There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think we've slipped to this level, and in fact been driven down to this level. At every turn in our society, ignorance and ignorant choice is rewarded.

You make it sound as if this were something new. In the USA it goes back to the beginning -- consider the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the need for the Constitution.

I agree there need to be a framework of natural protections ( an environmental Bill of Rights per se.) that codify what each of us should instinctively know as a mammal (e.g. don't crap where you eat, smoking is a personal choice so do it when you're alone or only in the company of other smokers, etc).

Funny, but the two examples really don't work. I'm a city boy and shouldn't be telling you, a farm boy, that many herbivores do indeed crap where they eat. And, since man is the only mammal to have tamed fire, we can't really look to the others for an example of how to use it. But I do agree, in general, with the concept of an environmental bill of rights.

I don't wish for anarchy, especially with the environment. However, I believe within the implicit "Natural Laws" theory we might deduce and codify those that would protect the environment rather than exploit it. So, I envision something reasonable somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism.

I suspect we all agree on that, in principle. But, as we all know, the devil is in the details.

For example, there are times when I have to agree with PETA that clubbing baby seals to death for their fur seems cruel and exploitative.

So is the eating of baby seals by polar bears. That's one of the problems I have with many so-called environmentalists. Baby seals are cute, so they need protection. Sharks aren't, so they don't. The only thing that matters is the impact on seal populations. We've greatly reduced the shark population, so the seals are overpopulated. A reasonable culling is actually good for them, so I guess we could just shoot them and leave them to rot (like we did with the buffalo) or we could give them to the polar bears. Or we could make coats out of them.

And, then others where reasonable methods of managed forestry would actually enhance forests and their ecosystems.

And, again, depends on what you are trying to do. If you want a 'natural' ecosystem and if you consider human intervention 'unnatural', then by definition any 'management' will cause failure. If you want a relatively stable environment which will yield a certain amount of timber per year and maintain a diversity of species at some balanced number, then yes, some management is possible. But it can be a dangerous cycle. As an example, the hunting of the timber wolf led to an explosion in deer population which in turn led to the destruction of a large amount of the new growth. It is not that 'nature' knows best. It is more akin to the advantage of free market -- many small transactions within a complex feedback system which gives rise to a dynamically stable situation which is not perfect for any one individual, but is overall 'best' for the conglomerate.

There are no simple right answers. <_<

--Pete