> Trying to figure out how one can discuss anything with
> those who more or less make up fake arguments to argue
> against.
>
> But my question was serious. You claim rainforests have
> value, which seems to imply that they are nothinb but
> an economic relationship. But I think that that is false.
> They are extremely worthwhile to the human species.
> Tell me why you claim they are worthless.
>
> Carrol
The problem is that the act of my claiming rainforests have value is not
perceived to be anything beyond an economic statement. The implication you
see there is non-existent, but apparently using any economic term linked to
the natural world causes this perception in marxist thought? I was at a loss
for another word to substitute for "value" which doesn't automatically do
this in your eyes. I say that the rainforests are "worthwhile" (Thanks
Carrol, I'll try that term a while) in and of themselves, which is an
attempt to invoke the Deep Ecologist concept of "intrinsic value."
Rainforests are not worthless, and it is my position that they must be
viewed as having worth beyond their perceived worth to humans, and cannot be
quantified in terms of money. To someone who discounts the need for
biological diversity or doesn't even support the anthropocentric
understanding that rainforests are necessary for survival, yes that person
could see a rainforest as "worthless" if the trees in it weren't worth
harvesting and putting on the market.
Thanks,
Tom
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
