Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (17537)	2/8/1998 1:56:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

<< Del, there are more tree's in North America today than a hundred years ago. >> That sounds like one of Rush Limbaugh's facts. Next time you are flying East of the Mississippi, look down for a couple of hours at all of that cleared farmland. It was once all forest. Where are all of the new trees? I missed them someplace. Of course if you count the trees on the tree farms that grow piss ant pines for lumber, like a crop, where there was once old growth forest, that adds a lot of trees, but why not count asparagus too? It looks like a tree when it goes to seed. But, who gives a shit about the next generation as long as you're comfortable now. Del

To: greenspirit who wrote (17537)	2/8/1998 7:31:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

Because 100 years ago we had deforested most of the country. And we have lost GENETIC diversity in our trees (just as we have with our crops). We have lots of pulp trees but that is hardly the same as having a mature forest, with hundreds of species per acre. Plantations of pulp trees do not support the biological diversity that a real forest would. We should be careful about kidding ourselves and calling cornfields prairies and pulp tree plantations forests, they are not the same.