I have a friend from the UK. He says that the US is wonderful because we have so much public land available for people to use. Thousands of acres that he can fish, bike, hike, and pretty much use without paying anything. He says back home, most land is private. Forget going to some biking trail without having to risk getting shot for being on private property. That's what he says at least. I have no idea if it is really true. Maybe someone from the UK can chime in on this. We in the US take a lot of things for granted I guess.
Once again, the world is not black and white. We need progress. You live in a home don't you? Well, at one point that home destroyed natural resources. Building new homes destroys even more. At some point though you have to say "enough is enough". Do we need yet another mall down the street? We already have two that sit vacant that no one will go to. Why not revitalize those? Do we really need another condo complex? We already have blighted housing areas in the city that no one wants to live in. The natural resources in these areas have already been destroyed. Why not bulldoze them all down and start over? The reality is that this doesn't work. Farmers want to sell their land for a premium. Those blighted homes have stubborn people living in them that don't want to sell. And you can't kick out the criminals without giving them another place to go.
A quick story to show the other side of the coin. In my area we have what's called a protected watershed. Basically, they found a small stream in which a certain type of mussel lives that doesn't live anywhere else. So they got the place declared as a sanctuary so that no future development can proceed. They've basically managed to halt all major development in a 20 square mile area. And all for the sake of some mussel that nature had probably already slated for extinction. Let's face it. One really good storm or drought and these mussels are pretty much gone anyway. So why hold up all development to save them when in reality they are completely inconsequential to the rest of the world? Again, it's not a black and white issue. Sometimes we need to say "enough is enough". But other times we need to recognize that some of this stuff would be gone anyway regardless of whether or not man intervened. If you were telling me that one of the last two species of Rhino are going extint then I'm going to sit up and listen. But if you tell me that one of the thousands of species of mussels is in danger then excuse me if I start to yawn. Especially one that has doomed itself to extinction anyway by living in a single stream in the world. But environmentalists will likely hang me for such words. Many environmentalists tend to see the world as black and white. Save it all or doom it all to hell seems to be their motto.
It's a tough world out there. I wish I had an answer for you. I'd like to save as much of nature as possible. But I also like living in a home instead of a cave.
Once again, the world is not black and white. We need progress. You live in a home don't you? Well, at one point that home destroyed natural resources. Building new homes destroys even more. At some point though you have to say "enough is enough". Do we need yet another mall down the street? We already have two that sit vacant that no one will go to. Why not revitalize those? Do we really need another condo complex? We already have blighted housing areas in the city that no one wants to live in. The natural resources in these areas have already been destroyed. Why not bulldoze them all down and start over? The reality is that this doesn't work. Farmers want to sell their land for a premium. Those blighted homes have stubborn people living in them that don't want to sell. And you can't kick out the criminals without giving them another place to go.
A quick story to show the other side of the coin. In my area we have what's called a protected watershed. Basically, they found a small stream in which a certain type of mussel lives that doesn't live anywhere else. So they got the place declared as a sanctuary so that no future development can proceed. They've basically managed to halt all major development in a 20 square mile area. And all for the sake of some mussel that nature had probably already slated for extinction. Let's face it. One really good storm or drought and these mussels are pretty much gone anyway. So why hold up all development to save them when in reality they are completely inconsequential to the rest of the world? Again, it's not a black and white issue. Sometimes we need to say "enough is enough". But other times we need to recognize that some of this stuff would be gone anyway regardless of whether or not man intervened. If you were telling me that one of the last two species of Rhino are going extint then I'm going to sit up and listen. But if you tell me that one of the thousands of species of mussels is in danger then excuse me if I start to yawn. Especially one that has doomed itself to extinction anyway by living in a single stream in the world. But environmentalists will likely hang me for such words. Many environmentalists tend to see the world as black and white. Save it all or doom it all to hell seems to be their motto.
It's a tough world out there. I wish I had an answer for you. I'd like to save as much of nature as possible. But I also like living in a home instead of a cave.
