PDA

View Full Version : Future Generations



Lacbe
01-16-2008, 15:57
I'm 55 yrs old and retired, I'v lived my life to the fullest and have many more adventures that I wan't to accomplise. My grandson, who just turn 7, has been packpacking with me since he was 3, he has his own packpack and poles and loves the outdoords. He enjoys nature, seeing the sun come up in the morning and hearing the birds sing when they look for food. We went thru an area about 3 months ago and saw alot of trees and wildlife. THIS WEEKEND I DROVE THRU THE SAME AREA AND ALL THE TREES WERE GONE. He aked me, WHY DID THEY DESTRORY NATURE. How do you answer that? We, as parents or grandparents need to explain to the future genenrations that the land that we all love, needs to be protected from those who love the all mighty dollar and there are those who need to protect our wildernes. So my question is, WHAT DO YOU TELL THEM. Because in future generations, some of them will lead our nation into the future. Please no smart ass remarks. We live in a time that that needs solutions. Our future genarations depend on them finding solutions to this.

SlowLightTrek
01-16-2008, 16:10
Well, we do need homes which are currently mostly made from trees. Commercial buisness type buildings are made from steel studs rather than wood. Mostly for fireproofness. We use paper which is made from trees. Alot of what you buy at the store is packaged in cardboard. Recycling helps the demand for more trees quite a bit. I walked through a section this summer they were cutting trees right on the AT. No consideration for the damage they were doing to the trail either. Really pushing for wildlife areas is the best means of protection of the land and its inhabitants. It really took me by surprise when I found out that the AT wasn't a protected place from start to finish.

rafe
01-16-2008, 16:12
Tell me about it. A year and a half ago, the old woman in the house next door moved out to some assisted-living place. Some dickhead with more money than brains bought the place. Per the usual MO in our neighborhood, his plan was to tear down the house and build a McMansion in its place. Of course, the VERY FIRST thing he did was to hire a logging company to cut down and haul away all the trees. Every last one.

In the meantime, the housing market has collapsed. Mr. Dickhead is left holding the bag, paying the mortgage on an unoccupied house and lot. The old house still sits there, in the middle of an ugly clear-cut. Sad.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 16:20
Don't talk about it, get active. We all know what Edward Abbey's strategy is. It isn't exactly legal but then again, legal measures will never be on the planet's side.

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 16:27
So, all we have left will be state and federal parks for our future nature. I don't want to turn this into politics thread. This is something that will effect all of our future generations.

Blissful
01-16-2008, 16:27
Tell me about it.
Per the usual MO in our neighborhood, his plan was to tear down the house and build a McMansion in its place. Of course, the VERY FIRST thing he did was to hire a logging company to cut down and haul away all the trees. Every last one.

Sad.

That happened in a lot diagonally from us on a hill, the guy cleared out every single tree and piece of vegetation. Then when the summer thunderstorms came, we had mud coming down the hill onto our property. I really miss the trees, and esp how they helped prevent erosion. I know it's his land but it made no sense.

Pedaling Fool
01-16-2008, 16:31
This is a political issue, it's called overpopulation, but it's ignored because of the hype over global warming. I'll say no more because it's political/sensitive.

rafe
01-16-2008, 16:31
Kinda makes you long for a "revenge of the Ents" (as in Lord of the Rings, at the end of the 2nd book.)

Two Speed
01-16-2008, 16:35
. . . Of course, the VERY FIRST thing he did was to hire a logging company to cut down and haul away all the trees. Every last one.Depending on the timber he may have been counting on the value of the timber as part of his financing.
In the meantime, the housing market has collapsed. Mr. Dickhead is left holding the bag, paying the mortgage on an unoccupied house and lot. The old house still sits there, in the middle of an ugly clear-cut. Sad.Except for the eye sore aspect that falls under the heading of "ain't that too bad."
That happened in a lot diagonally from us on a hill, the guy cleared out every single tree and piece of vegetation. Then when the summer thunderstorms came, we had mud coming down the hill onto our property. I really miss the trees, and esp how they helped prevent erosion. I know it's his land but it made no sense.In Georgia allowing sediment to escape from a construction site is a no-no and can get the builder awarded citations and/or a Stop Work Order.* Have you called the county or city and reported that?

* Stop Work Orders in Georgia mean stop construction; the only activity allowed is erosion control; builders in Georgia have been known to try the "if I get a Stop Work Order I'll never be able to do my erosion control" line of BS.

JAK
01-16-2008, 16:36
We do need homes, but now is the time to start thinking about living sustainably, including sustainable housing. The fact that we need homes is no excuse to do things unsustainably. In fact, if you think about it, it is all the more reason to start doing things sustainably.

I don't know why we are so adverse to sustainability. Once we realize we can and must start living sustainably at some point, we will then realize it may as well be sooner as later, and it might as well include forests and other natural habitats rather than exclude them. Why not?

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 16:37
This is a political issue, it's called overpopulation, but it's ignored because of the hype over global warming. I'll say no more because it's political/sensitive.
That is the problem, why is it sensitive? This is a problem for all of us, why put our head in the sand ?

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 16:40
That is the problem, why is it sensitive? This is a problem for all of us, why put our head in the sand ?

Because this site suffers from "group think". If you deviate from the prevailing opinion, you get PMs and "warnings".

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 16:46
Because this site suffers from "group think". If you deviate from the prevailing opinion, you get PMs and "warnings".
I don't agree with that, this site cares with what happens to our chidren and there futurte love of this land!!!

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 16:49
I don't agree with that, this site cares with what happens to our chidren and there futurte love of this land!!!

Does it? You bring up an extremely valid problem and nobody wants to talk about it...

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 16:53
This is a political issue, it's called overpopulation, but it's ignored because of the hype over global warming. I'll say no more because it's political/sensitive.

They're both related.

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 16:55
Does it? You bring up an extremely valid problem and nobody wants to talk about it...
Why not I'm pissed off> sorry for that, But my grandson needs a better answer than than money rules over the love of our forrest land.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 16:56
We do need homes, but now is the time to start thinking about living sustainably, including sustainable housing. The fact that we need homes is no excuse to do things unsustainably. In fact, if you think about it, it is all the more reason to start doing things sustainably.

I don't know why we are so adverse to sustainability. Once we realize we can and must start living sustainably at some point, we will then realize it may as well be sooner as later, and it might as well include forests and other natural habitats rather than exclude them. Why not?

Profits. It's what it always comes down to. People like us, standing atop a mountain or ridge see the natural beauty. They see future roads, hotels, timber profits, damming opportunities and the like. Sustainability is a dirty word these days.

JAK
01-16-2008, 16:59
Sustainability is more of a political challenge than a scientific or technical challenge.
It is still fundamentally a scientific issue however.

I agree that sustainability is being overshadowed by global warming.
Global warming is a subset of sustainability, and a critical issue, but not the only issue.
Equally critical are population, loss of soil and biomass, and loss of biodiversity.
It's all part of sustainability in my opinion.

Sustainability doesn't mean keep things the same forever. Sustainability simply means working with and within the natural cycles rather than oblivious to them for short term narrow self-interests.

JAK
01-16-2008, 17:01
Water. I left out water. We have lots of water here but most places don't.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
01-16-2008, 17:03
A reminder that promoting illegal activity violates the Terms of Service for this web site

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 17:05
Profits. It's what it always comes down to. People like us, standing atop a mountain or ridge see the natural beauty. They see future roads, hotels, timber profits, damming opportunities and the like. Sustainability is a dirty word these days.
So how do we explain to those of the future generations that there can be a balance, making money and still enjoy nature?

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:07
A reminder that promoting illegal activity violates the Terms of Service for this web site

What if they are in self-defense?

JAK
01-16-2008, 17:09
As much as I may love it, anarchy is not the answer. There has to be a better way to raise awareness than eco-anarchy and eco-terrorism. Regardless of the moral issues, eco-anarchy is ineffective. When the French secret service blew up the Rainbow Warrior and murdered Fernando Pereira, they won. Support for Green Peace vanished overnight. People were prepared to support the cause, but not go to war against France. Sustainability has to become mainstream. Anarchy will never be mainstream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:11
So how do we explain to those of the future generations that there can be a balance, making money and still enjoy nature?

We stress, as Jak said, sustainability. We stress recycling. We stress being vigilant for over-consumption. We stess respect for the wildlife that shares the land with us. We stress respect for the planet so when the time comes and we need to use some of it, it get's implemented in the most environmentally safe way possible. We also need to stress alternative energy sources(there will be a TON of money in that).

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:13
As much as I may love it, anarchy is not the answer. There has to be a better way to raise awareness than eco-anarchy and eco-terrorism. Regardless of the moral issues, eco-anarchy is ineffective. When the French secret service blew up the Rainbow Warrior and murdered Fernando Pereira, they won. Support for Green Peace vanished overnight. People were prepared to support the cause, but not go to war against France. Sustainability has to become mainstream. Anarchy will never be mainstream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior

They violated the first rule of eco-warrioring-

Nobody gets hurt.

Violence is failure, that much is obvious.

JAK
01-16-2008, 17:14
Arguably some anarchy movements, such as home rule of India, or Christianity, do eventually become mainstream. Notably they didn't do it by killing people, at least not in their early beginnings. Sustainability should preach and practice sustainability. Anarchy is unsustainable. Anarchy is what we have now.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
01-16-2008, 17:14
What if they are in self-defense?The law recognizes the right to use force to defend yourself - however, it is not recognized in defending trees. Good try though.

JAK
01-16-2008, 17:15
They violated the first rule of eco-warrioring-

Nobody gets hurt.

Violence is failure, that much is obvious.Apparently violence worked for the French secret service.

JAK
01-16-2008, 17:15
Gotta run. Keep the faith.

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 17:19
Weary, you work hard in Maine to help protect the wilderness there, What can we do in the states we live in to protect are wilderness? I don't mean to put you on the spot, with out PMing you, but what can I do to help my state?

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:19
The law recognizes the right to use force to defend yourself - however, it is not recognized in defending trees. Good try though.

But it's like their breakin' in my house:D

Alligator
01-16-2008, 17:20
So how do we explain to those of the future generations that there can be a balance, making money and still enjoy nature?The forest you were looking at was probably cut down once before. Then it grew back. Maybe more than once.

Without providing more information, there is no way determine that the forest was "destroyed". If there's a big old subdivision sign on it, well that's another story.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:23
Weary, you work hard in Maine to help protect the wilderness there, What can we do in the states we live in to protect are wilderness? I don't mean to put you on the spot, with out PMing you, but what can I do to help my state?

If you REALLY want to know, PM me and we'll take this elsewhere.

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 17:29
The question still is, what do you tell you children or grandkids, WHY DO THEY DESTROY NATURE?

Frolicking Dinosaurs
01-16-2008, 17:30
But it's like their breakin' in my house:D
::: Dino seen resisting urge to make comments about living in trees :::

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:30
The question still is, what do you tell you children or grandkids, WHY DO THEY DESTROY NATURE?

Because it means nothing to them except, again, money. They're probably afraid of it too along with being afraid of any physical activity.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:32
::: Dino seen resisting urge to make comments about living in trees :::

It's not just about trees, you know. Things live on, in, under or around those trees. I also like clean air and water.

Alligator
01-16-2008, 17:33
The question still is, what do you tell you children or grandkids, WHY DO THEY DESTROY NATURE?Your making an assumption that nature was destroyed. If it grew back, it was not destroyed.

Please stop shouting if you want to have a reasonable discussion.

rafe
01-16-2008, 17:37
Alligator, the woods may have regrown, but they're never as diverse as they were before being cut. It takes a helluva long time to create a truly diverse forest.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:38
Your making an assumption that nature was destroyed. If it grew back, it was not destroyed.

Please stop shouting if you want to have a reasonable discussion.

Yes, it was. The original inhabitants home's don't grow back. The original rock formations and eco systems don't grow back. Everyone knows that the rich diversity seen in first growth forests makes second and third growth look pathetic.

jesse
01-16-2008, 17:40
we need to find balance. Most WBers cherish freedom, well, land owners have property rights, they have made substantial investments, and are entitled to harvest their timber. Don't forget that trees are a renewable resource. The Cohuttha Wilderness, here in GA was heavily timbered until the 1930's, In 70 years it has made a substantial comeback.

Alligator
01-16-2008, 17:41
Alligator, the woods may have regrown, but they're never as diverse as they were before being cut. It takes a helluva long time to create a truly diverse forest.That's not true. There's a lot of diversity in new forest. Many bird species require edge and open conditions for habitat. Further, in general, at the time of establishment (called stand initiation), most of the tree species that will occupy the site are already there (initial floristics). As the stand ages, trees die but new trees do not invade unless there is a minor disturbance. That's called stem exclusion.

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 17:44
Your making an assumption that nature was destroyed. If it grew back, it was not destroyed.

Please stop shouting if you want to have a reasonable discussion.
They are going to build a mall with a parking lot, a subdivions and an apartment complex, What the hell is the difference? This town I live in has more empty buildings they you can shake your hiking pole at, why take more land away? Why not use those buldings that are there?You got any empty housing, buildings or parking spaces where you live?

Alligator
01-16-2008, 17:46
Yes, it was. The original inhabitants home's don't grow back. The original rock formations and eco systems don't grow back. Everyone knows that the rich diversity seen in first growth forests makes second and third growth look pathetic.Old growth can be some of the least diverse of forest. Consider an old growth hemlock stand. Most of the trees from the time of establishment have long since died leaving nearly pure stands of simply hemlock. It's not a black and white situation.

Alligator
01-16-2008, 17:49
They are going to build a mall with a parking lot, a subdivions and an apartment complex, What the hell is the difference? This town I live in has more empty buildings they you can shake your hiking pole at, why take more land away? Why not use those buldings that are there?You got any empty housing, buildings or parking spaces where you live?That's a different story then. Show your displeasure by not living or shopping there. How many kids/grandkids do you have?

jesse
01-16-2008, 17:50
lacabe,
WE feel your pain. Soon there won't be any green space between Macon and Atlanta. I know we have too damn many abandoned shopping centers in the Atlanta Area.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:51
Old growth can be some of the least diverse of forest. Consider an old growth hemlock stand. Most of the trees from the time of establishment have long since died leaving nearly pure stands of simply hemlock. It's not a black and white situation.

True, but that's the way it's supposed to be. It grew that way for a reason.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:55
That's a different story then. Show your displeasure by not living or shopping there. How many kids/grandkids do you have?

Ahhhhh the free market answer.... Let them trample all over what you love and then register your displeasure after then fact.

rafe
01-16-2008, 17:57
That's not true. There's a lot of diversity in new forest.Why is it, then, that I can always identify a "farmed" forest? Even more so out west. There are tall trees aplenty, but they're all the same, and there's nothing interesting between them.

Why not mow down forests to "improve" their diversity? It just doesn't make sense.

Alligator
01-16-2008, 17:58
True, but that's the way it's supposed to be. It grew that way for a reason.Thanks for agreeing with me that 2nd and 3rd growth forests can be more diverse than old growth.

Those cutover forests can also grow into old-growth.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 17:59
Why is it, then, that I can always identify a "farmed" forest? Even more so out west. There are tall trees aplenty, but they're all the same, and there's nothing interesting between them.

Why not mow down forests to "improve" their diversity? It just doesn't make sense.

Nahhhh, Dude. There's, like, 2 different kinds of squirrels there.

Alligator
01-16-2008, 18:01
Why is it, then, that I can always identify a "farmed" forest? Even more so out west. There are tall trees aplenty, but they're all the same, and there's nothing interesting between them.

Why not mow down forests to "improve" their diversity? It just doesn't make sense.I think by using "farmed" you mean a plantation? Because they plant identical trees in rows. Bufu in my opinion.

Forests can also be cut down and left to natural regeneration. It depends really.

sheepdog
01-16-2008, 18:04
Trees are a renewable resource. In michigan the best places to find wild game is a clear cut that is about 8 years old. If you don't want people to cut down trees. Don't buy lumber or anything with paper in it. We need to use our heads and use our resources wisely. No one wants trees cut down in "their forrest". Me included.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 18:11
Trees are a renewable resource. In michigan the best places to find wild game is a clear cut that is about 8 years old. If you don't want people to cut down trees. Don't buy lumber or anything with paper in it. We need to use our heads and use our resources wisely. No one wants trees cut down in "their forrest". Me included.

How much of the wood you've ever used is local? Very little, I bet.

Pedaling Fool
01-16-2008, 18:16
The History Channel will air a 2 hour special on Monday @ 8 PM EST. The title is something like: Life without People. It will show how nature will recover after we are gone, and yes we will be gone one day. Nature will be just fine and then the sun will burn out and then the universe will become an extremely cold dead space.....


Now let's go hiking!

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 18:21
The History Channel will air a 2 hour special on Monday @ 8 PM EST. The title is something like: Life without People. It will show how nature will recover after we are gone, and yes we will be gone one day. Nature will be just fine and then the sun will burn out and then the universe will become an extremely cold dead space.....


Now let's go hiking!

The History of the world according to Fox is going to show us how everything will be fine once we're dead? How fitting.

Lone Wolf
01-16-2008, 18:29
If a protesting hippy tree-sitter deep in the forest falls to the ground does anybody hear or care?

Lacbe
01-16-2008, 18:34
The History Channel will air a 2 hour special on Monday @ 8 PM EST. The title is something like: Life without People. It will show how nature will recover after we are gone, and yes we will be gone one day. Nature will be just fine and then the sun will burn out and then the universe will become an extremely cold dead space.....


Now let's go hiking!
Don't worry about the woods Austin ( my grandson ).The world will end in about 5 million yrs, do with the earth what you will. Nature will survive untill then. I know the earth would be happier with out us humans trying to save it.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 18:35
If a protesting hippy tree-sitter deep in the forest falls to the ground does anybody hear or care?

Why would a tree sitter sit deep in an empty forest, dummy? I thought the whole point of tree sitting was to go where the action is.

Lilred
01-16-2008, 18:36
IT is my belief that developers are destroying this country, not just the nature. Water shortages in Atlanta are partially due to the fact that the land has been covered over in cement/asphalt and the water doesn't go back to the land, it goes down drainage pipes. So, there is less evaporation, therefore, less rainfall.

They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.......

There is a giant parking lot near where I live. It is a car auction place. I bet there is no less than 30 acres that have been clearcut and asphalt put down where 1000's upon 1000's of cars are parked. It's disgusting. That's why I'll never be rich. I see that and just see the ruination of forests. Someone else sees it and can calculate the money to be made......

mudhead
01-16-2008, 18:37
If a protesting hippy tree-sitter deep in the forest falls to the ground does anybody hear or care?

Deep in the forest?

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 18:43
IT is my belief that developers are destroying this country, not just the nature. Water shortages in Atlanta are partially due to the fact that the land has been covered over in cement/asphalt and the water doesn't go back to the land, it goes down drainage pipes. So, there is less evaporation, therefore, less rainfall.

They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.......

There is a giant parking lot near where I live. It is a car auction place. I bet there is no less than 30 acres that have been clearcut and asphalt put down where 1000's upon 1000's of cars are parked. It's disgusting. That's why I'll never be rich. I see that and just see the ruination of forests. Someone else sees it and can calculate the money to be made......

Right on. They want to keep building and building yet we can't even take care of our existing infrastructure. Greedy pigs, all of them.

sheepdog
01-16-2008, 19:13
How much of the wood you've ever used is local? Very little, I bet.zoidfu2
Actually quit a bit. There are two plywood factories within 50 miles suppling all our building needs. And then of course there is firewood to keep the wood stove going. We are blessed with lots of state and federal forrests in Northern Michigan and they seem to be managed pretty well. Lots of forrests and lots of critters.

zoidfu
01-16-2008, 19:19
.zoidfu2
Actually quit a bit. There are two plywood factories within 50 miles suppling all our building needs. And then of course there is firewood to keep the wood stove going. We are blessed with lots of state and federal forrests in Northern Michigan and they seem to be managed pretty well. Lots of forrests and lots of critters.

Touche. But I think we can both agree that you live in a unique area as that isn't the case in most of the east, at least.

rafe
01-16-2008, 19:41
We have different resource-extraction issues here in the east. Eg. "mountain top removal" for coal. But the basic problem of sprawl remains, in force.

What's even more tragic is that it's no longer possible to buy or build a small new house. Land is so valuable that the only new houses being built are McMansions. Double-whammy. The energy required to heat these monsters will make King Faud (http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/1997/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=1997&passListType=Person&uniqueId=4695&datatype=Person) even richer than he is now.

sheepdog
01-16-2008, 19:54
zoidfu2
Touche. But I think we can both agree that you live in a unique area as that isn't the case in most of the east, at least.

A yes we are richly blessed. But so far from the AT. That is a bummer.

JAK
01-16-2008, 20:05
Deep in the forest?Well, half way, at the very most. ;)

JAK
01-16-2008, 20:14
As far as the Grandchildren. Brainwash early and brainwash often. Teach them about sustainability. If they want plastic toys, tell them they ain't sustainable. If the want MacDonald's, give 'em some real food instead, something local. Knit them a sweater. Take 'em for a hike. You may not be able to give them 100% sustainability in your lifetime, but you can plant the seed.