On 11/28/03 23:25 +0900, Judson McClendon wrote:

Considering some 6 billion people are currently living here, and most
of the difficulties people have in living as they wish are political, not
environmental, it is far from certain that you have any real evidence
to support your claim. 'Using' something does not necessarily mean

Living as one wishes generally does not involve even a hint of
living in harmony with nature. We destroy and "conquer,"
seemingly oblivious of the consequences of our actions. Such
destruction is happily shared among the names of the likes of
politics, industry, religion and convenience. It knows no bounds;
mankind's wanton destruction of our planet is the definitive truism.

'ruining' it. Change does not necessarily mean 'ruining', either. When
the raw materials for the computer you used to post your message were
taken from the earth and formed into your computer, was that 'ruining'
them? To come to the views you and others have espoused here, one

You stop somewhat short of the mark, I'm afraid. The working of
said materials generally goes hand in hand with ecological damage
and destruction.

has to have made the a priori assumption: that the planet 'raw' as we
found it is somehow 'better' than it is when conformed for man's use.

I stated that "If you think mankind hasn't messed up THIS planet,
I suggest you open your eyes WIDE." Just where was a discussion
of "raw is better" entered?

Why is man's use less 'good' than a warthog's use? Can a warthog or

I did not discuss good, bad, right or wrong. I stated that we'd
messed up the planet.

spotted owl gaze at the stars through a telescope made from materials
taken from the earth and wonder at the vastness and complexity of this
amazing and wonderful universe? You should realize that you are

Cute, but germane to nothing whatsoever other than to prove that
you consider yourself superior to our animal brethren. Or should
I say my animal brethren. Perhaps they're not your brethren, mmmm?

taking what amount to personal feelings and attributing them with
some kind of 'truth' that simply does not exist. This is more than quaint

Have you never stood at the spill site of an industrial outlet
and seen the dead fish floating in crud-filled water? Have you
never bothered to check the temperature of a river above and
below a hydro-electric dam and ponder the ecological consequences
of the difference? Have you never seen the top of an entire hill
strip-mined away and wondered what life was disrupted? Have you
never wondered about Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? Have you not
considered the ramifications of living fast and loose with the
resources from which we were spawned? Do you think that an FDA
warning for pregnant women to avoid fish really just applies to
/pregnant women/? Do you believe that increasing PCB levels in
the beef that folks cook will not have ill effects? Do you think
that having some 85% of Japan's natural forests replanted with
cedar won't have serious effects here? How about the water table
problems we're seeing as a result of 90% of the rivers here being
cemented into spillways?

I avoid rose-coloured 'truths'. Ecological atrocities abound.
Pooh-pooh them at our peril.

and provincial, it is ill founded and shows a serious lack of perception
and balance. Unfortunately, the very fact that those espousing such
views of necessity had to have been confused in their thinking to have
adopted them, is ample evidence they will not be able to see the error,
even after it has been pointed out to them. Sigh.

A lack of perception and balance is, indeed, the problem. I do,
not-so-humbly, submit that the lack of perception and balance not
lay with me, sir. In fact, that entire quoted passage applies
very nicely to people who refuse to acknowledge that there are
ecological problems of our making. The planet's a mess and we are
to blame.

So, go ahead and sigh. In the meantime, I'll try to teach my kids
to know their place in the universe and to live as responsibly as
possible. Oh, and speaking of awe and vastness, nothing could
possibly evoke those feelings more than truly grokking the
ripples cast out by the rock of an action. Admiring the
resilience of life and its ability to adapt is one thing, but
recognizing the sheer delicacy of the entire weave that is life
is significant. The greatest lesson learned, however, is to know
well the interdependence of all things on this planet. An event
does not happen without all things being affected. The greatest
folly of mankind is the belief that it somehow stands apart from
that interconnectedness. It is a tragedy of ignorance lief to
tryst with man's ego.

Consider:

A) If mankind was not created by God, and got here through entirely
physical processes, then mankind has just as much 'right' to use the
earth as any other living organism. In fact, the terms 'right' and 'wrong'
are meaningless, for we are simply another manifestation of physical

I'll interrupt you there. You're the one making it a moral issue.
You're the one making it potentially a religious issue. Get with
the plan, Judson. This isn't about a moral or religious
good/bad/right/wrong, it's about understanding our place in the
food chain and not destroying that which sustains us.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// http://mp3.com/trane_francks/