truffler1635 at truffler1635 at
Thu Sep 23 11:53:59 EST 1999

In article <10984-37E421D9-78 at>,
  TREEFARMER at wrote:
> Joe, are we going to be able to halt the sprawl without halting the
> number of "sprawlers"?
Excellent point. World population is now or will shortly be 6 billion.
More population puts more pressure on forests worldwide. And the
historic imperative throughout written history, as summarized by Smith's
Tree Crops, is "...first the saw, then the plow, then move on when the
soil is depleted."

In China, other than in protected reserves, a tree is unlikely to
survive more than 20 years. The Chinese harvest (after taking over the
country) of the rainforest on the upper Yangtze, has since resulted in
tremendous flooding. No forests, no absorbent sponge of duff and biomass
to absorb a lot of water, no slowing of waters rush downhill: it all
adds up. And when/if the dikes break, a wall of water 30 feet high
floods thousands of hectares of previously arable land. Oops. It's not
nice to fool with Mother Nature.

I have been criticized for comparing everything to fungus. Maybe I'm the
only convert. Well, maybe not the only one.

It has been said that if man were to die out tomorrow, the earth would
take little notice. But if mycorrhizal fungi where to die out tomorrow,
man and most other animals would survive less than 1 year.

It seems to me the current political priority is human-centric. But
human existence is dependent on so many other things: sunlight, water,
air, soil, plants, mycorrhizal fungi. Too often these requirements are
ignored. And thus our quality of life degrades.

Daniel B. Wheeler

Sent via
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list