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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (150219)8/23/2002 2:38:16 AM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1584229
 
Ted, I'm not doubting the notion that forest fires are a natural way of taking care of old growth. But I'm not going to accept the "Mother Earth" philosophy that environmentalists are trying to force upon me.

These are the very people who would rather have man go back to the Stone Age than see the oh-so-delicate balance of the ecosystem disturbed. Allowing forest fires to "run the course Nature intended" is an incredibly cultish (and moronic) point-of-view.

Responsible logging is a perfectly logical alternative, and the ecosystem will adapt. No big deal.

Tenchusatsu



To: tejek who wrote (150219)8/23/2002 6:07:14 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1584229
 
Tenchusatsu, the issue of lightning/fire taking out trees as the natural way the ecosystem renews itself is hardly a wacko idea. Its a concept endorsed by most foresters as well as environmentalists.

By "most" forestors? I don't think so.

"Most" forestors believe in forestry management, which includes both controlled burns and selective cutting.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News