I apologise for the use of a >_forestry_< mailing list for this posting, but I feel that quite a few of us have strayed from familiar, safe territory recently. I have, however welcomed the considered and rational discussions recently, and feel the time is ripe to reply to some of the issues. Chris Dean argues in favour of giving serious consideration to the welfare of all animals. He mentions that we are sensitive to the feelings and requirements of domestic pets and perhaps also domesticated livestock to an extent. But of the forest animals we spare far fewer thoughts. Why is this, and why does it bother us? I argue the following: all organisms essentially [merely] live in a continual fight for survival. This may occur on a number of levels of complexity. The lower life forms need only the material substances of sustenance. The higher forms of life need a little more. Without being condescending or patronising, those who have their basic needs more than amply fulfilled (myself included), are the only ones who can afford to allow themselves to worry on behalf of the less "endowed" - humans, animals and [yes, even] plants. I accept the relevance of the bigger-picture argument that looking after ourselves means looking after our environment and such ethereal concepts such as biodiversity. But in my family's lifetime - how can I justify attempts (human endeavour of all kinds: time, money, labour etc) to preserve what "was", MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF IT? The tradition of preserving tradition has not lasted. Tradition for its own sake makes no sense. Traditions evolved out of necessity, under prevailing conditions. Conditions have changed, "new" worlds have been conquered - like it or not. Do we admire those who where the losing party in any battle? No. (I cannot explain why we do feel sorry for them, and tend to take the side of the upstart however). How can dominant forces be wrong? Has evolution not dictated that those who are strongest survive? Why then the hooha over the changes that accompany this present evolution of social culture and civilisation? How do we know what is "wrong" when it comes to choosing between old-growth forests and plastic furniture? The answer is that we "just do". I myself have planted my own private arboretum of indigenous saplings, in an attempt to leave a better world (and perhaps a small legacy to myself). Like the dinosaurs, when our time is up, we won't be around to worry about it - but hopefully someone will enjoy my trees! As long as each individual has taken cogniscance of the implications and effects of his actions, and has taken appropriate action to minimize them (recycling, consumer pressure lobbying, etc., etc.), then that is all we can do as the human race (apart from commiting suicide) - and that is what we are trying to prevent in any case - not so? (Or are we NOT trying to improve the world for humans?) -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Bruce Metelerkamp "After hours work is the best hours work" KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0