In a message dated 4/26/98 8:52:46 AM, pmoore@rogers.wave.ca wrote: >Can we not agree that visual aesthetics are generally not a good measure of >ecological health? > I never equated one with the other. Aesthetics? Ecological health? I would prefer looking at a fire-charred hillside covered with dead trees than at a hillside of stumps. There is no logging operation I've ever seen that represents ecological health, because it has nothing to do with ecological processes. Forests evolved without logging. The only demonstrable effect logging ever had on forests is to eliminate them. But once again, the values question is coloring the discussion here. For one thing, YOUR idea of aesthetics may not be mine (almost certainly it isn't). Also, YOUR idea of "ecological health" is almost certainly not mine. So what common language do we have? I submit that we have little in common, and that is not because you have science on your side and I don't, but because you have industry on your side and I don't. That's not necessarily an indictment by itself, it's an observation of the different values you and I espouse. However, I will indict you and your ecological fellow travelers for allowing your values to color your judgment and corrupt you. You are an industry shill, Mr. Moore, and for that you deserve no respect. Sincerely, David Orr
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0