"E. Shaun Russell" wrote:
> Robert wrote:
> >Techno-man has done a majority of species a favor by eliminating
> >other predators and confining his predation to a limited set of
> >animals which, *in theory*, are sacrificed with a minimal amount
> >of suffering (though I'd *definately* prefer that all meat be
> >grown in a vat).
> I myself have always questioned the notion used by greens that man is
> somehow "unnatural." If we take evolution for granted, then has man not
> always been a part of nature? Just because our evolution will continue by
> using all sorts of technology shouldn't create a "man versus nature"
> scenario, but instead a "man enhancing nature" one.
Many greens are realizing that the primary destroyer of wilderness is
not industry, but agrigulture. The 'dead zone' south of Louisiana,
Chesapeake Bay's pfisteria problems, etc are mostly caused by
agricultural runoff from fields and animal pens. Pig and chicken farmers
used to sell their manure to ammunition manufacturers, but the end of
the Cold War and increasing gun control seem to be limiting that market
quite a bit (so technically you could blame these problems on the greens
for their peacenik and anti-gun stances.. ;) )
Of course, the field runoff problem has always been there, and proper
drainage controls build into the landscape can help contain most of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:08 MDT