--- neil rangel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I came across this newsclip:'Plan' to destroy green > Goa. Scrap Regional Plan, say experts, greens. > > Its really sad that Goa is gradually losing all her > beauty and greenery in settlement zones. Priceless > trees are being chopped to clear land. As such the > term "developed plot" has a more ominous meaning for > Goa's greenery. I have seen some really senseless > chopping of huge banyans in the heart of Margao and > elsewhere..in the name of road widening. What took > centuries to grow; the chainsaws destroy in a matter > of minutes. These trees are irreplaceable. The > land owning Goans have sold themselves too cheaply > (sic)..overtaken by the greed for money. An > important casualty is Goa's greenery in inhabited > areas. > Mario asks: > These comments are simply to be contrarian and to stir debate as the conflict between progress and things that stand in the way is one where people of good will can disagree. > Is it possible in Goa to plant several new trees to replace one old tree that needs to be cut down for economic development to proceed? Is even an old tree truly "irreplaceable"? If we plant another tree won't we have another old tree several hundred years from now. > Who gets to decide if a tree is "priceless", or that removing it is "senseless", or that it is more important that a road needs to be widened??? What are the criteria to make such a decision??? Are the landowners really "greedy"??? Isn't it their land to do with as they wish??? Don't YOU conservationists do with YOUR own personal assets as you wish??? > The resolution of conflicts between progress and conservation is a political and economic one, but if serious efforts at re-aforestation are engaged in the net results could be a win-win situation for everyone, IN THE LONG RUN. Those in charge of progress need to be sensitive to historical artifacts, monuments and buildings, but in the case of ancient trees, if an elegant solution cannot be found perhaps it is the tree that must give way. > One of India's biggest problems is that the infrastructure has not kept up with development, often because of some sentimental reasons that something or other is subjectively "priceless" or it's destruction "senseless". If an old banyan tree is blocking a major thoroughfare, or a housing development, someone has to make a decision. In a democracy, who gets to decide? > In the new world a process called "creative destruction" was introduced by economist Joseph Schumpeter, albeit in a slightly different context, that of innovation and industrial transformation that may require obsolete industries to vanish from the scene [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction] > Perhaps India needs to embrace creative destruction with the only exceptions being historical artifacts, monuments and buildings, which are the only things that truly cannot be replaced. >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
