More from "Eco-Judas"

[dgibson]

Eco-Judas speaks regarding perception of what's bad for the environment versus what is bad: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why then, is a newly cleared forest now seen as an eyesore? There are a number of elements that combine to explain this recent change in public perception. First, there is a widely held belief that we have already cleared too much forest and that it would be wise to clear no more. The distinction between forest land that is permanently converted to other uses, and land that is reforested after logging, is often lost because of the immediate impression of destruction. The conviction that it is wrong to cut forests at all is easily linked to the perception of visual offensiveness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Third, and perhaps most influential, is the regular presentation through the media of powerful imagery linking recent clearcut areas with desolation and total destruction. For example, in an article on Canadian forest practices, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel wrote: "After the massive deforestation, all that remains of the complex forest structure that has developed since the last Ice Age, is a desert of tree stumps and debris." With sensational descriptions like this, the news media frequently convey the impression that the landscape after logging is one of a battlefield where fallen corpses of the forest lie defeated at the hands of men. Mist from moisture and smoke from fire conjure up photographic images straight from hell: nature raped, ruined, and rendered permanently devoid of beauty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>exerpt from Green Spirit - Trees are the Answer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.greenspirit.com/photos/?pic=6

MY OPINION: He makes some excellent points, for a Greenpeace founder. No wonder they call him "Judas." 1_p, read that book and give me a Reader's Digested version.

 

[1_pointer]

I'll try to get to that! However, I think it extends to more than just media sensationalization (is that a word?). There have been more than one anthropological study that has shown that humans prefer an open woodland setting. Somewhat of a savanna type thing, where there are trees but not so thick so as to obscure vision of the surroundings. Thus, we have almost a built in (genetic) adversion to the landscapes immediately after and those that develop later from clear cutting.

 

[Oak]

Yeah, he does make some good points. Once again we see how the MEDIA hinders the path of accurate information. A story written about logging by a liberal media is going to tell of total destruction of the forest ecosystem by heathen loggers. The conservative media will write about how many people are going to lose their jobs because the granola-eating hippies are sueing to keep them from making an honest living. At some point, the public needs to educate themselve enough to sift through the rhetoric of both sides and find the truth, which usually lies somewhere between. Ya can't believe everything you see on the 6 o'clock news!

The underlying issue with nearly every topic we debate in SI is the gradual change in VALUES Americans place on natural resources. We've slowly been drifting from believing that it is our right to be able to carve a living from the mountains and forests (divine, even! Manifest Destiny!!

), to becoming more protective of these areas. As our population explodes, and places of solitude become fewer and farther between, many people have begun to place a higher value on public lands as refuges. If you think that these people don't realize the cost that's going to come right out of their wallets by protecting these areas, I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. These people have simply placed a value higher than money on the benefits of keeping these lands as they currently are. Whether it's right or wrong, who's to say? The whole issue is that there's not enough of these places left to satisfy everyone's wants and needs. It's only going to get worse. I think we'd do good to let go of the old ways of thinking and start looking for ways to integrate the old school into this new world.

Oak

 

[ELKCHSR]

I think most all on the green side of the issue are just plain hypocrites...
They are against removing any of these things from the environment, but are in all actuality some of the biggest users of the products that come from these "resources"…
If they are going to be against logging, mining, agriculture, then they must stop using these things to be “TRUE” to their cause, other wise they are just two faced ignorant hippiecrites!!!