The Nature Conservancy does that quite a lot.
Gotta say here, as the child of a very devoted biologist university professor who spent 40 years teaching ecosystems: umm, the understanding and passion was there, but, unfortunately, not the payscale to do that.
Don’t bother, elelle. His response is likely to be something on the order of, “well, if you were a good enough person, you’d be rich enough to do whatever you want” or some such daftness.
No. My response is: Ogre’s complaint is just that he wants something he can’t afford. He’s like the guy that wants to buy a Ferrarri for twenty bucks. He isn’t some high-minded nature guy who speaks for the earth or values higher ideals than mere money (or any other such nonsense), he just wants a house in the Hamptons for a dollar. Nothing to see here, move along.
Uh, say what? If I wanted that, I’d never have taken a 75% salary reduction just so I could go back for my doctorate.
You don’t get it. I’m not saying you are poor. I’m saying you just want something you can’t afford. That’s it. It’s not that the guy who owned the land and clear-cut is some greedy bastard who just wanted the money while you are an idealist who recognizes the value of pristine forest above the mighty dollar, you just want something you can’t afford. You don’t have the moral high ground here. You are just looking in the windo at the Brioni suit and John Lobb shoes and you can’t afford them. There’s no moral high ground there.
Well, I’ll bother, because I don’t understand your comparison, Rand. Ogre is angered about an entire ecosystem being destroyed, which, to my mind, isn’t like a value of land by timber value, or human value of what the market bears, but is incalcuably valuable in terms of what the replaceable value would be. To replace that ecosystem, in the eyes and minds of those who truly understand it’s intricacy, would take decades.
The OP is not looking to get a status symbol on the cheap for personal benefit; he’s angered because what he sees as valuable beyond renumeration has been destroyed, and cannot be replaced in it’s true intricacy for decades, if at all. He has a profound anger and sadness about it, beyond personal gain.
There’s no such thing as land being “incalculably valuable in terms of what the replaceable value would be” or “valuable beyond remuneration” (things like a baby’s smile and puppy kisses can be those things, but not land). There’s just the market, and the process of the market says how much something is worth. Ogre apparently wasn’t willing to or didn’t have the ability to pay the market price for avoiding the destruction of an ecosystem that exists nowhere else on earth. So, he’s just like the guy who can’t afford anything else the guy wants. He doesn’t have any
I’m wondering what the difference is.
Quiet frankly the habitat wasn’t “just for him”. Especially considering it’s uniqueness. It was part of our inheritance as the only sapient species on the planet able to marvel at it, and now it’s gone, pushing unique life forms in the cave and elsewhere that depended on it closer to, if not over the edge.
An uglier world is what we have to pass on to our kids now.
Well, you are confusing multiple things here. First off, you are assuming I’m in favor of the clear cutting. You would be wrong about that and had you read my entire response you would have seen that I am in agreement with the OP on pitting the guy who’s land this was. However, it IS his land, and within the constraints of the law he can pretty much do with it as he likes…which is the second thing you seem to be missing from my own response. This of course is the key point I was trying to make…within the constraints of the law I believe that private ownership means just that. OWNERSHIP. I understand that some folks don’t agree that people should be allowed to own land (or anything else) privately, that everything should be dictated by the whims of the government…I don’t happen to subscribe to this philosophy however.
You also seem to be confusing me with the owner of the land in the OP…I assure you that had it been MY land there is no way I would have permitted it to be clear cut. In point of fact I DO own some land in the White Mountains (good pines there) and there isn’t enough money available to offer me to either sell or permit it’s use for clear cutting.
If this habitat was as unique as the OP thinks (and he seems to be the expert) then I’m curious as to why no one made the land owner a counter offer…or why the government didn’t step in and forbid this (afaik this would have simply entailed not granting the owner the proper permits required to do so, but IANAL). While I am a believer in private ownership, I freely concede however that there are times and circumstances where this needs to be sublimated to the greater needs of society and the country. And if this was indeed a unique habitat then I would agree that this would be (perhaps) one of those times. I’m curious as to why it wasn’t to be honest.
No, you are missing the point. The point isn’t about the money…it’s about the rights of an owner to use his or her land within the constraints of the law.
-XT
We’re just going to have to disagree here, then, on the value of an ecosystem beyond a market value of commodities. As said, I was raised with a different set of values, by a well educated compassionate biology teacher, and life in all it’s myriad forms is worth time and effort to preserve. You can just cut it out with the puppy kisses slur, too. I appreciate nature in it’s rougher forms, to tell truth.
In an effort to educate you to the intricacy of what is lost by slipshod clearcutting, here’s an excerpt from the book I mentioned earlier. Worth the read.
Ah, such simple-minded fools are the Objectivists.
And you’re not smart enough to troll me, pumpkin. Buh bye!
Told ya not to bother!
You are the fool my friend.
And I’m not trolling.
Ahh I did greatly misinterpret you. Your thoughts on the issue are interesting. I’d go so far to say it’s in society’s interest and needs to preserve as much biodiversity as possible, not just for it’s uniqueness alone, which is justifiable all by it’s self, but for what it can teach us.
Evolution’s strategy of trying random tweaking to see what works good has stumbled on some amazing things, from medicines, to novel aerodynamic designs, to the human nervous system, to many other things. Every loss of that is another potential revolutionary discovery gone.
What threatened species live on his land and nowhere else on earth and don’t have protected status?
Not so much his land as the cave system with which it is connected. The system contains at least one endemic amphipod (I forget the species name, but I may have it downstairs. I’ll check.) Lest ye pooh-pooh at a seemingly insignificant animal like an amphipod, keep in mind that, in an extremely stable, low-energy habitat like a cave, especially a very long and deep one, such species may be keystones to the entire ecological web.
And in any case, we’re not only talking about one or two species here. We’re talking about an entire suite of species, both above and below ground, that have evolved to be there. In fact, the entire physiographic province in which this cave is located is a hotspot for a variety of sensitive species. The Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus) the green salamander (Aneides aeneus, and the grey bat (Myotis grisescens), are present and Threatened.
Google “Cumberland Plateau biodiversity” and read about it. In terms of sheer biodiversity, the Cumberland rivals the rainforests.
And actually, I just emailed an old coworker of mine, who told me that the endemic species count for that system is now up to three.
While I don’t like it when these sorts of habitats are destroyed, it does occur to me to ask you how old is the residence you live in, and do you have/plan to have any children?
My house is 55 years old, and yes, most probably.