> You know, that's a point I hadn't considered yet. Cutting down trees
> as a good thing...
>
> If you planted a large enough forest (or a fast-enough growing woody
> plant) specifically with the intent to set yourself up to continuously
> cut down significantly sized trees for the purposes of carbon
> sequestration, that'd be one thing; I could be okay with that,
> someday.
Head North. Find one of the areas that supply popple for
the Duluth particle board plants. They have a humongous machine
like a mower, and cut the trees in swaths -- with enough swaths
to let each get back up to the size they want before mowing again
(several years). New popples grow up from the stumps of the old
ones. (In Virginia, the oaks do that, too -- quercus
sempervivens, in effect -- though it takes a lot longer.)
> Right now, as I understand the number of trees on the planet is
> still dropping regularly, I find it really hard to think of
> that as a really great idea to be pursuing just yet.
Why should the grand total be the criterion? Mowing
popples for particle board (or paper) has to be a net
subtraction, whatever the grand total is doing.
[....]
> Then the argument that "without copyright, and people being granted
> practically unlimited and indefinite monopolies on certain work,
> nobody would produce those works" would be demonstrably false.
Straw man. Question is how the poets & playwrights would
eat, while still working full time on their writings.
--
Beartooth the Stubborn, Sclerotic Squirreler
Death is not evil. Suffering is evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment