🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hsdgDBx3CG.80r@netcom.com> hsdg@netcom.com (Bob Lange) writes:
    >There is a big difference to those who value nature and
    >natural settings. I presume you would argue that there is no
    >difference between looking at a forest of billboards and a
    >forest of pine trees. Then we could extend that there is no
    >difference other than a subjective one about anything. This
    >sounds nice in philosophy class perhaps, but leads nowhere in
    >the real world.

No, I would not so argue. There MANY differences between a billboard
and a forest, BUT, "natural" or "unnatural" is NOT one of the
differences.

The propagand tactice used by Sierra Club, NRDC, et al is to attach
the word "natural" to everything that is not man, and by virtue of
the typically positive value attached to the word "natural", use it
to attack just about ALL works of man.

    >>A beaver, and a beavers work is no more and no less "natural"
    >>than man and mans work.
    >>
    >>Indeed, in terms of "changing" on a large and drastic form
    >>the ecological process of nature, man and his works are
    >>TRIVIAL compared to life forms of the past -- such as the
    >>bacteris that reduce the Earth's ammonia/methane atmosphere
    >>to what we have today. Now THAT was ecological change on a
    >>LARGE scale.

    >I agree, but LARGE scale change would wipe us off the face of
    >the Earth. It may not make much difference under your
    >philosophy, but it would under most of ours. If you really
    >don't care about any of this why are you still alive? After
    >all, your death would not mean anything either, right? (I am
    >not saying this as a flame, but as a counterpoint.) Yet you
    >probably take actions every day to preserve your life and try
    >to make it more enjoyable. That is what we are trying to do
    >regarding natural beauty. Preserve that which we find
    >enjoyable. If you really have no appreciation at all for
    >nature, I feel sorry for you, but you have a right to your
    >opinion...

You haven't even a surface understanding of my philosophy.

Now, feel free to "preserve" anything you want, as long as it is with your
dollars.

I have a great appreciation for nature, which includes the works of man.

It does seem you have swallowed the Luddite argument that anything that
man does is bad, and anything that isn't man is "good & natural", and
that is sad.

You of course can hold those viewpoints -- just don't imposes them on
anybody else by force.

I have consistently found that the more somebody goes on about nature
and "natural", the more the loser they are -- with low self-esteem and
a self-hate transferred from themselves to all other men.

WE ARE NATURAL! Every bridge, building, dam, and toxic waste dump is NATURAL!

We are part of nature. Everything we do is part of nature!

Got it?

    >>So the point you've been incapable of seeing is that it is
    >>ONLY our value systems that we are talking about -- the whole
    >>concept of "nature" and "ecology" exists ONLY as man-made
    >>objects.

    >I understand what you are saying philosophically. But again,
    >I feel it leads nowhere. Would you pay the same for a house
    >with a view of the ocean and mountains as a house with a view
    >of a polluted and run-down factory district? If so, please
    >call your real estate agent. I am sure she would be glad to
    >help you swap with someone with a different philosophy.

No, not likely. Then again, as is happening right near where I live,
I support a developer that wants to build 300+ houses where the
city planning commision wants him to only build 30.

Are hills with only 30 houses prettier than ones with 300? Maybe. Maybe not.

BUT I DON'T HAVE THE ARROGANCE TO FORCE MY SENSE OF AESTEHTICS ONTO OTHER
PEOPLE UNDER THE GUISE OF NATURAL/ENVIRONMENT/ETC.



-- 
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)