From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:04:41 GMT

In <p142lpg@fido.asd.sgi.com>, Jeff Dauber writes:

>In article <92237.60260.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>In <p028tt0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, Jeff Dauber writes:
>>
>>>Can you think of a single group which could afford to buy the bay who would
>>>be concerned with the wildlife around the bay, the quality of the water in
>>>the bay, other people polluting the bay?
>>
>>Well, I think so.  How about companies which produce fish?

>Not quite... First, I said "afford to buy the bay" and you must admit
>that the fish industry is not monolithic enough or rich enough to undertake
>this task.  Second, the fish industry is not concerned with the entire bay,
>they are concerned with catching a certain variety of fish in the bay.

Or multiple varieties, perhaps.
I don't claim that anyone could make a profit by buying and preserving the bay.
In other ecosystems, I think it is possible.

>As a parallel example, if the salmon fisheries owned the sacramento delta,
>would things be better or worse in that area?

Better in most ways, I think.  Perhaps anything which diminishes the number of
salmon could be in danger, though.  That is certainly a fair assessment.  You
can bet *your* ass that all of these state water diversion projects which
change the natural flow of the delta would come to an end.  Then, of course,
the farmers would have less water to use...

>The fish industry would do wonders for the population of food fish in the
>bay.  However, you bet your ass they would try and exterminate any birds
>which fed off of this supply.  Natural resources are more complex than just
>one life form.  If an industry has a vested interest in one life form over
>another, you can bet that one will get good treatment while the other is
>completely neglected.

Of course there's more than just one life form, and I'm not suggesting we allow
or encourage the practice of killing off other species.  I don't hear *anyone*
suggesting that--just caution and an approach which balances *all* needs.

>> Consider the timber
>>industry.

>Consider the spotted owl.

I have friends in Oregon.  We've seen spotted owls nesting in many places, and
we never set foot in old growth forests.  One such friend had four spotted owls
nesting in trees within her back yard.  And yes, they *were* spotted owls.

>>  They hold much land, and if there are no trees, there is no timber
>>harvest.  It's in their own best interests to plant *two* trees for every one
>>they cut down in some places.

>However, the timber industry does not care about anything other than trees.
>The animals which live in these habitats would be completely, and disastrously
>neglected.

As long as there is enough forest to sustain them, then I don't see a big
problem.  Of course, unlike Al Gore, I don't claim to be a scientist.  The
cutting of timber could surely be arranged in a way that would "cycle through"
several pieces of land, so that the other pieces remain untouched for many
years, and the wildlife could live there.  As long as we don't cut a huge strip
of land at once, it wouldn't be too hard for the wildlife to find their way to
the still-existing forests.  Admittedly, some nesting sites may be destroyed,
but new ones could be built.  If you ask me, that beats losing the owl totally
and it beats losing 100,000 jobs totally.

Our media and our politicians (on both sides of the aisle!) make everything
seem like a black and white issue, while most Americans are seeing things as
some shade of gray.  It sounds like we either trash the environment or cause
American business to completely shut down.  Activists in Earth First! and
similar groups make a reasonable approach seem impossible, as do the hard-core
right wingers who insist that there is no environmental damage taking place.
In my opinion, both sides are being very irresponsible to the needs of our
planet *and* our society.  Both are crucial for our future, and neither can
afford to be ignored.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist Paper #51