David Orr responds (in part): >I take exception to characterizing later-successional forests as having >"no particular use." This statement reflects an attitude cultivated in >many foresters: that humans MUST be in there, logging and planting, logging >and planting, for the forest to have a "use" (read: value)... > It is with the utmost emotional restraint that I assure Mr. Orr (and others) that by "no particular use" I meant consumptive/economic/profitable/ capitalistic use. I most definitely did not mean (nor imply, I thought) VALUE. Apologies, though, for not being clearer. I VALUE unlogged unplanted forests very very much, which is why I donate money to conservancies and land trusts and encourage others to do so... So such forests can, in a sense, be part of the market-place. In that sense maybe preservation can be an economic, capitalistic use. This use-value semantic is very sticky! Lesson: Don't immediately assume you know what someone meant by such a term. Being to quick to shout "bias" is perhaps a sign of bias. I ask again that the land-use issue I raise (including outright land purchase for preservation or native ecosystem management) be discussed specifically and concisely (we have work to do) and without reference to presumed bias and emotional response (e.g. I deleted a lot of emotion from this already). Thank you.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0