[at-l] On the cell phone argument

[shane at theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

> >You might also try answering the question, "If conservation does not
benefit
> >people, then why should it be done?"
>
> IMO, that's putting it a bit crudely.

True, but that's the question you have to answer to people who don't
appreciate these things as we do.  There is a stand of trees a few acres in
size here in Metairie.  It's an unofficial park.  It's just undeveloped, and
owned by the Parish.  It's very desirable land, being near to good roads,
rail service, and the baseball stadium.  Some folks decided that it would be
good to make a water park there.  You know, cut down all the trees and pave
the area, then put up some water slides.

I was kind of surprised when I went to the council meeting.  A TON of us
showed up to say that we much preferred the trees.  The council killed the
idea.  On the radio the next day, they were interviewing a few people, and
one guy said, "I can't imagine why people would rather have trees than a
waterpark and a revenue stream."

> "Primitive" cultures understood their intimate
> connection to nature.  They understood that
> they themselves suffered if they failed to respect
> nature.
>
> OTOH, one would hope that "respect nature"
> means just that.  Ie., we're not doing it for
> purely selfish reasons.

I agree completely.

Personally, I want wild lands preserved for purely selfish reasons,
though...

Shane