I feel funny agreeing with John, but his observation that the only
generalization in Ecology is "it depends" is correct. I know of areas here
in Colorado where a good fire would do a world of good. On the other hand I
also know of areas where it would be very damaging to local systems. To say
that fire is *always* preferable to logging is an interesting ethical
statement however. Maybe we can put aside the pop-ecology discussion for
awhile and talk about logging versus fire as an ethical issue. Wouldn't that
be fun for a change?
Steven
Our human ecology is that of a rare species of mammal in a social,
omnivorous niche. Our demography is one of a slow-breeding, large,
intelligent primate. To shatter our population structure, to become abundant
in the way of rodents, not only destroys our ecological relations with the
rest of nature, it sets the stage for our mass insanity.
Paul Shepard
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: State Sponsored Ecoterror
It is impossible to generalize on whether a wildfire is good or not even for
a forester. It all depends on the site, and a infinite array of other
variables. One good place for a wildfire in my opinion is a 'franken forest'
of GMO's owned by Weyerhaueser. You will probably have to agree. Otherwise
how would the forest regenerate?
Don't let your vote become toxic waste.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
|