EPA rulings on Non-point
further at inh.co.jp
Sat Jan 8 09:10:11 EST 2000
In article <3872D876.9C2A7C9 at planttel.net>,
Ted Kegebein <kegebein at planttel.net> wrote:
>> >We have seen the results of putting the extreme Left Wing in power,
>> >in such places as the USSR, Red China, Cambodia, and Nazi Germany.
>> >And while the milder version of the Left in Nazi Germany was concerned
>> >somewhat with the environment, the extremist Left purge the eco-nuts
>> >rather quickly.
>> >Free market capitalist countries, on the other hand, have an extremely
>> >high tolerance for the eco-nuts, and profits and prosperity have
>> >allowed those cultures to actually improve their environments.
>> >It is rather ironic, isn't it?
>> To the very limited extent to which there is any truth to it, yes.
>> Here, let's try this:
>> Kamchatka is about the size of California - so why don't you identify
>> any area you want of N. America of that approximate size and explain
>> how it's environment has been protected or improved under capitalism
>> compared to Kamchatka under Soviet rule. Shouldn't be hard, please
>> enlighten us.
>> - DB
>I don't know a thing about Kamchatka, please enlighten me,
>old great one.
First, the main point of my post was that there are plenty of examples
of societies other than capitalist ones that have managed to do
some very positive things WRT the environment. Such as various
tribal societies, countries such as Oman (Sultanate) or Bhutan (Buddhist
kingdom) or even, in the case of Eastern Siberia, the Commies.
While tremendous environmental damage was done elsewhere in the USSR,
Kamchatka in particular suffered very little - traditional peoples
were left to pursue their lifestyles for the most part. Extractive
industries were not established, some military infrastructure
was built but little else outside on one main city. Population was
low and is less than half a million now.
Basically, it is wild and amazing and in better shape environmentally
than the great majority of places. I say credit where credit is due, and in
this case some of it goes to the Soviets. It might be an exception to
your generalization, but it's a big one.
Not that I can accept the assertion that most or even tree huggers identify
with statism in any of it's variations.
Some of us might be down with something like the following though -
"As America was the only spot in the political world where the
principles of universal reformation could begin, so also was it the
best in the natural world...
The scene which that country presents to the eye of a spectator,
has something in it which generates and encourages great ideas.
Nature appears to him in magnitude. The mighty objects which
he beholds, act upon his mind by enlarging it, and he partakes
of the greatness he contemplates. Its first settlers were emigrants from
various European nations, and of diversified professions of religion,
retiring from the governmental perseceutions of the old world, and meeting
in the new, not as enemies, but as brothers. The wants which necessarily
accompany the cultivation of a wilderness, produced among them a
state of society, which countries, long harassed by the quarrels and
intrigues of governments, had neglected to cherish. In such a
situation, man becomes what he ought. He sees his species, not with the
inhuman idea of a natural enemy, but as kindred; and the example shows
to the artificial world that man must go back to nature for information."
Thomas Paine The Rights of Man (Part the Second - Introduction) 1792
More information about the Ag-forst