🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
 
>In article <3pd69v$431@worm.hooked.net> jimbar@worm.hooked.net (Jim
Barrett)  
>writes: 
>    >Man is part of the world. Man can be good or bad. I think we 
>    >should change some things. I think we should learn to be less 
>    >destructive so that the planet will be nice for all of us. I 
>    >think we should learn to get along. 
> 
>Sigh -- you are really blind. Destructive or constructive are concepts
valid  
>only within "man". 
> 
>Obviously, for example, most people want paper products more than they
want  
>spotted owls. 
> 
 
 
All of these concepts are valid only for man. We are using the English
language which is a language used only by man. 
 
I was thinking that maybe we could have both paper and owls. 
 
 
 
>If as a result, all the spotted owls disappear, so what? Species
disappear. New  
>species appear. 
> 
>So what? 
> 
>If *you* value "biodiversity" or whatever the latest faddish term is,
*you* pay  
>for it out of your pocket. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
 
 
I am willing to pay for it. Since I think that there is benefit to all of
us I thought that others might want to chip in. Maybe not. If you don't
want to I am not going to make suggestions to force you to. I'm trying to
avoid the notion of regulations. On the other hand if "biodiversity" does
have benefits and I am the one who paid for it I should, according to free
market principles, be the one who gains from it. If I buy trees and they
produce oxygen I should be able to charge for my oxygen. This would be
similar to they way that those who own water are able to charge for it. 
 
 
I'm not really trying to be "faddish". For the most part I am the type of
person who is not noted for doing the popular thing. 
: