🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
 
 
 
>    >>Obviously, for example, most people want paper products more 
>    >>than they want spotted owls. 
>    >> 
 
 
 
>    >(Rick Herrick) writes: 
 
>    >Umm... Where do you find this "fact" at, Phil? I've seen no 
>    >studies reading 75% of Americans surveyed indicate they'd 
>    >rather have quilted Northern than spotted owls to wipe their 
>    >ass with. In fact, I think if you surveyed people, you'd find 
>    >a HUGE majority would like to have both paper and owls. And 
>    >since it is quite possible to meet our paper needs without 
>    >wiping out an entire species of animal and without decimating 
>    >huge tracks of virgin forest (albeit without meeting the 
>    >immediate needs of Maxxam Corporation's junk bonds), I 
>    >consider it the height of conservatism to conserve that 
>    >virgin land while we can. 
> 
 
>(Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
>Uh, most people want taxes cut drastically without any cuts in services.
From  
>people I talk with, they mostly don't give a hoot about spotted owls. 
> 
 
 
----------------------- 
The people you talk to are not a statistically significant sample and
therefore irrelevant. 
-------------------------------- 
 
>(Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
>If a company owns the land or has legal title to cut timber, then let
them. 
> 
 
 
----------------------------------- 
As long as they pay for any adverse effects on the society and as long as
the government doesn't sell them land with trees on it at reduced rates. 
------------------------------- 
 
 
>    >> (Phil Ronzone) said: 
>    >>If as a result, all the spotted owls disappear, so what? 
>    >>Species disappear. New species appear. 
> 
    >> 
>    >>So what? 
>    >> 
 
 
 
>    >(Rick Herrick) writes: 
>    >So what? So what? You are such a jerk, Phil, that quite often 
>    >it just takes my breath away. 
>    > 
 
 
--------------------------- 
I agree. You obviously don't care about the environmental effects of
actions. The destruction of a species is an indication of a greater
destruction of the environment. This destruction has a cost. This cost
needs to be paid for by those who cause it. 
---------------------------------- 
 
>(Phil Ronzone) said: 
>Well, your obvious self-hate makes YOU think that man is not natural, but
them  
>ain't the facts boy. man, AND HIS ACTIONS, are just as natural as any
other  
>living thing on this planet. Where you get the bizarre notion that other  
>species can make species extinct and that's "natural" but if man does it
it's  
>"un-natural" is beyong comprehension. 
> 
 
 
---------------------------------------------- 
I never got the impression that Rick hates himself. He seems to be a very
reasonable man who cares about his environment. It seems to make sense that
those who care about the health of there environment are more concerned
about their own wellbeing than those who don't. It is much the same as
those who take care of their health. Those who love themselves will be more
inclined to exercise more and to avoid foods with animal fats and
pesticides. Those who engage in self-love will promote personal and
collective wellbeing. 
 
Human beings are intellegent (for the most part). I tend to hold their
actions to a higher standard than those of other species. If you wish to
equate your actions to the lowest common denominator that is your own
choice. I tend to think we can do better. 
 
-------------------------- 
 
 
>(Phil Ronzone) said: 
>Environmentalist: Someone who wants any and all man derived changes in 
>the world to stop right now or they'll hold their blue until they turn  
>blue..... 
> 
> 
 
However a somewhat more respected source for definitions of words in the
English language, Websters Dictionary, has the following definition: 
 
 
environmentalist n.  One whose work involves the study and alleviation of
environmental problems, as water pollution.