At 01:02 PM 2/6/2001 -0800, Al Billings wrote:
> Terry writes:
> > What
> > does placing the "needs of the natural world" ahead of the "interest of
> > corporations" mean??
>
> Perhaps it is a disagreement with the "strip mine the planet" mentality of
>so many groups interested solely in making a profit immediately rather than
>the long term survival and quality of life of the human species?
People don't strip mine that which they have to maintain in
perpetuity. Companies take much better care of land that they own than
land that they lease for resource extraction. Unfortunately, the
government has forcibly bought up a lot of resources, so companies are
often required to lease land as part of their business. Timber companies
don't clear cut their vast tracts of private forest; they run them like
farms instead, generating successive generations of timber. The only
clear-cutting I've seen (and I've seen it a few different parts of the
Pacific Northwest) has been under the supervision of the government on
government land.
BTW, what makes you think that so many groups interested solely in making a
profit isn't in the best interest of the long-term survival and quality of
life of the human species? Most quality of life is generated by groups
looking solely for a profit, and those same groups have certainly improved
the odds of the survival of the human species. You must be using a rather
arbitrary and exclusionary definition of "better for people". Sounds like
a knee-jerk "evil corporation" meme to me.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:36 MDT