I seriously doubt that the forests will be wholly depleted in such a short period of time as you predict.

Sometimes humans need to kick-start the fires. Again, I go back to the Southern California fires of 2003. The underbrush wasn't being cleared away. Dead bark, brush, and tree just kept piling and piling. IIRC, there is/was a insect outbreak in our local forests that killing trees which only meant more fuel. Then when a fire did breakout, it burned for a LONG time and hot b/c it had all that underbrush.

I didn't wander off. I was up there with some friends and I got separated.

And avenger is dead on with his post.

So you stay in the same spot and wait. It was stupid that you tried to find your own way. If they knew you were missing, they most likely would have retraced their steps to attempt to find you.


seriously. common sense will save you if you're in trouble in the wilderness

In retrospect, yeah, that's what I should have done. I didn't think about that at the time, though.

PageWizard: So you got lost in the woods. Learn from your mistakes, don't just write them off as nature's fault.

Maybe if you don't know anything about wilderness survival you shouldn't be in the wilderness?

"HEY GUYS LETS GO INTO THE WOODS WITH SEVERAL BOTTLES OF WHISKEY BECAUSE THAT'S SAFE FUN"

Hey, I have a great idea for you - invest in a Fox 40 whistle.

that was a few years ago. I've learned a lot since then.

This post will be completely ignored and the same arguments that I address will be stated over and over in the fashion of all internet debates. Anyway, here goes:

When people think of logging they think of the black and white pictures of fields of mud with a few sawed off stumps sticking out of it. This, however, is no longer the way forests are logged. You would think this would be common knowledge because of the 18,000 documentaries on logging on the History, Discovery and other channels. Today very special vehicles and methods are used to log, that prevent damage to the forest. This is because, of course, a waste of wood is a waste of money. Also, entire fields are not stripped of their trees like they were 80 years ago. This is, obviously, bad for forests and hence, bad for the logging company. Only trees of a certain age are selected harvesting so that the forest stays healthy and grows trees back as quickly as it can. Also, unhealthy undergrowth that retards the growth of trees is eliminated. Fear not, you will enjoy these forests for years to come. BTW, have any of you ever tried hiking in an untouched forest anywhere near the south?

Feel free to ignore this post completely. I know what a kick people get out of getting emotional about forests. Also, please feel free to mock my post if that will make you feel more right. Ad Hominem attacks on me may also help.

Sorry, the internet has made me cynical.

.

Holy **** dude, you're almost me!!

I thought it was funny hearing a kid in my government class who is a strong democrat:

"Yea, well, the whole logging of the preserve in Alaska is proven to be safe and unharmful to the environment with all the technology and rules put in place today. We just caused a stir because we wanted to make Bush look bad *laugh*."

I imagine this is the same thing.

With all respect of course, but Bush doesn't need anyone else but himself to make Bush look bad.

I don't really get the outburst on this topic either though. I really like how the US manage its forests etc (I only know the bigger ones, of course), and to me they're pretty unique. And uniquely pretty.... What we do over here is: "hey, a beautiful forest, habitat of many strange species and inducer of romantic feelings as old as man itself (6000 years)! Let's put a row of concrete barns in it"...

I haven't really read this particular case, but hey. Logging is logging. If it's a continuation of the forest management so far: carry on please. If not: um... stop right there.

I bet bush could dump a few trillion gallons of radioactive waste in the ocean and some of you guys would defend him. "More fish need three eyes!", "Haven't you seen Daredevil?!", "Radioactive waste is good for the enviornment as it makes seaweed grow 10x faster!"

Hmm, then again some here would dismiss anything good Bush has done or attach a conspiracy to it.

This "discussion" is starting to get a little bit silly now.

SAJN--that was totally uncalled for.

I'm not worried so much about logging now as I am about mining. Yet everyone seems to think it's a positive thing and focus on how logging doesn't hurt but help...no one's addressed the mining issue yet.

Through the course of my studies, lectures from foresters from private logging companies, etc.



That's all fine and good for Lodgepole Pine stands in Colorado, or Montana or Wyoming where the natural fire cycle is 80 years and the stands require stnad-clearing fire to regenerate. And even inthose stands the overgrowth is getting pretty bad. Stand replacing fires aren't naturally occruring in California though, where the cycle was about seven years (prior to supression) of low intensity fires that burn underbrush, smaller trees, etc. Writers from the 1850s (miners and others who came during the Gold Rush) describe the Sierra Forests as open enough for three people to ride abreast on horses. There is little to no forest in California that looks like that now. Fires that aren't supressed in California go on to burn thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) of acres. These fires burn down everything in their path and can not be stopped upntil the wind turns it back into already burned areas. These fires burn so hot that the soil is cooked to the point of having no nutrients in it, making the regeneration process much longers.



Educate yourself on a subject then you won't have to make stupid posts like that

Typical of you to make an exaggerated and completely made up statement to try to support your argument.

Typical of you to fail miserably.

And if you don't believe in religion then you are ****ed. So lets enjoy this world cause there might not be anything beyond it.

That was a vague response. Even if you have attended lectures from logging companies and foresters it is still not safe to assume that every logging company in the country is going to go out of thier way to treat the environment with respect.

It's not in their best interest to treat the environment poorly. Doing so only cuts intotheir profit future profit margin. Logging companies don't come in and clear cut land like they used to for many different reasons: environmnetal policy, the public, fedearl policy, and so on.

"Enjoy" in this case just means following what ever triggers a pleasure response in your brain. The trouble with that is the pleasure response does not always involve things that are nice to other people. Of course, this would only be a problem in the case that a religion exists. Thing is taking that chance you land in in a world of hurt.

Uhh..riiight.:rolleyes:

Seems logical enough to me. Why must you incessantly bash him for no reason? It makes you look like an idiot.

Trees > cars.

Incessantly bash him? I don't think I've EVER bashed him in the past...just because others do doesn't mean I do...get it straight.

Religion does not dictate morals. You can be athiest and still understand stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. Either that or I am totally misunderstanding what you are saying.

Big deal.

It seems to me to be natural that we cut down trees. Humans seem to live easier if we use wood for things. We cut down trees. It's nature. If we piss nature off too badly, then nature will take care of us by killing us off. We really can't **** up the environment if you think about it. Cause nature will kill us off long before we screw it up... and I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

Stop worrying. It'll all work out fine. The more we fight nature, the sooner we won't have to.

I hope the sarcastic tone of this post is dually noted.

Alright, I want to say that my reaction was quite knee-jerkish. The logging of forests has proven to be a good thing, it seems. Thanks for that knowledge that I didn't have previously Avenger (though I'm sure you were just itching for a thread like this to open up ;))

But I still wonder--what of mining? I mean, they could give a crap less about their 'future source of income' because really there isn't any there. And mining's not exactly wonderful for the environment, though I'm not sure of the exact side effects.

I did indeed note the sarcastic tone twice.

For an atheist, no. But religions typically have some sort of code of morality.

This is treason! The congress should stop him now!

@ SF: More sarcasm I hope?




Give me one good reason, from a purely atheistic, materialistic stand point, why anything is wrong. "It just is" is not a good reason.

Tell me, why is it you associate atheism with materialism? Are the two somehow any more connected than say, Christianity and materialism?

To answer your question, from an atheist's viewpoint, society and culture dictate morals. Religion is certainly a factor that I consider to be a large part of culture. Thus, religion indirectly affects the morals of the nonreligious. I'm definitely willing to admit that, because it's only logical.

However, while society certainly places stigmas on certain behaviors, introducing morals, I believe in moral relativism. Moral relativism is a simple idea. That is that there is no absolute set of morals. There exists no black and white set of good actions and bad actions. If you believe in moral relativism, you believe that you can't simply go down a list and say "murder is evil, showing compassion is good, abortion is evil, cannibalism is evil, giving to the poor is good, ..." One man's idea of evil is another man's idea of lukewarm or even good.

That explained, I believe that since culture is such a large influence on our morals, most of the people belonging to a particular culture will adopt a majority of that culture's morals. For example, since our society considers cannibalism a major taboo, you'll be hard-pressed to find a member of our culture who does not find anything wrong with it. However, it is possible, due partly to the effects of moral relativism, that a few outlying members of society find nothing 'evil' or 'wrong' about cannibalism.

So, there you have it. That's what I think about morals.

Threads like these are few and far between, but when they come around, I'm all over it.

Not all logging can be good, and keeping an eye on what happens is always a good thing.

I don't know really know about mining, and the environmental impact is going to vary depending on what is being mined and what the process invovles.

It's all a moot point though. It won't be too long before we see the start of the next ice age, which means the vast majority of North America will become a barren, frozen wasteland. But we won't be around to see it, so no worries.

The other thing is that this is going to be tied up in court forever since some environmental group will sue, which will lead to lots of impacr reports that will take years to complete. The way the system works, very little in terms of environmental management actually gets done because things are always tied up in court.

I hardly went to church as a child. Maybe once a year, if even that (not including Christmas/Easter). All my morals, what few I have, come from what I learned was right and wrong, not through religion, but through being told. I would not like it if my brother was brutally murdered, so I would not go out and murder someone because I can and nothing is stopping me. The law sure as hell isn't, by the time I get arrested and prosecuted, I already did the crime, thus the "enjoyment" one gets from breaking the law is gone.

I would not like it if my car was stolen so I will not go out and steal someone's car. My car is materialistic, it has nothing to do with religion saying "Thou shall not steal". It has to do with relating it to my perception, that I would not like it if my car stolen so I won't steal another person's car. It's the same reason why when my friend calls and says "Hey lets go spray paint that Honda Civic you don't like and strip the paint off with that spray can." I know I would get a thrill spraying that Civic cause the person who owns it is a total prick and deserves it. However, I would be pretty pissed off if I woke up tomorrow morning and found my car spray painted, or the paint peeling off cause some `tards thought it would be funny to go and spray it on my car. My morals dictate this, not my religion. I weigh the pros and cons, and look at it through the standpoint of the person who I would be hurting, and think "Would I want that to happen to me?"

Yay for Hijacking.