🚀 go-pugleaf

Eric� (Eric�@hardknocks.edu) wrote:
: This post is intended to clarify statements made in my original post for 
: those requiring clarity.


: First:
: Regarding the Suzuki Foundation statement that

: "Today more than half of BC's coastal rainforest has been lost, and what 
: remains is immediately threatened."

: The only way any forest is 'lost' is when it becomes housing 
: developments, golf courses, and strip malls.  On a huge majority of the 
: coast there is still a forest, and it still rains.  Even if we were 
: talking 'old growth' rainforest the figure only drops to 70% for the 
: coast as a whole.  There is no reason to provide proofs in order to 
: attack an indefensible statement.

: The reason why I said that the above claim was 'two lies in one' was due 
: to the second part of the sentence.

: It is also demonstrably wrong.  Discounting the massive new 'Great Bear 
: Rainforest' as it came into being more recently, the statement ignores - 
:  
: Brooks Peninsula
: Pacific Rim
: Walbran-Carmanah
: Clayoquot Sound
: Meares Island
: South Moresby
: Kitlope watershed
: Khutzeymateen watershed
: Naikoon
: Cape Scott . . .

: Either it's a lie or these protected areas are 'immediately threatened'.
: It has to be one or the other!

It is a relatively simple matter to quantify the amount of oxygen
production lost in the rain forests due to clear cut logging. That is the
first point.

The second is that a forest is a diverse and complex eco-system containing
many plant and animal species that interact in a complex and often subtle
way.

It is a historical fact that man most often screws up when he does not
understand the consequences of break closed loop control circuits in
nature. 

Anyone who has studied control systems and electonic operational
amplifiers mimicing differential equations cannot be struck at how
different stable closed loops systems behave when the feedback loops are
broken.

Most MBAs have no clue to this entire field of science and most of their
remarks on the subject are ignorant and unscientific. They have little to
no value in discussions related to the problems of man made incursions
into the eco-system for economic gain.

: 2) "Clearcut logging destroys BC's forest(s) and biodiversity"

Biodiversity is a field intimately related to feedback control systems. In
nature, this is only dimly understood today as a science, and much more
study is required to actually understand how eco-systems actually work,
let alone how they can be "improved or designed".

: The only thing that destroys forests is removals from the forest base for 
: human developments.  'Forest' is not defined by the age of the trees.
: It's impossible to make a carte blanche statement that clearcutting 
: destroys biodiversity.  Certainly when you go from an old forest to a new 

You can make a pretty good case for the fact that clear cut logging,
coupled with multinational company efforts to create synthetic plants
(complete with patents) is a pretty certain activity that will fail to
replace what was previously present in the forest. A farm of monospecies
trees, is NOT A FOREST.

And a tree farm without wild animals IS NOT AN ECO-SYSTEM.

As such, most such man made creations mine the soil, upset the balance of
everything from the soil to the vegetation, to the animal species that
remain.

NO ONE TO DAY HAS BEEN SUCESSFUL IN CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL ECO-SYSTEM THAT
IS STABLE AND REPRODUCTIVE, (I.E. "ALIVE").

: forest different species take advantage of the new conditions.  One might 
: as well say that clearcutting enhances biodiversity.  There is no species 
: on earth other than environmentalists that requires 1000 year old trees. 

You clowns are the same ones that introduced rabbits to Australia. Or
African bees into the United States.

: For my clarification of the 'area of little scientific study' issue, 
: please see my followup to my first response to Brent Beach's post

You should stick to what you know Eric. That is multinational propaganda
and economic alchemy. If you wish to actually do science, you are going to
have to follow its imperatives.

For starters, you should learn what the "scientific method" encompasses.

: E.Schild
: haffabee@usa.net  

Joe Green