness of your vision of
sustainable development (oxymoron), I want to see the facts. If your
forestry practice can bring back species where they were extirpated from
degraded forests, I would like to see the proof. Taking primary, frontier
forests in NZ that have never been logged before to test out a hypothesis is
foolish in my opinion since I do not know of any example of 'sustainable
forestry' where primary forests have been logged and wildlife have benefitted.

There are many examples of experiments in forests that date back to the
Ancient Romans. The Romans had some very good forestry and conservation
laws. However most of those laws were never implemented nor adminstrated
adequately. In some cases these laws are superior to our own. What happened?  

Even the author of "The Compass and the Gyroscope", Kai Lee admits that
there are few convincing examples of sustainable forestry:not yet. There are
indications of an ethical forestry in human history, but they are not
profitable to large industry, nor do can they be implemented on a large
scale. Why continue more experiments in rare and endangered ecosystems? 

Afforestation is the solution in my opinion. But transient, international
and abstract capital want an immediate return on investment. There are 75
million hectares of deforested and degraded forests in Brazil alone. Why not
start sustainable forestry there?

john foster

"When an idea is new, it is seen as crazy. This is followed by a period in
which it is viewed as dangerous. After this, there is a period of
uncertainty. In the end, you can't find anyone who disagreed with it in the
first place".  

Stephen J. Gould



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%