--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > But don't give me the bullshit that preservation sans humanity is
> somehow
> a
> > desirable state per se.
>
> So you are advocating putting humans into every conceivable ecosystem
> including each and every remote valley and fjord on earth? To me this is
> simply as absurd as the argument that no human beings should be living
> in
> any ecosystem.
Hmmmm I read that and my strawman argument meter went right into the red.
No, Chris is simply saying that humanity can be part of an ecological
system and that isn't the case that removing humanity from the ecosystem
is desirable. Where you get that humans HAVE TO BE in every ecosystem is
beyond me.
> I just returned from an ecosystem without human beings. There were no
Uhhh...John...uhhhmmm if you were there wasn't a human being in that
ecosystem?
> signs
> of any humans there. We spent the whole day on skiis getting into the
'We'? So there were more than one of you. And since you were on skiis
didn't you leave at least a temporary sign of you presence there?
> area
> (Joseph Creek) and had a difficult time getting out of this area. We did
> not
> see so much as a axe mark in a single tree for many kilometers.
Is your definition of human presence an ax mark on a tree? If that is the
case there is no human presence on my street as none of the trees have a
single ax mark.
> > It is the subjugation of culture to some virus
> > state outside nature that I find so hard to accept from those that
> many of
> > us call "preservationist" (and we are not all utilitarian Wise Use
> people
> > John, whatever propaganda ploys you may use to paint the world black
> and
> > white).
>
> This is incomprehensible to me....we don't use the term
> 'preservationist'
> here. Ron Arnold does use the term when is paid to instill fear into the
> minds of single industry sawmill town folks. He is an expert in 'mind
> control' techniques developed by the CIA.
>
> > And get off the CIA conspiracy theories. The people who back me
> financially
> > are from Alpha Centauri, with very large eyes and 12 fingers.
>
> > Chris
>
> Well finally we can agree on something. I bet some capitalists that
> don't
> give a poo poo about ancient Nothofagus trees are backing you. I suspect
> it
> is Muribeni or some Japanese company....that has cleaned out the rawlogs
> from tropical rainforests in Indonesia, now wants the few patches of
> Nothofagus left in New Zealand. I hope that the people of New Zealand
> preserve all of what is left. Otherwise there will not be much of
> tourism
> industry there in the future. It will be like Easter Island in a few
> hundred
> years.
I am confused here. I thought Chris said his backers were from Alpha
Centauri not Japan. Do you have some inside info on Chris' finances John?
Also I am not sure, is preserve a bad word or is it preservationist that
is a bad word?
Steve
>
> You'd be a lot better off carrying on forestry on those 5 million sheep
> infested degraded acres. Us enviro's prefer our polyester 'fleeces' [tea
> cosies to you] to itchy wool.
>
>
> > PS the "emerging paradigm" is not preservationism.
>
> Do you have any academic references to this term 'preservationism'? I
> have
> not found it any texts except Ron Arnold's who is a paid consultant for
> the
> Moonies....Can you give me one reference from a respected journal that
> is
> published by a respeccted University or Professional body?
>
> > That is the antithesis
> > of the original thesis of utilitarian development (nature as whore to
> > "rape", and over which to have dominion).
>
> I think you are confused here. There was a scientific and western view
> that
> nature should be tamed to extract the most from her. The image of the
> whore
> is not one that was used by Bacon, nor any of the romantics, so you
> should
> be referencing you commentary where it is not reflecting 'common
> knowledge'
> use of terms you are using to make your point.
>
> >The synthesis is the emergence of
> > an ethic that accommodates people within nature. That means a
> marriage,
> not
> > your pathetic Chicken Little Madonna worship, where even the lightest
> touch
> > of your nature is assumed to be a rape.
>
> I see a repeat here of you favourite phrases. How can you confuse Henny
> Penny with Madonna? I though she was from a nursery story for little
> children....I don't know any preservationist that are insisting on
> keeping
> people out of any ecosystems. In fact ecotourism is the opposite of the
> tragedy of large scale industrial forestry.
>
> I would never pick huckle berries in a forest sprayed with roundup.
>
> For one thing there is no reason to go into a herbicided plantation
> because
> there are no wildlife. Weyerhaueser used to use herbicides to control
> deer
> populations in their young plantations.
>
> The only person that you want to see in the forest is a logger with a
> chainsaw....and this is the same with Weyerhaueser where they own
> valuable
> plantations. They lock the gates to reduce the risk of fire and bullets
> being lodged into the trees and causing economic loss.
>
> > The Manichaen dichotomy (of which
> > you are so manifestly representative of one monochromatic end of the
> > spectrum) is the major problem we have in achieving environmental
> solutions
> > to our problems.
>
> And you of course are at the other opposite extreme....make nature pay
> for
> herself.
>
>
> > I believe that the preservationists represented a
> > necessary step to making people realise we have environmental problems
> -
> but
> > solutions require a synthesis, not some quasi-religious worship of
> Chicken
> > Little, and a "nature" that is often presented as incompatible with
> the
> > presence of the human "virus".
>
> You have a very limited repetroire of images that you rely on. I can
> only
> imagine how many books you have actually read?
>
> I think you have written more books than you have read. Now I do need to
> retire for the evening before you put me to sleep at an inopportune
> locations....
>
> Yaawnnnn.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Naa Noo, Naa Noo
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
> > Sent: Monday, 19 February 2001 11:54
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: clearfells v wildfires - what constitutes harm?
> >
> >
> > I think that I have read this post before by Chris Perley.
> >
> > Chris has an inconsistent definition (or variable) of the word
> > preservationist. This is a term taken from the lingo of the 'wise use
> > movement' and Ron Arnold, the consultant of the Moonies organization,
> > experts in Mind Control. Ron Arnold claims to be an expert in Mind
> Control
> > techniques devised by the CIA which have been used for
> 'counter-insurgency'
> > programs used to de-stabilize democratically elected governments like
> the
> > Allende government of Chile.
> >
> > Now for the facts:
> >
> > First use of the term preserve in ecology was about 1949. The original
> > reference to "preservation" was Aldo Leopold when he said "a thing is
> right
> > when tends to *preserve* the integrity" of the ecosystem. Therefore
> anything
> > which has a preservationist philosophy is right.
> >
> > But you are saying that 'preservation' is wrong.
> >
> > Chris I think you have a 'sore spot' brought on by the dominant,
> emerging,
> > paradigm, that is fulminated by the over-abundance of persons' donning
> a
> > 'teacosy' for a hat. Are the tea cosies made from recycled polyester,
> or
> are
> > they made from wool?
> >
> > ciao,
> >
> > John Foster
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Chris Perley <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 12:02 PM
> > Subject: clearfells v wildfires - what constitutes harm?
> >
> >
> > > 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"
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
