DEBATE OF '98- wilderness?

JimiFromMI jimifrommi at
Thu Apr 30 00:24:09 EST 1998

In article <TVsHUZALrVQ1Eweu at>, gates
<gates at> writes:

>Subject:	Re: DEBATE OF '98- wilderness?
>From:	gates <gates at>
>Date:	Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:38:51 +0100
>In article <353A1162.E479AC14 at>, Joseph Zorzin
><redoak at> 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.  
>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

Is this guy the HEMP promoter?  I wonder if studies show hemp production of O2
could potentially exceed that of the Rain Forests.  Maybe then pot will be
legalized in the States.  The rest of  the world is sure to benefit from the
increase in US people holding their breath at the very least!

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list