DEBATE OF '98- wilderness?

gates gates at gates.demon.co.uk
Fri Apr 24 22:38:51 EST 1998


In article <353A1162.E479AC14 at forestmeister.com>, Joseph Zorzin
<redoak at forestmeister.com> writes
>How much wilderness do we need? And why?
We need only the wilderness that allows such to be maintained with its
biodiversity.  This includes cloudforest and desert, ocean and atoll,
tundra and limestone pavements.  The reason for this is to have the best
chance of maintaining biodiversity pending our knowing all there is to
know about what the wilderness can do for us (not just how ghila
monsters mate or trap door spiders hinge their trap doors or whatever).
We do not need access to wilderness.  We only need a holodeck, virtual
reality device, etc.  Far better to have a nice plastic park for nice
plastic people than a wilderness full of plastic.

All that said I think you mean space to people, forest to rest and so
on.  The answer to this is easy.  Every state needs to provide one
deciduous tree over 8 years of age and not yet fully mature for every
person living there.  States with conifers need maybe 3 trees to one
person.  Inter state agreements could balance this out over several
states.  (I mean countries rather than US states but, if the cap fits
... .)   A sapling needs to be growing for every expected child and in
any cull of trees, say every 5 years, 2 per cent of those trees have to
be left to grow old, as habitat and for seed/propagation.

The most important trees, apart from in rain forests as they make 3 - 5
times the oxygen of other trees, are those in town.  The fault currently
is that most town trees are too old, avenues are not tween planted and
there is no ongoing replacement scheme anywhere.  So there are too few
trees and they clog early and do not clean the air properly.  Correct
foresting of cities especially will prevent a billion deaths in 100
years from asthma alone and 2 billion children and adults being found
asthmatic. However there is supposed to only be enough oxygen left for
70 years going by the US computer model in the 80's.  So no child under
11 is likely to be able to die of old age.  The way around this is to
plant trees.  Much oxygen has, since the model was published, been lost
through the hole in the ozone layer halving the depth to which land will
flood over 50 years due to global warming.  So kids need saving now by
doubling our city tree stock.  Every decade there must be a one seventh
cull and replant.  
KIND REGARDS FROM:

L             E E E E E E       S S S S S 
L             E                S         S
L             E                S S
L             E E E                S S
L             E                        S S
L             E                S         S                       
L L L L L     E E E E E E       S S S S S

THE AUTHOR OF THE MESSAGE ABOVE IS TERRIBLY CLEVER AND PERFECTLY QUALIFIED
TO GIVE ANY OPINION THAT HE HAS.  NO COPYRIGHT NOTICE IS ATTACHED AS TERRIBLY
CLEVER PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO ISSUE WRITS.  WORDS OF GREAT WISDOM COULD BE
APPENDED TO THIS SIG. BUT THE AUTHOR IS SO VERY CLEVER THAT HE NOW CHARGES
TO PROVIDE THEM AND ONLY REPLIES TO NEWSGROUP POSTINGS FOR HIS OWN AMUSEMENT.

  LES BALLARD, TREE WIZARD, C/O BM: GATES OF ANNWN, LONDON WC1N 3XX, U.K.
                            44+(0)1708 863080



 



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list