Peter O'Byrne wrote: >So come on, all you right-wing bullshitters. Why have you gone so quiet ?
Right-Left models seems to have little to say to this. I understand that the Chinese make the distinction between big Me and little Me in their language, and the issues seems to be much more related to this. Of course one can find a million reasons to justify a "little me" act - 'well, the workers need guidance for their liberation - that's clear, yes? - so I am the natural one to show them the way'. The relative rarity of "big Me" acts (that I, in common with many others, must pull in my horns so that we all have clean rivers or safe streets) is why we have evolved governments to enforce this. Frankly, whether this makes one or more contributors to the newsletter happy or sad is neither here nor there: due process has ordained it, and whoever wants to change it had better get themselves elected, or put forward a persuasive case. People confuse democracy with liberty. Democracy is one effective way of curtailing individual liberties for the ultimate benefit of Big Me, as opposed to Them. Other ways depend on preternatural sensitivity on the part of the legislators as to local and specific needs, and is easily seduced by ideology special interest. Them usually win over Big Me. About biodiversity: there are many reasons - aesthetic, to do with ecological stability, perhaps religious - why lessening ecological complexity is a stupid thing to do without due thought. The impact of eight billions on a world that can probably support one or two as US standards of living is self-evident. Thus, not only does the Big Me need thought, it needs action. This has worked its way into most of the democracies and the collective wisdom has decreed certain kinds of action. Those who disagree are entirely at liberty to try to change the legislation, but while it is there it is the law and must be followed. However, the arguments against protecting natural resources become ever more tenuous - see the forestry and mineral debates int he US and elsewhere. It is not that these people are wrong, but that it turns out that you can do the task - oil extraction, lumbering - with minimal impact. Plainly, there are areas such as urban sprawl and subsidised agriculture which impact marginal land, which is where interesting biodiversity tends to be concentrated. Once again - but unhappily confined to the industrialised democracies - policy, consultative and legislative processes are in train to address these issues. The real issue is how - and how quickly - such processes can be extended to authoritarian or wobbly states: to manage the Laotian North, the Philippines mountains, Arunachal Pradesh to name a few in Asia. The answer, if it comes, will be accretionary - probably made of many small measures, not one giant leap; although it is plain that we need one. _____________________________________ Oliver Sparrow Tel: UK (0)20 7736 9716 www.chforum.org www.treknepal.org www.datafreeze.com
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
