Lookout Christine, there are at least a couple of gunslingers out there gunning for the "envrionmentalists." Well, one gunslinger and a firecraker.
>>A lengthy report has been issued, detailing plans for parks filled with honey bee hives, fruit trees growing in every yard, and the humane adoption or relocation to wild areas of the feral cats who eat our quail, squirrels and brush rabbits.<<
I don't know about hives in the parks, but last time I was in SF, I discovered and incredible stash of blackberry bushes in Golden Gate park. It would be nice if every kid in SF had the same opportunity. I'm a big fan of fruit trees, but in every yard? You can't really tell people what to grow in their yards. Feral cats, by their nature, will not be adoptable. I don't care for the idea of relocation either. Somehow I doubt the feral cat population is a serious threat to rabbits, squirrels and quail.
I am in favor of industrial and building standards which will conserve resources. However, I am seriously addicted to the automobile and believe there are better ways to curb pollution than limit auto use or tax the hell out of it. Still, I would appreciate more auto free green space in the cities.
Raising fish in the city sounds good, too--perhaps they could simultaneously create reservoirs where people could play. Why limit perfume and deoderant? There are a lot of people who need to smell better. I think sustainablity is a very important concept. But, IMO, the less legislation required, the better. I agree with those on the thread who argue the government already has far too great a hand in our daily lives.
>>To me a lot of these struggles between total freedom to pollute and litter and waste the earth's resources, and on the other side, the allegedly ultraliberal environmental campaign, have a little of this theme running through them. Where is it in the constitution that we all have the freedom to drive around alone in a gas-guzzling automobile, anyway? How will we ever achieve some balance between essential individual liberties and the rights we all should have to clean air and clean water?<<
IMO, you are right. There needs to be a balance. And it will be very difficult to acheive. As a species we have recently gained enough population density and technological mastery to start affecting the ecological balance of the planet. If we screw up that balance, it is not in the interests of our survival. But many refuse to believe in this new reality. We are part of a larger community of being and our health and survival depends on the health and survival of that community. If we continue to exploit that community merely as resources for profit, we will reap bitter rewards.
Personally, I don't see what this all has to do with being "politically correct." But of course that is just a term to put down those whose ideas are different from yours. To me it is a matter of understanding the relationship of human being to the non-human world in a way which enables both to thrive.
|
