Re: NANFA-- long one, hit delete if you don't care about my opinion
Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:40:38 EDT

In a message dated 9/15/00 10:31:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

<< That's the ultimate punchline to this debate over extractive
economies--if you're tied to mining or logging you're tied to a 19th century
economy, with a few ultra-rich families and most working people one step
above chopping cotton. >>

Good point Bruce, that sums up my view on the environment versus jobs (read
versus greedy corporations). Poeple like my dad think that environmental
protection automatically steals economic opportunity out of some sort of
knee-jerk emotional reaction to the whole thing, when in reality the only
opportunity that's really being taken is from unscupulous corporations
that'll do anything for a buck, don't care if they pollute the environment.
They're the ones making the real money; the workers just get the left-over
scraps which are nothing in comparison to what the corporate heads make off
of the workers' labor. These anti-environmental workers need to take a look
at the corporations that lay off people when they downsize; the corporate
heads are the ones endangering jobs, not environmentalists. It's too bad that
there aren't companies that could make a living doing something good like
cleaning up the environment or restoring habitat; then you wouldn't see the
protection of the environment being equated with the loss of jobs, it would
be the opposite. I'm not saying all corporations pollute the environment or
are inherently evil or that no one should get rich or make money, but the
unchecked ecesses of capitalism will destroy this planet and its resources
which we depend upon to live. It may be slowly, and that's why the perception
is there that we don't have to protect the environment, because the results
aren't immediately visible or are thought to be trivial (like the extinction
of animal species). Instead of thinking of extinctions as unimportant, we
should take it seriously as early warning signs or the beginning of the end
for us as a species if we don't drastically alter our habits and ways of
looking at the earth and its resources. If we run out of space and have
eliminated all wild animal species and habitats, we're going to end up
competing with each other for space next; for food growing areas, industries,
living areas, and so on. this might sound like an anti-capitalist rant and
it's not; I'm just saying that every system has its flaws, and that by taking
things to extremes, like letting corporations do what they want without
regard for natural resources or the polluting of them, that we will end up
with a very degraded planet stripped of virtually all of our resources
because a few rich guys wanted more money and got their way. Not all
corporations are anti-environment, but we need to recognize that they exist
for one thing, to make MONEY. They're businessmen that are going to tend to
look at things in terms of profit margins, not environmental impact.
Especially with today's competitive business market.

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,