The Forests

Northboy
#1
The Forests of the world are dying.

This has been from neglect and the use of a form of extraction thinking rather than building a cycle of renewal....
The blessings of God are to be used, recycled in somes cases and put back for future generations in others....
A circle with Christ in the centre....For the Bankers....

The surest way to look after the Forests is the building and maintaining of Forest Communities....The people will do the rest. The people of the Land know the Land.

The people of the cities, go and explore what needs to be done...There's lots of inspiration out there....I still like the EWinning in Wales plan....It took a lot of thought and should be respected....

I'm sure there are many others, for guidance...

Head Heart Hand.

Off we go....
 
Lessie
Green
#2
Wow.. Is it a such type of green attitude?..

Why only forests?.. We must look at the ecological problem in complex.
BTW, I don't think that the forests are dying.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#3
I for the most party agree with you, but part company when you bring in God and Christ into the mix.

No doubt there are some Christians who are strong environmentalists. However, a substantial portion of Christianity, in the form of religious right, is strongly anti-environment. They go by what God said to Adam. He told Adam, subdue the earth, conquer it. He did not say conserve it, preserve it, nurture it.

Religious right regards these virtues (conserve, preserve, nurture etc.) as sissy virtues, their religion they regard as very much a masculine religion. To them the way of God is conquer, dominate, subdue. That means rabid anti-environmentalism.

So while there are some Christian environmentalists, a large portion of Christianity disagrees with you. In USA, religious right has opposed practically each and every environmental initiative proposed.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Lessie View Post

Wow.. Is it a such type of green attitude?..

Why only forests?.. We must look at the ecological problem in complex.
BTW, I don't think that the forests are dying.

There is far less forest and what is left is being replaced with tree farms. Bio-diversity is giving way to mono cultures. They are not forests in the true sense.
 
TenPenny
#5
How can a forest die from neglect? A forest is a part of the cycle of nature, neglect is what it requires.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

How can a forest die from neglect? A forest is a part of the cycle of nature, neglect is what it requires.


These days forests very much need looking after. A few hundred years ago, world population was very small; there was not much commerce between different parts of the world. In those days, just leaving forests alone was enough.

These days, forests must be protected from encroachment of the population. In addition, there is the danger of poachers, slaughtering the wildlife and thereby causing the forests irreversible harm.

Then we have to worry about invasive species, imported (purposely or inadvertently) from other parts of the world, like white pine beetle (which has devastated the white pine population across Canada), purple loosestrife, zebra mussels etc. Currently there is a type of reed that is taking over grasslands in Canada. It started from Newfoundland, it has traveled into Ontario. Every year, I see more and more wilderness areas infested by this invader, replacing grass and small bushes. Not only it gets rid of the local flora, but it grows very close together, thereby destroying the habitat for rabbits, ground squirrels, voles etc.

I do a lot of hiking in summer and every summer I see new areas encroached by the reed (some also call it elephant grass, it can grow up to 10 feet, it has huge big blades shaped just like grass bales).

So these days, to neglect the forests may be tantamount to killing them.
 
TenPenny
#7
My apologies for having posted anything at all.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#8
Responding to the utter nonsense in post #3:

According to the all-knowing sage on these forums, God also told Adam: "Go and dirty the water and air you drink and breathe. Kill everything around you so that you will die sooner".

When there is a choice as to who should survive and thrive, the responsible majority will choose humans over some insignificant fish, bug or bird.

Only the liberals in their ivory towers would choose otherwise. Some species will survive, some others won't. The liberals like SirJosephPorter would like you to believe that the dinoaours died because of conservative humans and of course, God. They ould also like you to believe that the world would be better if there were still dodo birds, passenger pigeons and dinosaurs.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Responding to the utter nonsense in post #3:

According to the all-knowing sage on these forums, God also told Adam: "Go and dirty the water and air you drink and breathe. Kill everything around you so that you will die sooner".

When there is a choice as to who should survive and thrive, the responsible majority will choose humans over some insignificant fish, bug or bird.

Only the liberals in their ivory towers would choose otherwise. Some species will survive, some others won't. The liberals like SirJosephPorter would like you to believe that the dinoaours died because of conservative humans and of course, God. They ould also like you to believe that the world would be better if there were still dodo birds, passenger pigeons and dinosaurs.

Hey, Y.J. - You should just consider the source. Although I have to admit you would NOT expect to find that crap in a thread entitled "Forests".
 
Northboy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

I for the most party agree with you, but part company when you bring in God and Christ into the mix.

No doubt there are some Christians who are strong environmentalists. However, a substantial portion of Christianity, in the form of religious right, is strongly anti-environment. They go by what God said to Adam. He told Adam, subdue the earth, conquer it. He did not say conserve it, preserve it, nurture it.

Religious right regards these virtues (conserve, preserve, nurture etc.) as sissy virtues, their religion they regard as very much a masculine religion. To them the way of God is conquer, dominate, subdue. That means rabid anti-environmentalism.

So while there are some Christian environmentalists, a large portion of Christianity disagrees with you. In USA, religious right has opposed practically each and every environmental initiative proposed.

I agree its not in the Bible, but were we not supposed to be given the Gift of Common sense? Obviously not as we thought it was important, common sense covers putting back what you harvest to me.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Northboy View Post

The Forests of the world are dying.

This has been from neglect and the use of a form of extraction thinking rather than building a cycle of renewal....
The blessings of God are to be used, recycled in somes cases and put back for future generations in others....
A circle with Christ in the centre....For the Bankers....

The surest way to look after the Forests is the building and maintaining of Forest Communities....The people will do the rest. The people of the Land know the Land.

The people of the cities, go and explore what needs to be done...There's lots of inspiration out there....I still like the EWinning in Wales plan....It took a lot of thought and should be respected....

I'm sure there are many others, for guidance...

Head Heart Hand.

Off we go....

This sad state of affairs is mainly attributable to one thing...........GREED.

Back in the early 70s we had an N.D.P. Gov't in British Columbia for awhile and for all the bad press they got they did one thing that negated all the bad stuff they did. They brought in the "Agricultural Land Reserve", which for the most part survives to this day. What it meant was that farm owners or anyone owning land within the A.L.R. couldn't subdivide it. Sure p*ssed off a lot of farmers, who thought they were going to buck the farm up into 50' lots and make a killing for their retirement. We simply have to stop the practice of building houses on arable land.
 
pezlops
Free Thinker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

I for the most party agree with you, but part company when you bring in God and Christ into the mix.

No doubt there are some Christians who are strong environmentalists. However, a substantial portion of Christianity, in the form of religious right, is strongly anti-environment. They go by what God said to Adam. He told Adam, subdue the earth, conquer it. He did not say conserve it, preserve it, nurture it.

Religious right regards these virtues (conserve, preserve, nurture etc.) as sissy virtues, their religion they regard as very much a masculine religion. To them the way of God is conquer, dominate, subdue. That means rabid anti-environmentalism.

So while there are some Christian environmentalists, a large portion of Christianity disagrees with you. In USA, religious right has opposed practically each and every environmental initiative proposed.

Please post a link to prove your claim that SOME Christians are environmental but A LARGE portion is not.

I would think that most of the blame would come from science and technology for
man made environmental problems and urban sprawl.

There is more than CO2 that causes problems , though Gore and Suzuki acolytes will not believe it. Destruction of the Night Sky due to increase of lights, houses along water sources, and so on and on.
One could say a large portion of the science community does not believe in these issues and willing participate in helping to destroy the environment.

(Although cows release large amounts of CO2, so i will give that one to a creator or nature for making them)
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Responding to the utter nonsense in post #3:

According to the all-knowing sage on these forums, God also told Adam: "Go and dirty the water and air you drink and breathe. Kill everything around you so that you will die sooner".

When there is a choice as to who should survive and thrive, the responsible majority will choose humans over some insignificant fish, bug or bird.

Only the liberals in their ivory towers would choose otherwise. Some species will survive, some others won't. The liberals like SirJosephPorter would like you to believe that the dinoaours died because of conservative humans and of course, God. They ould also like you to believe that the world would be better if there were still dodo birds, passenger pigeons and dinosaurs.

Quite YJ, you prove my point, you typify the anti-environment, conquer, subdue and dominate attitude of the religious right. Religious right does not care a bit about preserving, conserving the wildlife. To them, conservation is a sissy virtue, a true man goes to the forest and shoots everything in sight.

You exemplify such attitude very well.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by pezlops View Post

Please post a link to prove your claim that SOME Christians are environmental but A LARGE portion is not.

That is easy enough, pezlops. Just Google for 'religious right' and 'environment'. Incidentally, did you participate in canada.com forum? I remember a pezlops there.

Religious Right Economics

Religious right constitutes about 1/3rd population of United States, which is about 100 million. Since religious right tends to be monolithic on many issues, it follows that most of the 100 million are opposed to doing anything to protect the environment.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Northboy View Post

I agree its not in the Bible, but were we not supposed to be given the Gift of Common sense? Obviously not as we thought it was important, common sense covers putting back what you harvest to me.

Oh, I am in agreement with what you are saying, I consider myself an environmentalist. All I am saying is that not all Christians will agree with you. Especially those on the religious right almost invariably oppose any initiative designed to help the environment.
 
countryboy
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by pezlops View Post

Please post a link to prove your claim that SOME Christians are environmental but A LARGE portion is not.

I would think that most of the blame would come from science and technology for
man made environmental problems and urban sprawl.

There is more than CO2 that causes problems , though Gore and Suzuki acolytes will not believe it. Destruction of the Night Sky due to increase of lights, houses along water sources, and so on and on.
One could say a large portion of the science community does not believe in these issues and willing participate in helping to destroy the environment.

(Although cows release large amounts of CO2, so i will give that one to a creator or nature for making them)

Hi Pezlops - Good post. Actually, the inordinate amounts of methane gas released by cattle these days is also a fall-out from science. The gas - in these unusual amounts - comes from a "scientific" blend of cattle feed designed to fatten them up and keep them (barely) alive until slaughter. The feed is not what nature intended for a cow...grass is what their digestive systems are designed to process. Simply put, they fart like crazy when they are forced to eat the volatile mixtures of grains, medicines, and other additives that are absolutely lethal to them.

Besides that problem, the resulting meat products are far less nutritious than grass-fed. It's really not good food, it's "Frankenfood."
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#17
Environment and Religion - For God’s Sake - Religious Organizations Preach Environmental Stewardship

Religious environmental ethics

The State of Religious Environmental Curricula

Climate Change and Religious Environmental Activism (Audio) - Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.aejmcdenver.org/?p=812

RENEWAL: STORIES FROM AMERICA'S RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT - American Public Television

Building in Good Faith :: Three Religious-Environmental Themes
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#18
"Quite YJ, you prove my point, you typify the anti-environment, conquer, subdue and dominate attitude of the religious right. Religious right does not care a bit about preserving, conserving the wildlife. To them, conservation is a sissy virtue, a true man goes to the forest and shoots everything in sight."

And how do I do that? How any of conservatives do that? Can you quote a post or provide a link where conservatives wanted to deliberately spoil the air we breath and the water we drink? It must be typical liberal insanity to assume (the first three letters of the word "ASSUME" perfectly describe liberals) that those who have the audacity of not being on your extremely limited wavelength want nothing more than the destruction of the environment we live in.

That would make conservatives every bit as crazy as liberals.

For your information the word "DOMINION" has absolutely nothing in common with the definition you attempt to imply here, i.e. destruction, ruin and spoilage, but more like managing and ruling over.

Even by your admission, religious people ruled until the immoral and amoral took over. If the religious people who ruled have done such a deplorable job of preserving and conserving, how come you are still here?

You probably would prefer being ruled by your mental superiors, the dodo birds and dinosaurs.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#19
Porter is ignorant of Christian facts:

Quote:

C. THE CHRISTIAN’S RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD THE ENVIRONMENT
1) Man’s responsibility for dominion (Gen 1:26, 28; Psalm 8:6-.
a. Dominion is not ownership – “the earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1)
b. Dominion is the idea of stewardship. “Dominion” means control or reign. Dominion can be
either benevolent or destructive. Best understood in the positive sense of stewardship. Man is
given authority over the earth and creation for the blessing not only of man but for nature it’s
self.
c. Man was told to “subdue” the earth prior to the fall. Man given responsibility for controlling and
mastering the environment. Man to cultivate the Garden (Gen 2:15)
d. Man will be held accountable for his use of the earth (Isa 5:8-10, Rev11:1.

- http://starkrdgospelhall.com/bible_t...nvironment.pdf

He seems to think that screwing up the planet has something to do with religion when in fact, it has more to do with the religious not following their religion and giving in to greed.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Mar 21st, 2010 at 12:41 PM..
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#20
Excellent post, L Gilbert!

Eventually we all learn to ignore the irrational, anti-religious, anti-Christian and anti-common-sense posts by SirJosephPorter.

Hopefully, your post will show the way for reasonable people.
 
countryboy
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Porter is ignorant of Christian facts:

- http://starkrdgospelhall.com/bible_t...nvironment.pdf

He seems to think that screwing up the planet has something to do with religion when in fact, it has more to do with the religious not following their religion and giving in to greed.

Really well said, Les.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post


And how do I do that? How any of conservatives do that? Can you quote a post or provide a link where conservatives wanted to deliberately spoil the air we breath and the water we drink? It must be typical liberal insanity to assume (the first three letters of the word "ASSUME" perfectly describe liberals) that those who have the audacity of not being on your extremely limited wavelength want nothing more than the destruction of the environment we live in.

In USA, religious right has opposed each and every environmental initiative ever proposed, including global warming (they want to leave it alone), drilling in Alaska (they support it) etc. Of course they are not going to say that they want to spoil the air we breath. And i don't think they particularly want to either. But the point is, it is OK, if the air is spoiled, because their interpretation of Bible tells them that that is all part of man's dominion of earth.

Quote:

For your information the word "DOMINION" has absolutely nothing in common with the definition you attempt to imply here, i.e. destruction, ruin and spoilage, but more like managing and ruling over.

Dominion, or subdue means to subjugate, conquer something. It means ruling over, but it does not mean managing. A conquerer usually does not care for the well being of the conquered, that is how it has worked out throughout history.

And that is the interpretation religious right puts on the passage. That is why many of they tend to be strong anti-environmentalists.
 
DaSleeper
#23
Everything in the world is their fault

.................
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#24
firewood keeps you warm and helps nicly bound paper book
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#25
"firewood keeps you warm and helps nicly bound paper book"

Finally, an "intelligent" post by Trudeau.
 
Lessie
Green
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Responding to the utter nonsense in post #3:
When there is a choice as to who should survive and thrive, the responsible majority will choose humans over some insignificant fish, bug or bird.

Only the liberals in their ivory towers would choose otherwise. Some species will survive, some others won't. The liberals like SirJosephPorter would like you to believe that the dinoaours died because of conservative humans and of course, God. They ould also like you to believe that the world would be better if there were still dodo birds, passenger pigeons and dinosaurs.

Even if we want to think only abut the interest of Humanity we must understand, that Humanity will not survive without biodiversity, without healthy and stabilized ecosystems. Humanity can die without «insignificant fish, bug or bird».
Therefore we must preserve the Nature ecosystems.

All of these words – only for the most popular in the society anthropocentric way of thinking.
But I think that the most correctly to speak about all these stuff (preservation of wild life, environmental protection, etc.) on the assumption of principles of bioethic. The main of these is – every alive creature has right to live. So… we must aim to the compromise between interests of Humanity (real necessity) and the interest of Nature.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

There is far less forest and what is left is being replaced with tree farms. Bio-diversity is giving way to mono cultures. They are not forests in the true sense.

Not true. Most planting to day resembles what was cut. Most cut blocks will have two or three types of trees planted. They even plant alder on the coast mixed in with fir and cedar.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Not true. Most planting to day resembles what was cut. Most cut blocks will have two or three types of trees planted. They even plant alder on the coast mixed in with fir and cedar.

In an old growth forest there are more than trees. From the single celled organisms on up, there are thousand of species that make up a forest. One of the most important species are the mushrooms that break down the dead leaves and needles so the tree roots can absorb nutrients. Slash fires and exposure to sun in a clear cut will kill off any mushroom mycelium, making it harder for trees to access what nutrients remain.

I am well aware of forestry policies and practices. I have been fighting against the insanity for forty years. I have nothing against logging if it is done sustainably but I don't care how forestry spins it, clear cut logging and tree plantations are not sustainable. And I won't even get into the intentional spread of Pine Beetles during the seventies and eighties that have resulted in almost half of our forests being decimated by human greed and stupidity (as opposed to beetles).
 
Libertarian
No Party Affiliation
#29
Forests aren't dying. They don't just die for no reason. This sounds like hippy nonsense (no offense). We need to find harmony with nature, but not in a hippy tree-hugging sense, but rather, balancing our lumber needs with our preserving tree needs.

Like if you cut down a certain amount of trees, you should grow at least that many back, maybe even more. But it really isn't something to worry about.

We Canucks have little to no say in what goes on in the rest of the world. Our own country has many forests, it is great.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Responding to the utter nonsense in post #3:

According to the all-knowing sage on these forums, God also told Adam: "Go and dirty the water and air you drink and breathe. Kill everything around you so that you will die sooner".

When there is a choice as to who should survive and thrive, the responsible majority will choose humans over some insignificant fish, bug or bird.

Only the liberals in their ivory towers would choose otherwise. Some species will survive, some others won't. The liberals like SirJosephPorter would like you to believe that the dinoaours died because of conservative humans and of course, God. They ould also like you to believe that the world would be better if there were still dodo birds, passenger pigeons and dinosaurs.


I suspect dodos and dinosaurs are still around, only now they are called conservatives.
 

Similar Threads

41
Forests not disappearing
by Walter | Feb 3rd, 2008
1
Greeland lush Forests
by Sparrow | Jul 6th, 2007
0
Canada’s Small Forests
by I think not | Feb 26th, 2006