So, is a piece of lumber a "natural" resource? Does it only become "un-natural" if we change the chemical formula? Or is it un-natural as soon as it enters a machine? While I would like to retain the word "natural" in the lexicon, I have always believed that it is a value-judgment (natural vs, artificial, natural vs. un-natural/not natural) rather than a category. Cheers Patrick Moore, Greenspirit http://www.greenspirit.com May the Forest be With You Snail Mail: 4068 West 32nd Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6S 1Z6 Canada -----Original Message----- From: DavidOrr <DavidOrr@aol.com> To: Multiple recipients of list FOREST <FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI> Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:26 AM Subject: Re: Forest Terminology >In a message dated 4/4/98 9:34:36 AM, dsouth@sofserv.forestry.auburn.edu >wrote: > >> >>Does it follow from the above definitions that ALL resources (including >>guns, plutonium, pesticides, hydrogen bombs, plastic and PCB's) are "Natural >>Resources?" If ALL resources are "Natural," then the adjective "Natural" >>is superfluous. The single word "Resources" would suffice. > > >This is the rationale used by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) in his decision to rename >the House Committee on Natural Resources to, simply, the H. Comm. on >Resources. It's all so simple this way - easier for uncomplicated minds to >grasp... > >David Orr >Pasadena, CA
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0