Forest list archive: msg00040

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Forest Terminology



Just had a thought -

Surely the natural vs artificial debate is just an example of the
limits of boolean logic.  Now that we have fuzzy logic (where we
recognise shades of grey not just black and white) we can take a much
more informed stance and continue debate into the relative benefits and
disbenefits of our actions, not simply strive to find one "GOOD" solution
and throw out a lot of "BAD" ones.

In considering at what stage a block of tree trunk becomes a bolt becomes
a plank becomes a composite we need to acknowledge that some change has
happenned, but that the material is still derived from a natural
renewable resource and hopefully will be replaced in future by new trees
and new planks and new composite products.

The sooner someone derives a much more flexible vocabulary to reflect the
shades of grey in our society the better!

Any suggestions?

Morwenna Spear

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Patrick Moore wrote:

> 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
>

Morwenna Spear
afs027@bangor.ac.uk


References:

[Metla] [Main Index] [Thread Index]

Mail converted by MHonArc 1.1.0