When Did Ugly Become the Argument Against Change

I love trees. I'm not sure but tree-loving might be a requirement in order to live in California. This article though at mezzoblue.com gave me pause. The author used Google's new satellite maps to show a wood/tree harvesting region in British Columbia in support of his argument against clearcutting. From me, two thoughts:

One, by studying the photos I observe that the cut regions account for less than one quarter of the total acreage shown, but thanks to the illusion of white-space, first impressions of the photos leave the viewer thinking that the cut regions overwhelm the uncut.

Two, to make significant reductions in tree harvesting is to virtually discontinue the use of wood. OK. That was easy. So, which natural resource would you like to replace it with? On an earlier day in this blog I observed that it seems impossible that we haven't run out of so many resources already. It is wonderful that wood is a renewable resource, and clearcutting is the best way to expedite the growth of new trees. Too bad the same cannot be said of oil or minerals.

Obviously mankind is having an impact on earth and watching the earth change is not always fun or desirable. Change is almost never easy. Yet, the earth must evolve with mankind as we do need its resources to survive. Mankind will not stop consuming them, and we will not go back to living in huts eating nuts and berries.

So from a satellite the pattern of clearcutting does not make for pretty pictures. I hope the argument against clearcutting does not become an argument for cosmetic appeal.

No comments: