Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Leaving the forest be and do nothing to "improve" it according to our standards is the best thing for a forest. Fires are natural and forests actually benefit from them.
Is it right to put people first?
- Thread starter MetaKron
- Start date
Leaving the forest be and do nothing to "improve" it according to our standards is the best thing for a forest. Fires are natural and forests actually benefit from them.
While I don't disagree with that statement in itself, what it does is view forest fires from a single perspective ...the forest.
It doesn't take into account the pollutants that fires pour into the atmosphere that's harmful to all breathing life.
It doesn't take into account the animals that are driven out of their habitat and being forced to seek other places to live.
It doesn't take into account the loss of root structures which prevent soil erosion.
See? Depending on the perspective, one can "prove" that forest fires are good or bad, whichever the viewer wishes.
Have you ever read up on the amount of pollutants a major forest fire produces? Try it, you'll be horrified. You'll also take a different view of the environment whiners on auto and other human pollutants.
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Uh.. yea.
Huh ? lol
Lets clean up our act first then, shall we ?
That's part of the natural process whether you or the animals like it or not. It's one of those things that drives evolution.
That usually doesn't happen. Lots of trees usually survive forest fires and, because the soil is fertilized by the fire, seeds will spring up quickly to claim the new spaces.
You are talking about what happens when people clear-cut a forest in an irresponsible manner.
No, natural forest fires are good. In fact there are species that depend on forest fires, they can't survive without.
I know it's a very very small percentage of overall pollution, of which man is by far the biggest cause.
Like I said, we need to clean up our own act.
I find the implication here sickening.
Allowing the sick and diseased to die is also part of natural evolution, so should we get rid of doctors and medicines?
Ya' mean things like killing vicious murderers and child molestors and such vicious criminals in our society?
And get rid of malformed and diseased infants before they can fuck up the gene pool?
...things like that that nature does routinely?
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ideally, yes. But who wants humans to do better anyway ?
I don't care for humankind kind that much. I'm talking about pollution etc.
Look at it this way; In a few thousand years, man might be able to breath all that pollution and would cough to death on good, clean air!
So, ....by cleaning up the atmosphere, are we interfering with that evolutionary process that we hold so dear?
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Look at it this way; In a few thousand years, man might be able to breath all that pollution and would cough to death on good, clean air!
So, ....by cleaning up the atmosphere, are we interfering with that evolutionary process that we hold so dear?
Baron Max
I'm hoping it won't come to that. Like I said I don't care for humankind, they are the ones fucking up the place.
Besides, with modern medicine and future advances in this field I don't think we will change all that much in the future.
Humans are natural.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Oh god, who invited you then ?
Failing to control forest fires can destroy entire communities. Firebreaks limit the size of the outbreaks and the damage to human settlements. Forcing us to fail to manage forests literally uses fire as a weapon against human settlements, a practice that environmentalists are particularly fond of.
Are you familiar with the methods that environmentalists have used to express their displeasure with those who won't play along? I simply stated a fact that is well-known to the FBI: Environmental terrorism. Letting our communities burn just means that they have gotten better at it.
Forest benifit even more from selective timbering and replanting as well as making fire breaks and fire lanes. There are a lot of thing man has learned to do better than nature.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No dude, man only screws things up for nature.
man and nature are not seperate
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Humans want to see themselves as separated and act like it too. If they were separate they wouldn't have an impact, right ?
Humans not being separate from nature sure implies a few things, wouldn't you say ? Namely, that humans screw up things for themselves as well.
In all honesty, I can't "separate" man from nature. As much as I hate to admit it, man is a part of the natural processes.
But, Enmos, look at it this way; There's simply too many of the creatures that we call "man". And look at any place where animals have become too numerous in their selected/necessary habitats. In Africa, sometimes a group of animals will become so numerous that they eat all of the natural food. In so doing, of course, great numbers starve to death.
It's not so much different to man. We've become so numerous, we have no natural predator to keep the population under control, that just be living and breathing, we're destroying our own habitat. Any other animals, with out-of-control populations will do exactly the same thing.
Man just needs more population control ...we need more wars and diseases and such to control the over-population, that's all. Its the only "predator" that man has ...himself.
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I agree. But population control can also be done without suffering.