Gene wrote:
>Economics will always dominate. Debating "shoulds" is a waste of time. A
>few of us who control small forests think of shoulds; those who run
>corporations and politicians think of profits. That is the history and that
>is the future.
In the struggle between economics and ecology we can
change economics or change ecology. Somehow i see economics
as the variable. We created it and implement it in thousands
of different ways. Every country and state has different rules
which define economics. Saying we can't change economics sounds
like a slow slide into acceptance of anything that results
from economic activity.
If we change the economic rules to encourage sustainable forestry
what is dominating? Is it economics or ecology? This really
puzzles me... have we given up trying to control economics?
If this is true we are doomed.
I can see a trend of trying to change ecology by genetic engineering,
chemical farming, science, and lots of useful tools. Much of this
is desirable but at some point we have to seek a balance. If this
balance requires a change in economics to encourage sustainable
forestry then why not try. To give up isn't a solution it is
avoiding the problem.
----
jeff owens, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.xprt.net/~jko
underground house, solar power, self-reliance, edible landscape
to leave ecopath: unsubscribe ecopath -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
