Chris,

the problem that I have with some of your perceptions is that you appear to
support on the surface some ideas which appear to be morally praiseworthy,
but then you post these links to sites written by fanatics that have revenge
at heart. For instance you write about 'ecosystem based' forestry, but then
you refer to comments made by persons that are paid lobbyists of the
clearcutting industry, such as Patrick Moore. This industrial malfactor is
arguing for plastic snags for marbled murrelets, treating forests like
silviculture grass which can be mowed down when ever it is profitable, and
instilling fear into the common people in towns like Lillooet whenin at a
town hall meeting he asked townfolk to 'do everything in their power short
of all out war to stop environmentalists....environmentalists are a danger
to children. [Lillooet News] These people did not listen to him, they just
went ahead and protected 16% of the forest there last spring. He cannot even
work for his keep....but he likes to instill fear in people. Tea cozies,
lattes, and other 'nose size' propositions that you have are like that...I
quess you would be happy if we all wore green 'stars' of David on our
shirts...but you don't need that becauses of the tea cozies and ...ah...what
else, Madonnas, sults of nature, whores...but not to progress. A
propositional thought is essentially an 'attitudinal proposition' without
the facts, the exhibit...

One of the most ironic perceptions that you have to offer is that in your
veiw forest ecosystems must be there for humans. You argue for the
're-introduction' and 'introduction' of humans into forests but when I ask
why this is a 'priority' for you I am left withou any completely
satisfactory answer. For instance, I do not know of any conservationist that
choose to support a protected area and then also demand that humans be
excluded. Certainly there are limits to how many people can use an a
protected area, but you seem to indicate that humans have some 'right' to do
other things in the forest as well such as commercial logging with
helicopters, build roads, etc.

What I am concerned about is this level of complete distrust that you
protray regarding any other uses which exclude logging. May be it is because
of the hat you wear, forest consultant. There is no ecological and
justifiable reason why logging trucks, roads, and helicopters should be
whisking off all the excess 'morality' as you referred to often.

The acts that you propose in some of the worlds most endangered forests of
the world are acts that have predictable and unknown consequences,
especially for the remnant nothofagus forests of NZ. Yet you seem only to be
interested in posting your own 'propositional thoughts' on the matter by
infliction of the most odious sort. The word odio in spanish means
hate...and that is all that you offer besides a spattering of ecological
cliches gleaned from the literature....

In fact if the were no logging trucks and roads and helicopters whisking off
the 'excess mortality' that you have somehow laid claim to, then perhaps all
these issues you refer to as sustainablity issues would be solved. There is
no fundamental need to whisk the excess mortality off the forest from the
rarest of the rare. If you wanted to change the ancient nothofagus forest,
then you have certainly sought out some of the right technical jargon to
justify such an act of utilitarianism.

The crux of the problem that you speak to is not sustainability but rather
dependency, and how to reverse it. With the idea of removing the excess
morality [if such a term could exist in the economy of nature], then why
would you support the removal of these ancient veterans for the primary use
of pulp which is to be made in Japan or in a remote sawmill in Christchurch.
In fact the proposal that was stopped, the Timberlands proposal, indicated
that the owner of the timber ultimately would export 50% of the raw logs
outside of New Zealand, that not even one percent would be milled on the
West Coast of NZ.

This proposal would result in the 'depopulation' of the west coast...and the
defaunation over a short time of the last remaining unprotected ancient
nothofagus forests. Yet you are all against humans being excluded from the
forest. Well if you have confused logging trucks, roads, and helicopters,
and giant barges full of raw logs with humans, then what you will be
happiest when there are no people in the forest but only a couple of
foresters, a dozen logging trucks, and a thousand landings infested with
exotic weeds.

If we only had more protected forests, then the humans would soon learn to
appreciate the vast intricacy of nature, and make every attempt to
're-introduce' the specializations and adaptations that humans are noted for
among the Homidae such as tenderness, celebration of feeling, and
discovery...

Your comments are too often 'propositional thoughts' or attitudes without
sensitivity to the whole of what the human actually is. Your arguements are
classical examples of 'act utilitarianism' versus 'rule utilitarianism'
instilled with the sacred order. Tea cozies, lattes, and any other terms of
hatred that you have ...don't mean a thing...to me. It is water off my
back....

chao

john



----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Perley <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:41 PM
Subject: Anti what?


> [snip]
> >
> > I appreciate your postings John, but tend to ignore this listserv
> > since it is so
> > dominated by a few anti-environmentalist zealots. The listserv should be
> > re-named "anti-enviroethics."
> >
> > Ted
>
> Hi Ted,  I don't know who you regard as "anti-environmentalist zealots",
> but - whoever - I don't think it is especially helpful.  This is a
> philosophy list.  It is not a list where only one point of view must hold
> sway, and where only one definition must apply for those to belong to the
> "environmentalist" camp.  For what it is worth, I consider myself an
> environmentalist, though my heroes espouse the civic environmentalism of
> Leopold and Berry, rather than the "get rid of the redskins at the point
of
> a gun" of Muir et al.  I think the latter is doomed to fail -  fail
> humanity, and fail many environmental values as well.
>
> Chris