Hello Mike and Nelson, Why not make room for kooks and dissenters? As a forest ecologist, I concur that it's good to base one's judgements on scientific fact and that it's bad form to attack without having a defensible position. If Mr. Orr represents the "lunatic fringe" and therefore is bothersome in his criticisms of modern forestry and and the ultimate heresy--even "civilization" itself, he might have a point regarding the latter--although not articulated in scientific terms. Recall Anthro. 1: humans inhabit ca. 1% of homonid time, therefore, "modern time" subsequent to the agricultural revolution is a very radical development with respect to our evolution. Unfortunately, Mr. Orr didn't elucidate this notion but if anyone's curious, some have. One feller, Paul Shepard, a student of Evelyn Hutchinson at Yale investigated this notion; however, he represented the "edge" in academe, and was largely unread (ie., Man in the Landscape; Nature and Madness). Interestingly, his concepts which often questioned numerous verities of modern time that much of us accept as normal, as he integrated notions from authors as disparate as Levi-Strauss, Bettelheim, EO Wilson, Erickson, and much more. This synergism probably confused academics deeply burrowed in narrow disciplines; moreover, I haven't seen anything this far-reaching in any SAF journal but then, SAF is a professional guild and not a thinktank. One interesting notion brought forth, especially in Nature and Madness is that from the transition of a huntering/gathering lifetyle exemplified by an animistic worldview (ie., all life was regarded as alive, not dead or a commodity), to an anthropocentric, male religion in which the direct perception of the sacred by touch and smell was to considered taboo, nature was distanced and enabled to become a commodity, and God was now words in a book and required fearful followers. All these events had peculiar ramifications in manufacturing the modern worldview some treat nature, without question, ie., as a commodity or "resource". Could it be that some "environmentalists" are in actuality true conservatives who question how trees are regards by this newfangled, radical worldview of domination and control in this mere 1% known as modern time? I cant' speak for others but speculate that some might feel this way. Personally, I'm not a joiner and haven't spoken to any environmentalists; besides, I'm gonna be a "real" scientist in which my data and concomitant interpretation will do my thinking and represent my public self. I think, and perhaps your neighborhood librarian might concur that ignorance can be manifested as the suppression or blunt dismissal of ideas, a notion that has been recently embraced few on this forum. I say let Mr. Orr cheerfully contribute as a certifiable "kook" and dissenter; it's too bad he's inarticulate, but there's hope. Bear in mind that it is the outsider who shakes guilds from entrained thought patterns; also, and frankly, isn't it boring to be in a club where eveyone adheres to the same mindset; in this case, "common sense" [ie., a peculiar string of agreements, according to Gregory Bateson [he was an anthropologist; that's another profession for the confused]? Rather than "ignoring" Mr. Orr, as you suggest, perhaps as a professional and/or educator, you can help him reframe his contentions in a coherent manner, palatable to all (assuming he really has something to say). Shanfield
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0