[email protected]

In a message dated 8/18/02 10:26:40 AM, Hatfield72@... writes:

<< Also the 5 forests I know of are owned by 3 neighbors. They chose to
strip the land for money. Not b/c of hardships but because they
wanted new things. A new yacht. A huge new house. Other examples.
With no regard to the land or animals. >>

The national forests exist to save some land. The national parks and
national monuments are saving some land (not counting the tourist-tromp, but
that's okay). Wildlife sanctuaries exist.

When people buy land, it's not fair to get on them for not preserving it as a
sanctuary.

Some people DO buy land for that purpose, and that's their right. But in the
same culture in which wooden furniture is valued over plastic or steel (and
what are the other options and what effect on the environment do THOSE
methods have?) and wood fires are considered more moral than coal or natural
gas in some circles, how can ANYONE do anything their friends don't rag on
them to death for if their friends don't take some deep breaths and be a
little more realistic about what is and isn't okay to do with one's own land
and what is and what isn't a moral way to have an income?


I haven't been paying attention to who has said what on this subject at all,
so it's not personal or directed at ANYBODY individually, but I can say this:

Sometimes people get stuck being critical. Of movies, music, neighbors, the
moms at WalMart (that would be ME, last week very frustrated, and it was
Target, actually, with some bad mothering practices in public).

And it's easy to get stuck in that running-criticism mode. But it does less
good than trying to get stuck in a running optimism mode.

Sandra