> CP: I don't believe I have raised "rights" that often, if at all. More
> appointed words. The reality is out there John. Humans use resources.
It
> is preferable to use renewable ones in the long term, using management
that
> does no environmental harm. Use does not necessarily harm. "No human
use"
> does not necessarily protect. We either reconcile our use in some
> sustainable way, or we don't use anything at all. The latter means human
> extinction, so the former holds (if you don't fancy extinction). So much
of
> what many self-proclaimed "environmentalists" subscribe to is that ONLY
the
> latter amounts to an environmentalist perspective.
This is where you fail to convey anything remotely resembling or meaningful
about reality. To say that there are environmentalists that are
'self-proclaimed' is a value statement. You are manipulating reality here
because no generalizations can be made about environmentalists except one
which is that they value a healthy environement. Everyone is potentially an
environmentalist, and you are postulating that some are only proclaiming
that they are. This is like raising the spector of 'intolerance' against any
person that you disagree with.
You are an environmental judge of a person's character....that one is...that
is not...one has a latte in his hand...one has a tea cozy on his head...the
other...
Go ahead manipulate reality, indulge in your characterizations of extreme
behaviours that do not exist...in real life....
Utilitarianism does not necessarily mean that humans are the only species
worth preserving, but it does mean something broader. For instance, 'the
greatest good for the greatest number' means that all species, and their
habitats are valued as a whole, as in a consortium. It also does no mean,
ipso facto, that some are to be disadvantaged. There is no way of making any
inferences like you suggest exist in your characterologies of the
environmentalist. This either or scenario is absolutely fabricated on a
'conceptual hypothesis' aggravated by some cartoonized pictographic version
of human relationships.
You characterology is an example of a 'conceptual hypothesis' that reminds
me of the reasoning that went into the science of phrenology. I see the
invention of reality, but not the mention of reality....surreality has given
way to irreality....as exposed by the stereotypes, however threadbare they
appear to all sundry that scan their profile; pure nihility...rather than
cauducity....
I don't know any of these 'self-proclaimed' environmentalists...and who are
you to tell one authentic one apart from the other less authentic one? I
call this environmental racism in the making...leading to a lot of mischeif
and nuisance which you appear to indulge in from time to time.
>I reject that because of
> the corollaries involved. Some think that is "anti-environmental",
because
> they base their arguments on a premise of the future being one where there
> can only be one winner - either culture - or nature (the false dichotomy).
I cannot follow this. What is meant by culture here? Is there a culture
somewhere worth preserving? There were tens of thousands of cultures that
existed in the Holocene, but now there are only a few: one or two indigenous
cultures in the Amazon, and one large homogenous culture of scarcity....and
instant commercial satisfaction. No one hunts any longer with fishing line
made from the inner bark of the black spruce tree....what cultures are you
wishing to preserve?
There were once 120 languages spoken in Peru. Over 20 of these languages are
now dead, extinct, dormant, and there are more that are almost extinct
because there are fewer than 200 people speaking them. Each language is
dependent on a separate culture. Spanish and only Quechua, and Aymaran are
still spoken any where in the civilized portions of Peru.
98% of the cultures that existed during the time of Columbus are dead
now....
> Others argue for a future that includes culture AND nature. One
represents
> a vision that has hope, is inclusive and has some basis in reality. The
> other doesn't have either vision, or hope or a base of reality. IMHO of
> course.
50% of nature in the form of forest is now extinct in the world. The
mangroves are 50% extinct, and there oak forests of the Medditerrean are
99.9 % extinct. One still exists ...in memory. And what about the forests of
Ohio, how many of the original forests are there now? Well approximately 5
%, leaving a full 95% extinct, and now in corn or some human
species-pair....
There was some truth to the thesis regarding the 'social construction' of
reality, and it exists here...lets us dream about the sustainability of the
earth's food webs. That is the only hierarchy and the dominant form of man,
the neolithic, mega-mall minded hunter is the 'culmination phase' of
organism in a long chain of selection, adaptation and
specialization....nutrition hierarchies and reproduction hierarchies...let
us celebrate that since we as a species are the standing on the top of the
pyramid....
> > What I am concerned about is this level of complete distrust that you
> > protray regarding any other uses which exclude logging.
>
> CP: Not so. Preserves have their place, as I have said. What I reject is
> that ONLY preserves represent environmental protection. I also reject the
> fact that more preserves means more highly intensive management somewhere
> else - the implicit partner to the preservationist ideal. I.e.
> peservationism that rejects sustainable management of any system provides
> ammunition for intensive an often unsustainable practices to provide for
> human needs.
The fact is that the human species has not had any success in preserving any
natural ecosystems. Depleted are the oceans, and 80% depleted are the
forests, and soon the air will be depleted, as will be the water sources.
All ecosystems on the face of the earth which have been dominated by man
have been inalterably disturbed. For instance in India, the only extant
areas of native wildlife are in parks and preserves. In fact in the tropics
the only habitat left intact in the primary undistrubed state is in the
areas where malaria, yellow fever and large tigers still occur. There are
some exception such as Bhutan which has protected most of it's forest as a
result of Bhuddism's respect for all life. There is also som evidence that
the neolithic cultures, separately in the 10's of thousands of distinct
cultures prior to Columbus, also demonstrated respect for nature.
Culture is an outgrowth or outcome of living semi-remotely in a natural
setting where the forces of nature dominate, not the other way around.
Culture is a form of organic adaptation to a different environment than is
not common for any other or another group. When the environment is all the
same whether in Tokyo or Edmonton, then the culture will be homogenous....
The culture of the electro-magnetic age is largely a living artefact of
noise and bustle, not to mention hustle and wasted time-lines spent trying
to pay bills for useless gadgets, services and comforts that are short term.
Today culture is homogenous, yesterday it was heterogenous...you cannot even
call what we have culture. We call it 'recreation' or 'taking a holiday from
work' or 'retiring' or 'going to college'...that is it...or going
'shopping'. These few dependent clauses define in total what is part of our
culture, even watching a 'dirty movie', ie. it is homogenous like your latte
supping 'self-proclaimed environmentalists'...or...Ron Arnold is a
cartoonist that creates these pictographs, manipulations of reality...what
we call culture is a fragment.
The majority of the working people in NA have to commute each day to work in
cars. They often have a two hour drive in intolerable traffic snarls and
honking horns just to break even at the end of the day. It is a cycle of
poverty that is just like the cycle of poverty in many South American
cities. You lose your job for a year or two and you can lose your entire
life savings....a meager 1% of the world's population owns 99% of the
world's wealth....
> 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.
>
> CP: There is every reason if it protects the environment, the local
> community and the local economy. This is particularly so if the
alternative
> (preservation) does *none* of these (rather the reverse), and - on top of
it
> all - the processes of preservationist propaganda and government action
> destroys trust, is immoral, and abuses legitimate legal, consensual and
> scientific processes.
Short rotation forestry on the commercial scale that exists now does not
even protect profits. Eleven plus sawmills in the last two years shut down
here in BC. And these sawmills were very large ones that cut up to 600,000
cubic meters of wood per year. Gone were the days...and it is going to get
much worse....there is a lot of wood out there but the cost of keeping the
mills running is to high...Wood rots and people are getting wise about
wasting their precious time buying houses that you can punch a hole through
with your fist. May as well take the wall down, and live in a tent....or a
hammac...
> CP: I do not recall referring to "excess mortality" John (or
'propositional
> thoughts' for that matter). Are these your interpretations on my
comments?
> It sounds like a nonsense to me. It seems to me John that you interpret
> peoples' opinions as belonging to a very few pigeon holes. You classify
me
> in an extreme slot that is entirely unfair and unjustified.
You said that you would only harvest 50% of the mortality. It is in your
posts. So what is so magic about this number as opposed to 10%?
>
> > 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.
>
> CP: Where do you get this arrant rubbish John?
I got it from Timberlands proposal...it is on the web.
The foreign firm that had contracted to buy the logs from Timberlands is
going to ship the logs outside of the area to a mill they bought in some
place on another part of the islands. They were going to export 50% of the
logs are raw logs, mill the other half not where the logs are harvested. I
can post the web site that explains these and other facts.
|
