The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The sustainability of wilderness > Comments

The sustainability of wilderness : Comments

By Ralf Buckley, published 10/3/2010

The financial value of goods and services humans derive from the natural environment is many tens of trillions of dollars every year.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
My experience with wilderness is that, too often, it is a ploy to give seclusion to the physically fit. This means that there can be no tracks to enable management vehicle access.
Here in Victoria there is supposed to be no management within Wilderness parks so when we get ferocious summer fires there is abnormal loss of native flora and fauna.
By all means have wilderness if you want it but insist upon a fire management regime that suits that bio diversity.
Posted by phoenix94, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 5:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This sort of writing with inflated figures actually undermines the case for environmental protection.
Posted by David Jennings, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 6:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author shows his ignorance when he states that wilderness areas help to absorb atmospheric carbon to mitigate human-induced climate change. He confuses atmospheric carbon particles with carbon dioxide, which is a colourless, odourless gas that is essential to plant growth. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no green wilderness areas. Even allowing for this oversight, he unquestionably accepts anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He needs to become aware that the arch proponent of AGW, the IPCC, has been unable to find any irrefutable scientific evidence of AGW despite searching for over 20 years . Ideology is no substitute for scientific evidence.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 10:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You are exaggerating the importance of wilderness."

I would say you are exaggerating the importance of humanity. What is so special about us that it is worth adding another billion or two to our numbers?

If we want to be rational, as the commenters to date seem to demand, then I would ask what absolute value has been supplied to the earth, per capita, through our existence as a species? Apart from self-serving activity, what do we really do?

Every comment so far seems to be driven by selfishness and greed, the hallmarks of the modern human.

The primary purpose and value of wilderness, over and above any utilitarian value, is to act as a foil to that selfishness and greed, to constantly reaffirm that there is more to life.

Unfortunately it would seem the majority in their concrete jungles, who, sadly, drive these issues through weight of numbers rather than sense, are so out of touch that they have lost all appreciation for the natural world. This then leads them to the delusion that it would be quite alright to plough under all the forests and dredge all the oceans just to support a few more people that they'll never interact with, a few more people that will likely as not have no beneficial impact upon the world.

"But how anyone can think that natural resources will be better conserved by expanding the tragedy of the commons is a mystery."

How anyone can think anything will be conserved by succumbing to the capitalist approach of exploit now, suffer later is the real mystery.

"but honestly, we're not consuming several times more (insert subject) of what the earth can produce."

But we are, as explained in the paragraph that follows in the article. We're not living off production, we're living off the natural capital, and as anyone who has had marginal contact with economics knows, that's a losing proposition.
Posted by geoffc, Thursday, 11 March 2010 9:22:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The author shows his ignorance when he states that wilderness areas help to absorb atmospheric carbon to mitigate human-induced climate change. He confuses atmospheric carbon particles with carbon dioxide, which is a colourless, odourless gas that is essential to plant growth."

Perhaps it's you in this case? Is it hard to reach the conclusion that he refers to gas rather than particulate? In my reading of the article I assumed the former rather than the latter, so perhaps you are crafting a humanoid figure from dried monocotyledonous materials?

"Without carbon dioxide, there would be no green wilderness areas."

And without green wilderness areas, among other sinks, there would be no oxygen and even more CO2, wouldn't there?

"he unquestionably accepts anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He needs to become aware that the arch proponent of AGW, the IPCC, has been unable to find any irrefutable scientific evidence of AGW despite searching for over 20 years . Ideology is no substitute for scientific evidence."

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and a risk based approach is always preferable to spouting the ideology of anti-AGW despite lack of evidence to support that particular stance.

The demand that everyone question AGW, that everyone includes qualification in every article and opinion piece to hedge their bets, is just another attempt to waste everyone's time and energy. If some have looked at what evidence is available and determined that the safest stance is to concede AGW, why should those people constantly be garbling messages with vacillation just so as not to offend those who choose not to make such rational analysis, or have ulterior motives driving their objections?
Posted by geoffc, Thursday, 11 March 2010 9:34:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
geoffc
"The species" is not a decision-making entity.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 12 March 2010 9:45:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy