Dear forest-listers, Firstly, thank you Bret D. for apparently having the courage to make your statements and similarly for supporting them. (There are known possible negative affects on one's life after such publications.) Secondly thank you Andrew R. for replying in a constructive and pacific manner. > > > >And yes, I do think that in many cases timber companies create > > >markets for their products...it's called advertising. > > > > I think this is a tough statement to justify. Do you wish to assert that > > advertising *creates* the consumption of forest products? I guess timber > > companies would assert that they're fighting for market share against other, > > notably non-renewable, raw materials. > > No, I don't think that advertising alone creates the demand for wood > products, but on the other hand, I think people here in our country are > being misled by the industry that constantly tries to improve it's PR > with ads that say things like "since 1900, there has been no net loss of > trees in the U.S." There is a saying that goes something like "you can't see the wood for the trees." I think it is meant to mean that a person can't see the material immediately useful to that person because of the stuff inbetween the person and that material. I once said to a few foresters that foresters can't see the forests for the wood. Someone replied "Greens can't see the wood for the animals." Currently the main PR type advertising for the forest products industry (in Australia at least) is designed to create a view of the world whereby the public is responsible for the maintainence of the forest products industry. If these very same people had created the industry and knew what they were doing then they could well be responsible for it. Even if this were the case it does not imply that it should be maintained in its current form once the public can see the influence of the industry on other lifeforms and features of the planet. There are more solutions than just maintaining it in its present form. E.g. surplus money from previous sales by multinationals can be diverted to wages for alternative employment instead of the usual direction towards share holders. > ...but there is a big difference > between a seeddling and a six foot diameter old-growth doug fir. Also there is a large, immediate difference in animal lives in a logged area, which are not "renewable". As humans we can have some empathy with the plight of our pets, hence the existence of the RSPCA. Is the jump to considering the animal content of an acreage to much for us to consider yet? We are able to consider the plight of humans when large portions of cities are bombed. Maybe the animal losses are beyond us at this stage in our development. Personally I believe there are three important considerations when we kill animals: 1. the reason why (e.g. our safety, food, fuel, entertainment, economic gain, habit, nessecity of the wood product etc.) 2. how long the animal suffers for (e.g. 2 seconds or 2 weeks) 3. the animals perception of the distress. These should be addressed before an area is cleared for extracting wood. > Yes, > timber can be a renewable resource if it is done sustainably, but there To view the forest as a "resource" is to presume it is ours to use. This is a preception only and of a type which has proven to be inappropriate in a number of instances, e.g. when applied to indigenous people during conquests and "settling" of "new" lands. > > In terms of the consumption of forests, as opposed to wood, nobody's > > innocent. I assert that the state of the forests accurately represents > > society's mores. The "mores" are not a responsible basis for decisions on forests because they were obtained from only a few facts. No-one really has enough facts yet, considering the the type of destruction, because science has been applied to only a few of the features. The idea of advertising to alter these mores, to promote more destruction, should be scrutinised and the adverts be thoroughly checked for veritabliity. This would be a job for the government. Thanks. Chris. -- chris.dean@anu.edu.au, LPO Box 171, ANU, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. ----Native animals need protection from imported domesticated humans.---- Disclaimer: The ideas and data etc expressed above are mine and not necessarily those of anyone else.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0