RonSonic wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:


===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)


No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My
dog feels that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about
humans.

Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?

Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to
make it more suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny
themselves this ability. It is unique among those species in setting
land aside from itself, which is yet another manifestation of
altering the environment to suit itself.

Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you
feel better somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't
this be read to indicate that perhaps more land should be off-limits
to humans, and if making more land off-limits is good wouldn't making
all land off-limits be better? It's the only way to make all land
"pure."

This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Milkey is on record as saying his "pure habitat" would only be 10-by-10 in
size.

10-by-10 /acres/ you ask?

Miles??

Or certainly at least 10 by 10 yards, right???

No, it's 10 by 10 FEET! Hell, I live on a canyon with a jillion
10-by-10-foot areas that have never been affected by human contact. (And,
to the best of my knowledge, no one spent ANY previous 8 years doing a
damned thing to achieve it.)

Bill "a big fan of the man(ic), really" S.