🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
 
 
>Eh? Destructive/constructive are all value judgements. From our human  
>viewpoint, we always act in a constructive manner. You may want the pretty
wild  
>tress, but, most of us want the paper and are fine with the replanted
trees. 
> 
 
I agree that these are value judgements. I do think that we can come up
with a few things that we argree are destructive. There are certainly some
things we could do better. Perhaps having to curtail salmon fishing due to
too much water diversion. How about that river that caught on fire because
it was so polluted. (Somewhere in the midwest, Ohio I think. Actually it
was cleaned up under the clean water act.) 
 
Interestingly I live in a city and am not all that much of a nature buff.
My belief is that we need to do a better job protecting the ecosystem
because I believe a healthy planet is essential to a healthy economy in the
same way that a healthy body is essential to being personally productive. 
 
Replanted trees do not constitute an ecosystem the same way that a forest
does. I understand that my opinions are not what everybody thinks but I do
believe that we can learn things from each other and sift through the
"propaganda" and come up with ideas that we can all get behind. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>    >makes sense that food that is grown with out pesticides is 
>    >better for our health and will be more cost effective in the 
> 
>Wrong. Most pesticides and herbicides make our food better and more cost  
>effective. For example, potatoes under stress from pests produce natural  
>pesticides that can and sometimes are fatal to humans. 
> 
 
 
I think we have a disagreement here that is for sure. I believe that there
is much evidence to show health risks from the consumption of pesticides.
If this is true the increased health costs and decrease quality of life
will outway the shortterm benefits. I will be citing references as I
compile them. We can return to this I am sure. 
 
 
>    >long run. It makes sense that transportation that is achieved 
>    >efficiently will save money and protect the air and my 
>    >health. It makes sense that we not destoy the forests so that 
>    >we can sustain the production of lumber, paper and medicine. 
> 
>Destroy wild forests you mean. We've have continual growth in total
acreage of  
>trees in the US. 
> 
 
Yes that is what I'm referring to. There is a difference in both
environmental and economic value. 
 
 
 
 
>    >Environmentalists and free market advocates should get 
>    >together and figure out how to solve each other's problems 
>    >rather than just assuming that they are enemies. It makes no 
>    >sense in my mind to think that any of us don't want both a 
>    >healthy environment and a healthy economy. 
> 
>What makes sense is for the "tree huggers" to buy any tree they want to
hug. 
> 
 
I agree. I intend to do just that. This will of course drive up the cost
due to demand. On the other hand there are some mutaul benefits to a
healthy ecosystem beyond the esthetic. Oxygen is one of them. 
 
 
 
 
>To claim that we should all be reasonable and sit down and talk this out
wheh  
>you're taking positions of massive theft and interference in peoples lives
is  
>hypocritical in the extreme. 
> 
> 
> 
 
I'm actually trying to get beyond this notion that the only way we can
achieve environmental wellbeing is by "theft and interference". I don't
think I've made any suggestions in the regulation realm. My sugesstions
regarding the government have been mostly the type that decrease
intervention. Decrease the corporate subsidies. Decrease the giving away of
our collectively owned property. Value the environment so that the free
market forces will allow people to maintain ownership without decreasing
value. This is my goal. It makes no sense for us to take up sides and throw
rocks at each other. We will not solve anything this way. I don't want to
take anything from anybody.