|> ->> Not the only person. A common theme that runs through all environmental
|> ->>debate is that every other species is more important than Man.
|> ->Perhaps you've been reading literature the rest of us haven't. I've never
|> ->seen such a thing.
|>
|> -Oh? You haven't even read about the spotted owl? The environmentalist
|> -position there is that the species must be saved regardless of how many
|> -jobs are lost. Now, there are certainly cases where a specific type of
|> -environmental protection may be worth some job loss, and this may be one
|> -of them, but that is not the environmentalist position. Whenever
|> -someone starts talking about cost/benefit analyses, the environmentalists
|> -do not contest the costs and benefits involved -- they just yell bloody
|> -murder.
|>
|> I've never thought the coverage of this controversy in the popular news
|> media provided enough details for anyone to form a reasonable opinion.
|> One item that was peripherally mentioned was that the proposed logging
|> of the area would be at much faster than replacement rate, so that after
|> a certain number of years (perhaps 10-20 - I don't know for sure), those
|> jobs would be gone anyway. Also, I haven't seen too much mention of the
|> events leading to the current situation. Was the forest land in question
|> always protected, or is the protection a recent change in policy? If the
|> former, then I assume the people who want the jobs cutting the trees didn't
|> all graduate from lumberjack college this year - they must have been
|> cutting somewhere else before this. If that is the case, then why did they
|> keep the industry going full blast until this was the only land left
|> available to them (if that's also the case)? Were they confident that they
|> would be able to get the protection removed? If, on the other hand, the
|> protection was abruptly added, I can see how they might feel they have a
|> legitimate complaint.
|>
|> Does anybody have more information on the events leading to the current
|> situation? It seems to me that the fact that the timber industry wants to
|> cut the trees in the area at much more than the replacement rate weakens
|> their argument - they basically want to destroy a renewable resource in
|> order to enjoy a few more years of prosperity. I'm also not entirely clear
|> on why these particular trees have to be cut - are they all the old-growth
|> timber that's left?
|>
|> John Roberts
|> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
|>
I tried, in vain to post some response to Edward several weeks ago. Reading your
post has refreshed my interest. Thanks. My apologies to John, for piggy-backing
my emotional response onto his measured post, as follows...
I was under the impression that Federal law prohibits those activities that further the decline of threatened species, not screaming intruders from out of town. That's the LAW isn't it?
My view is that economies, being creations of mankind are castles made of sand. They can be created and recreated once destroyed. Ecosystems on the otherhand are gifts, given only once. Given the choice between having to prove humanity's special gift for adaptation and creativity or the permanent loss of a very special place, I'd choose the former. I'd choose success over loss every time.
>Bingo! What is wrong with someone worrying about how an environmental
>decision affects people? You environmentalists frame questions in terms
>of how they affect every other species *except man.*
An investigation of current events, like leaked, suppressed reports will show you that if you sell every damn tree in that preserve to the Japanese, that really won't provide very many jobs for very long. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, perhaps several thousand for several years. That is a significant figure to those doing the chopping, but compared to the nation, it's nothing. Lockheed did away with many more jobs this year alone. Here is my point: Given the finite nature of that preserve, and the spee
d at which it could be cleared, what have you got when it's done? Five, ten years of jobs? So lets say the year is 2002, we've had our jobs, the timber idustry has had their profits and now it's over. The jobs are still gone, now the trees are gone, the spotted owl is gone and now the soil is washing to the sea. Who really won? The workers didn't, the nation didn't, the trees didn't. Only the multi-national timber interests won. They're living the good life somewhere very far from the scene they created.
And Ed, you helped them. Not because you didn't like birds but because you bought into the whole "Environmentalists are killing us!" lie. That 'all` environmentalists want only to stifle the economy. That business is in business to create jobs. Wake up! They are there for money and if they're allowed, some would smash the last tree on the planet to get a clean shot at the last tiger.
How are your interests being served by your stance? I need to understand just what you're after. Are they paying you or do you just hate people who don't think just like you?
You've closed your mind to ideas because you didn't like what someone, somewhere said or caused to happen. "You environmentalists", what, are they not people? Why must you label people? So you can exclude or dismiss them? Some are nuts, some are great, most are just concerned enough to try to make a difference. But you put words into all their mouths and then flame them all. Not constructive, Ed.
I propose that if we buck the vested interests and use our brains we can have jobs, trees, owls and much much more. Perhaps these folks who used to chop trees could build space hardware? How about tree "planters"?
How does all this fit into sci.space? For me it fits because I'd like to travel to other worlds and I'm sure I won't. I'm stranded here and I'd like to share this planet with all the life that is here. I'm sure I wouldn't miss the spotted owl personally, (I know I don't miss Tyrannosaurus) but if there isn't enough room for an owl, is there going to be enough room for us? In my way of looking at things I am not watching out for any species _except_ mine.
Rich Whitmeyer
Just another former shuttle worker at Vandenberg. OUCH!
whitmeye@figueroa.vbg.mmc.com (std disclaimer)
------------------------------
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:55:08 GMT
From: Kevin Quinn <kevinq@Ingres.COM>
Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <BvGFEw.85q.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>Putting someone who holds strong but different opinions from your own
From *any* sane individual's, I'd venture to say... Does this
leave you out?
>in the same catagory as this is rather insulting and I'd suggest it
>requires an apology. There is certainly nothing wrong with holding
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nut cases require sympathy and medical care - not apologies.
>and defending strong opinions. If you don't like his ideas, then join
>the debate and pull no intellectual punches. It is ENTIRELY another
>matter when you blatently insult a member of our community for no
>purpose other than to be "cute".
A member? By whose definition? Sounds like you're pissed you might have
to share the same stuff the original poster was smoking...
kbq
--
Kevin Quinn | kevinq@ingres.com
| {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com
My opinions are my own. Should you think otherwise, think again.
