It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Everything is forest. This is the garden of eden. Urban areas were forests that were cut down through ignorance.
Originally posted by sardion2000
That's a broad judgement to make.
Contrary to popular belief our planet is not being overrun by cities. North American Urban Sprawl % is like 0.3 % of the total available landmass. Worldwide it is 0.2 %.
Dense cities will be the remedy that our environment so sorely needs.
The Industrial Era did allot of damage to the environment but we are at the beggining of starting to remedy that.
contrary to Bush's inaction people like me have moved past the US Federal Gov'ts inaction and are starting to put our money where our mouth is.
Wetlands are natural detoxifiers, Old Growth forrests are not(unless they are bioengineered)
And Coal plants release more radioactive particles then Nuclear plants ... along with lots of other nasty crap.
Originally posted by dave_54
Trees grow back
Originally posted by michaelanteski
Something's way off if a few have to rebut statements about old growth forests having no value except being harvested. the latter statements reveal the source has no clue to how old growth forests played a key role for Nature oriented entities and the fact that new growth forests cannot provide the same sort of aesthetic.
Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I feel confident in that judgement. Especially because 300 years ago there were not any asphalt roads in this N America... now 60,000+ square miles in the US alone are paved.
Those are skewed statitics, Cities are established areas with boundaries...
of course they are not sprawling anymore.
We are talking about deforestation in suburban areas. Cape Coral Florida for example... bulldoze everything. Canal the wetlands dry. Lay a grid of roadways. Sell it off lot by lot.
You're playing the devil's advocate right? I believe mother earth might prefer subsistance farmers and nomadic tribes.
This is the industrial era. (at least neo-industrial) What percent of food is sold in plastic packaging with preservatives these days?
I planted 100 6' tall hardwood saplings in urban areas last year. My money follows my mouth.
1) Livers are natural detoxifies, Brains are not. I do not plan on cutting out my brain though.
2) If every urban area could be instantly converted into the old growth it once was we wouldn't even be having discussions about detoxification.
Originally posted by sardion2000
BTW Talking as if the Earth is a living breathing thing makes me wary. Seems too much like "faith" to me.
Huh? Tree's are not urban brains... Humans are. Please leave New Age crap out of this discussion and stick to the facts please.
Not new age... metaphor. Brains store information. So does old growth.
Originally posted by sardion2000
Really now... I know we can learn some great things from tree rings but thats not what you meant was it. Gaia principal is a psuedo-religous phenomenon which I don't put any stock into, you want to talk facts and figures sure but try not to strey from that. Care to rebutt any of my other points above?
Originally posted by dave_54
No one claimed old growth has no value. They are simply not any more valuable than any other seral stage. Less valuable in some forest types. A healthy forest ecosystem contains ALL age classes and stages. Focusing on one to the exclusion of others is unhealthy and bad environmentalism. In many parts of the western U.S. there is now a surplus of old growth compared to historic norms and is displacing other stages.
If you want to return American forests to the pre-Columbian conditions you need to start cutting. There is no other practical way to get there. That is the consensus opinion of EVERY science-based natural resource organization.
Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Regarding Gaia... I am sorry that you do not see the earth as a living system... You probably think trees do not have feelings either. Sad.
Sri Oracle
Originally posted by dave_54
Is calling someone 'sad' supposed to be some sort of neo-lib insult? If it is, you failed.
Originally posted by Sri Oracle
You are not sad my brother, though I find such thinking to be. A mindset devoid of empathy towards that which is alive will only lead to calamity. Feeling compassionate... I exclaimed, "Sad."
Sri Oracle