In case you've wondered, I am agnostic on this issue, actually. One of the subjects of this blog is the nature of discourse, which involves, among other things, evidence. The evidence on this issue seems inconsistent and contradictory. I simply cannot see how any rational person could adopt a dogmatic position either way. As for conservation, taking care of the environment is plain common sense - though I do wonder from time to time if the aim of the environmental movement - in effect, if not in intent - is not to turn prime sections of the wilderness into preserves ... for the very rich. The following is from a review I wrote a few years ago of Samuel A. MacDonald's The Agony of an American Wilderness:
According to a recent study by the Urban Land Institute, that preserve of the rich, famous, and ecologically correct [Teton County, Wyoming] "could soon resemble the demographics of the Third World - the very rich, the heavily subsidized poor, and the transient including both visitors and workers. The middle class, the young families, and the community service personnel who want ownership housing or who desire single-family homes will be gone, and the community will be permanently changed because of it. "
Frank, Your site is full of well chosen links, but what I like best is when you weigh in with your thoughts and opinions!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Nigel. My dominant theme is taken from Gershwin: "It ain't necessarily so."
ReplyDeleteI second that devotion :). What I likes even better than best, Nigel, is when Frank weighs in with his insights; and, then, someone such as your erudite and swellegant self (or Lee or Roger or Dave or Maxine or Art or Nannette or . . .) additionally enters the ring.
ReplyDeleteIMO, "B, I"'s changing slowly but purely (since, again IMO, our prince/iple poster's finding his epilogical groove to prove there is, indeedly, life after book-review editing) . . .