questioned, not the fact that Z was doing a 'logical analysis' of Mr Poynter's article, but the TYPE of analysis, as I have explained in my post above. In hindsight I sincerely regret having done this -- as I predicted at the start, it has only led us off on a tangent and round in circles. The irony is that I could have contributed so much to this blog, because as it happens I have training in both of the main themes of Mr Poynter's article; forestry and the functioning of society. Your 'interesting dichotomy' is central to the whole question of forestry, and I am delighted you have raised it. Humans are animals too, and as such we must take something from the planet for our physical survival and spiritual needs. Trees provide wood and other products to fulfil many of our physical needs, as well as some of our spiritual needs -- your love of wooden artefacts is an example of the latter. Forests (as opposed to trees), certainly fulfil many of our spiritual needs. While our numbers were limited we could basically take what we wanted, without having any significant impact on the forests. For every log we took, many more rotted on the forest floor. But we are a long way past that point, and if we want to continue using the stuff then we have three options or a combination of the three -- reduce our population, lower our standard of living, or grow more.