SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (67)8/24/2000 11:46:23 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10042
 
I just had to excerpt some of that Worldnet article. It's a classic example of the battle between public and private market failure:

worldnetdaily.com

"The damage having been done, there is only one reasonable course: permit logging companies to henceforth thin the forests. Granted, huge swaths of this government-owned land is covered with diseased and decaying trees that are useless for the logging industry. That's also thanks to government regulations. But permitting loggers to start the thinning process would at least get us on the right track.

So what does the Clinton administration propose? Not private logging but a huge new government program that will put the government in charge of thinning forests at a cost of hundreds of millions to the taxpayer! Instead of permitting private enterprise to make money to clean up the government's disaster, the Clinton administration proposes to steal our money to thin out the forest themselves. And no doubt the government will botch the job as it botches everything.

A draft being circulated within the Forest Service imagines a 40-year project to clear out underbrush in 40 million acres over 15 years, tossing out the small trees and leaving the big ones. And what will this cost in dollars and manpower? Nearly 1 billion per year, and that's only the first round of estimates. Count on it being five and ten times as much. We are talking about a full-scale, Soviet-style centralized industrial plan to do what loggers would gladly do at a profit.

The insanity of this idea just boggles the mind. Why doesn't the Clinton administration consider allowing private enterprise to do the job of clearing out forests? First, it's a matter of pride, since it was these lunkheads and their pals who first came up with the idea that forests should be "preserved" in their pristine state. Second, they are socialist puritans consumed with fear that someone, somewhere, might be making a profit. Third, they are captured by environmentalists whose strange religion exalts nature above man. (do we know anyone on this discussion thread who resembles this description?)

But as these fires show, government intervention can unleash terrors undreamt by central planners. Who knows what kinds of demons will be unleashed by the proposed government thinning plan?

Ironically, if this central plan is to be stopped, it will likely be due to counter-lobbying by the environmental groups that can't admit to themselves that their ballyhooed plan to save the forests through conservation has actually ended up destroying them. For example, the Flagstaff, Ariz., effort to permit limited logging for purposes of thinning has come under heavy criticism from people who see it as a veil to permit a capitalist ravaging of mother nature."


On the other hand maybe Pezz is right about human threats to our wilderness and wildlife. But the greatest human threat is the failure to properly understand and play by nature's own rules. Namely, for every living creature on earth, there exists a predator trying to eat it. It may be a wolf hunting Caribou in the Alaskan tundra, or the ebola or HIV preying upon humanity. And that these predators don't exist for the purpose of terrorizing their cute and cuddly prey, but for the purpose of culling their herds and counteracting the natural reproductive traits that within a short time lead these herds to outstip the capability of nature to support their quantities.

When a predator, whether animal or plant, is removed, that void must be artificially filled in order that that specie is no devastated by its own hyperactive reproduction and overgrowth. And that is the role filled by hunters and loggers.

They cull the excess and manage these resources in such a way that they are able to avoid natual conflagrations such as the current forest fires, or mass starvations by deer and antelope in the midst of winter.

Regards,

Ron



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (67)8/25/2000 1:44:41 PM
From: pezz  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 10042
 
<<Name for me one human threat to nature's wilderness and wildlife that isn't replicated in one form or another by Mother Nature itself. >>

The problem with man's activities when compared with nature is the Degree imo.

Hunting by predators takes place in both nature and humans.......

In nature large numbers of species are not hunted to the point of extinction over short periods of time . This does not allow new species to evolve.

In nature large predators are not hunted at all.Their ability to reproduce does not allow for heavy hunting pressure.

Most damaging of all human activities is causing loss of habitat.

Wild lands being put into production for farm land, homes or industry. Yes some lands are lost through natural disasters but it's the scale and speed that counts.

World wide pollution such as oil spills have devastated local ecosystems again on a scale that is unprecedented nature.

Over fishing our oceans have driven many species of fish to the brink of if not actual extinction.

Large areas around Japan have such reduced fish stocks that the Japanese must come to our shores to satisfy their huge appetite for fish.

When in nature do you see the equivalent of multiple damns built on large numbers of rivers thus preventing species form their spawning grounds on any of these rivers.

There of course have been extinctions in nature but again the scale and speed resulting from human activities which is not allowing new species to adapt and come into being replacing what has been lost.

Before the white man came to America a squirrel could have traveled from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi without ever touching the ground.

Yes I know the ice ages resulted in similar conditions. But these took place over long periods of time allowing wild life to adapt ......And they were eventually reversed ....

The Amazonian rain forests that lasted over one hundred million years are being destroyed faster than evolution can replace them with more adaptive species

Bottom line is that because of multiple human related causes at the same time we are seeing extinctions on a scale not seen since the demise of the Dinosaurs.