Objectivist ignorance about the environment

jmh j_m_h at cox.net
Tue Jun 15 13:55:52 EST 2004


Larry Harrell wrote:

Thanks for the comments--not completely enlightening but
straightforeward.

> Now, I ask you this question: Why should we log old growth when there
> are MILLIONS of acres of forest that need thinning and restoration,
> resulting in lumber and jobs? In my work assignments to many different
> National Forests across the country, this is the reality that I see.

Personally I have no interest in having them logged. I agree
that we plenty of alternatives. The question of should they
be logged on federal (or state) lands is clearly a political
question as it concerns public property. I would not have
any real objections to limiting such logging to what is
considered rational forest management. I don't see that
we need a law the limits that form of logging on private
property though--and don't see much of an argument that
this restriction on private property rather than relying on
conservationists pooling financial resources to buy such
property that then imposing a restrictive covenant which
conveys with any future sale.

I also wouldn't have a problem with a restriction such as
that attached to any sale of public lands.

I'm still trying to grasp the fundamental problem with
cutting the old growth--but accept you suggestion to
seek better answers elsewhere. Seem to me this is a
fallacy of attempting the impose a more static environment
that might actually exist in nature. Evolution implies that
specialized species are doomed to extinction eventually. The
more generalized species will be able to adapt to changes
and some marginal species might find a nurturing niche
in the new setting. I think frequently the issue of
environment and ecology are employed, as in one of
the cases that was initially discussed in this thread
prior to your participation, as a means of justifying
public expenditure to maintain the surrounding land values
that those owners want to insure they can cash in on in
the future. That's simply a political transfer o wealth
from some tax payer to those land owners.

I'm sure that's getting into a discussion you have
little interest in so I'll just say thanks for the input.

jmh





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list