[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Brashears on Hanson
-
Subject: Re: Brashears on Hanson
-
From: donb@rational.com (Don Baccus)
-
Date: 7 Dec 1996 01:06:34 GMT
-
Article: 17047 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc, alt.org.earth-first, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens, alt.save.the.earth, alt.sustainable.agriculture, sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy, sci.environment, talk.environment
-
Organization: Rational Software Corporation
-
References: <5840b9$g2p@news1.io.org> <585cb3$a9c_001@pm6-75.hal-pc.org> <587c7j$fb9@news.inforamp.net> <587p3o$9f8_001@pm2-123.hal-pc.org>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6708 alt.org.earth-first:7213 alt.politics.economics:94817 alt.politics.greens:24405 alt.save.the.earth:27127 alt.sustainable.agriculture:17047 sci.agriculture:16899 sci.econ:61544 sci.energy:59781 sci.environment:114127 talk.environment:80247
In article <587p3o$9f8_001@pm2-123.hal-pc.org>,
charliew <charliew@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>You have to realize that there is a fundamental problem here regarding
>where to draw the line. Nature will support a certain population of
>"natural" animal species. These species will urinate and poop where they
>see fit. This excrement will have the same effect as what you are
>complaining about.
No, it won't. Rivers and other aquatic systems have a certain capacity
to deal with waste, which is why, for instance, some places are using
wetlands to soak up excess nutrients in treated sewage before it is
dumped into slow-moving streams or lakes.
Wild populations rarely reach a level where they cause water pollution.
Artificially dense populations of critters, such as are found in feedlots,
can easily discharge enough waste to pollute the recipient stream or
river.
Scale counts.
> In fact, I have already read a posting (some months
>ago) about too many wild ducks congregating at a particular location, and
>fouling (no pun intended) the water supply of that location. If such a
>natural activity occurs
Don't know about the particular post, but such problems with ducks
typically involve urban ponds with an artificial food supply in the
form of bread supplied by well-meaning citizens. Not a natural
situation as the duck population is artificially enhanced.
> and has occurred for eons, why can't the
>environmentalists get it through their heads that *nothing* should be done
>about it?
Since you can't get your facts straight, not much reason to adopt your
conclusion, is there?
Of course, the fact that natural systems may occasionally become
polluted and therefore unfit for human use is hardly an arguement that
we ought to pollute all waters until they're unfit for human use.
That's sort of like arguing that since fire exists in nature, we
ought to torch New York.
> Or are you telling me that the ultimate aim of the
>environmentalists is to *control* what happens in nature, rather than let
>nature take its own course?
No, our goal is to have humanity change its own diapers when we soil
them at a rate beyond Momma Nature's capacity to keep up.
> If the answer to this question is "yes", the
>enviros are more self deluded than even I imagined.
Oh, you're deluded, all right. Actually, you're a comfort, being so
detatched from reality that you can't really cause any harm.
>Have a nice day.
I did. I prefer my nice days to your life, lived in ignorance.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb@rational.com>
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza
References: