Slashdot Mirror
World's First Tree-sitting Weblog
An anonymous reader writes "Amit Asaravala over at Wired News has an interesting article up about the tree-sitters in Humboldt County. Apparently a bunch of tech activists from the Indymedia Center are setting the tree-sitters up with an 802.11b network so that they can blog about all the logging going on up there. Seems like a pretty interesting way to use technology to help the environment, which isn't something you see everyday."
I thought people like that were anti-technology. I guess they're afraid of burning fossil fules or something, I don't know. But why would they want Internet access if they don't like technology?
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.
It IS hippie stuff....
/.'ers are too smart to fall for the "Raping them there lands" ploy.
Instead of sitting in a tree looking stupid, how about trying to propose some sort of meaningfull legislation. How about overseeing the replanting of trees? Or maybe work with the logging companies for selective cutting?
These are the same idiots trying to ban SUV's et al. But the truth is, forest fires in Asia last year consumed more wood, and put out more Co2 then all the SUV's in all of their history.
The Granola nuts won't mention that because it doesn't help their cause.
You're right about one thing... When you sit down and look at ALL the facts, and not just the ones in your silly Greenpeace pamphlet, you will be outraged.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Mature Redwoods (like the 200+ year old ones being clear cut by Pacific Lumber) will survive even severe forest fires, read this. However no tree can survive Pacific Lumber's chainsaw. Period. And let's not bullshit about whether they are clear-cutting or just 'clearing out dead wood'. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.
Today we have 100 or 200 year fires every year from the crap in the forests that the forest service and loggers can't remove because of environmentalists.
There are regular prescribed fires in the California forests.
But let's see if I understand what you're saying:
- Environmentalists are preventing forest workers (and loggers) from clearing out 'dead wood'.
- Since 'dead wood' is allowed to pile up, it results in unspeakably horrible forest fires worse than any of those seen before.
- If loggers were allowed to clear cut, then we wouldn't have to worry about bad forest fires! Horray loggers!
If you can spare any, I'd like some of the crack that you're smoking, because it's clearly pretty good. Luckily, common sense tells us that since loggers have only been around for the last couple hundred years, and forests have been around a LOT longer than that, those "terrible, terrible fires" have been happening for millions of years. Luckily, we now have what's called "prescribed burns" that help reduce the naturally intense forest fires into several smaller, less dangerous fires. The smaller fires are not prevented by environmentalists, and allow more trees to survive. But even the larger more sever fires don't (usually) kill the ancient Redwood trees. Nope, only Pacific Lumber has managed to do that.It's people like you that are quicking destroying our planet and making this a barren rock with nothing other than Humans, pets, and house-plants. The environmental damage caused by our race in just the last 100 years is absolutely staggering, and the rate of destruction is only increasing. Sad, really.
...get the tree huggers outta the gene pool... :-)
I really thought /. would be above pandering to liberal environazis. Give me a break, you commie bastards!
This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Even more, if these people really believe in what they do, why don't the put their money where their mouth is.
Have you ever noticed that most of the environazies want to protect the forest, but they want the goverment, or somebody else to pay for it? That's just wrong.
Compare this to the Nature Conservancy. When these folks want to save some land, they raise the money to legally purchase the land so they can manage it.
Contrast that with these logging protesters. These people only believe in their ideology up to where they have to pay for it. How come you don't see them purchasing the trees they want to save? Makes you wonder if they really want to save the trees, or just get alot of media attention.
If these folks ante up to legally purchase the property so they can protect these trees - I say go for it! But if the logging companies own the trees, they have the legal right to do with the trees what they will. What makes anyone think that someone who doesn't own the property and is probably illegally trespassing has more rights than the legal owner?
This is socialism. Can anyone really argue that these people are NOT commie environazies?
This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.