Tony wrote:
>Hey, forest fires are good for the forest, needed for regeneration. I'd
much
>rather see a forest burn than see it clearcut...
Fire is an ecological reality, but don't get too romantic about it. The
loss of nutrients volatilised off site by a hot burn is far greater than the
nutrients removed by a well managed clearcut. The effects on macrofauna and
flora can be better or worse, depending on which ones you value the most.
Not that I am defending large scale clearcuts inappropriate to a local
ecology, but it always amuses me when people see the "natural" act as
somehow "harmless" while the "human" act is (for some) necessarily
"harmful" - as though they are basing their assessment on the ACTOR rather
than the actual EFFECTS of the action.
I think that those who think that natural burns are "harmless" while a
human-set burn, or clearcut is "harmful" (or just plain bad "ecoterrorism"
as some would claim - claim your own definition) leave themselves open to an
accusation of contradiction (if the ecological effects of what results in
each circumstance are the criteria of assessment - and underpin other
premises to their argument). From an ecological effects point of view the
actor is an irrelevance. That is the ecocentric perspective, which
accommodates culture as part of nature. When preservationists claim that
the human act is wrong rather than appraising the ecological effect I wonder
whether they are not being as anthropocentric (on another extreme - nature
=Madonna to be worshipped) as the people they profess to despise the most
(on the other extreme - nature = whore, defined by property rights etc.)
Some people go further, and condemn every human act within their ideal of
nature (Madonna), irrespective of it doing harm or even "good".
Been there, seen that.
Our own environmental history raises doubts about such perspectives that
define "harm" in the environment as being more related to the actor, than
the effects of the act itself. (All related to the nature/culture arguments
claiming that we are either apart FROM, or a part OF, "nature").
Chris Perley
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chiaviello, Anthony
Sent: Saturday, 17 February 2001 10:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: State Sponsored Ecoterror
Hey, forest fires are good for the forest, needed for regeneration. I'd much
rather see a forest burn than see it clearcut (Ideally, I'd like to see
forestry be one out of five trees, individually counted and skidded out by
mule or helicopter, but the profit is slim, though there are those who do
make a living at it - one in Alberta that I know of, another written up 2
weeks ago in High Country News).
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"
|