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"
|