Objectivist ignorance about the environment

Josh Halpern j.halpern at mail.verizon.net
Fri Jun 11 21:59:01 EST 2004



jmh wrote:

> Josh Halpern wrote:
>
>> Randroid Terminator wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:44:28 GMT, Josh Halpern
>>>
>>>> jmh wrote:
>>>
>> SNIP....
>>
>>>>> If 10% of the forest is to be cleared will cutting the
>>>>> old growth have any more of an ecological impact on the
>>>>> general ecosystem than cutting some other 10% area?     
>>>>
>>>>   Yes, and more profit.   
>>>
>>> Is this the old saw (excuse the pun) about profit being bad? Then I
>>> must ask, What is good? Particularly, what is good about saving old
>>> growth forests?
>>
>> No, it is simple reality. Old  growth trees are worth more because
>> in general they are bigger and one can get more useful wood out per
>> tree.  Second the type of wood in old growth forests tends to be more
>> valuable than in replanted tree stands (hardwood, vs pine, etc.)
>>
>> Old growth areas also have more varied ecosystems than the plantation
>> style replanted areas.  What that value is depends on what one values,
>
>
> But it seems, from casual observations, that even the
> forests that are dominated by pines and other evergreen
> trees have healthy ecosystems and quite similar collections
> of fauna and smaller flora. I'm still trying to get an
> idea of just what the real ecological impact of keeping
> or cutting the old growth is.


I've added a group, bionet.agroforestry, where there is hopefully more
expertise in these sorts of question, however, I should note that old
growth forests can be pine and evergreen dominated, so your
statement is somewhat of a non sequitor.  My general impression
is that the ecology of old growth forests is very different from replanted
plantation forests and even from the regrown forests that are typical of
the northeast.

josh halpern

>
> jmh
>




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list