\doc\web\97\02\jewenvi.txt Jewish Religion Supports "Wise Use" of Natural Resources, not just green values. Date sent: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:39:09 -0500 Send reply to: Hank Roth's PNEWS CONFERENCES From: The Combat Zone Subject: PNEWS: Redwood Theological Ecobabble To: Multiple recipients of list PNEWS-L [*********PNEWS CONFERENCES************] From: steve plaut In recent years the American Jewish commmunity has been the target of a large PC campaign that tries to argue that Jews are religiously obligated to support each and every green fad. The latest is the campaign of the flakey "Redwood Rabbis" to hold prayer meetings in redwood groves where they pray to God to punish the lumber industry and pray to Clinton to make lumbering illegal. Other green fads have long been preached "theologically" by "Rabbis" Arthur Woodstock and Michael of Meaning Lerner, and the PC wing of the Reform synagogue movement. In light of all this, a few basic points should be made and noted: 1. There is nothing in Judaism that can be interpreted as a prohibition on harvesting lumber. Lumber is but another bounty of the earth, put there to be utilized and expoited by man. 2. There is absolutely no basis at all in Judaism for the claim that animals or plants have "rights" and even less so that they have "spirits". Animals have absolutely no recognized "interests" that need be respected in Judaism. It may be that a given endangered animal or plant should be protected from extinction (and it may not be) but - if so - it is simply because it is in Man's interest to do so, and the animal or plant's "interest" is irrelevent. If it were in man's interest for a species to become extinct (some insects and bacteria come to mind), then there is absolutely no reason why they should not be made so. Where it is in Man's interest that a species NOT become extinct, this interest still needs to be traded off against all other of Man's interests. There is no reason why Man's needs, desires, material consumption, comfort or pleasure cannot weigh more than Man's interest that a particular snail or flower NOT become extinct. Hence, there is no theological reason why housing, food, recreation, transportation, etc. cannot count for MORE than preserving this or that species. 3. If there is no a priori reason why each and every species of life need be preserved, there is even LESS basis to argue that there is any religious or moral basis (in Judaism) why individual members of species, like individual wildlife animals or individual redwood trees, should be preserved if it is in Man's interest that they NOT be. 4. There is no reason why each and every forested area need be preserved as such. If it is in man's interest that a particular forested area be developed or cut, for housing, industry, etc., there is no reason why this should not take place. Unless of course enough humans vote and believe that it should NOT be deforested, or if enough people are willing to pay their own money in order to buy that land and preserve it as forest. There is no reason why humans cannot vote to create protected park land - but also no theological compunction to do so in any location. 5. It is estimated that each day there are hundreds of new species created in nature and hundreds that disappear naturally with no connection to mankind. There is no theological basis to the argument that preserving an endangered species must always trump all of man's other conflicting interests and wants. 6. Most redwood trees are not giants. Even if there is reason to preserve the giants, there is no reason why non-giants cannot be harvested. Redwood lumber is a common construction material, especially in the US West. 7. While some redwood giant groves should be preserved, if I may be forgiven the presumption of speaking for mankind, there is absolutely no reason why each and every giant redwood tree or grove needs to be preserved. How many giants are "enough"? The answer need not be "all". If cutting some giants serves some other purpose (roads, housing, etc.) then the utility of preserving them must be traded off against the utility of cutting them. 8. There is no reason why all forested areas need be preserved as such. There is no reason in most cases why "old growth forests" need receive any special attention. In the East, few people can even distinguish between an old-growth and new-growth forest. Denuded land becomes indistinguishable from old-growth forest after a few decades. In the West the mean difference between an old-growth and new-growth forest is the mean interval between forest fires. Since the age of an old-growth forest is the same as the last forest fire, many new-growth forests have trees much older than old-growth forests. Redwoods and sequoyas are exceptions, because they do not burn. 9. The forested area in North America has been increasing steadily since 1920. Ditto for Western Europe. Deforestation (net area shrinking) takes place mainly in the Third World, in many cases for fuel (especially since our Arab cousins jacked up energy prices in 1973). Also due to population growth and need for farm land and housing land. This is caused not by industrial development and capitalism but by pre-industrialization, pre-capitalism, and the poverty they imply. 10. Commercial lumber harvesting does not reduce forested area, but INCREASES it. Commercial lumbering creates incentives to protect trees. Where property rights are poorly defined or protected, such as in federal forests, this is not so. This is why federal forests, other than interesting parks (like Yellowstone), should be privatized. The private sector protects trees and forests, out of commercial interest, better than federal bureaucrats. Many green organizations have recognized this and have been lobbying for privatization. In other areas where property rights are poorly defined, serious public policy problems arise, including over-harvesting. Whaling may or may not be an example. 11. Cutting down a whole forest might or might not impede its restoration and regrowth. Lots of examples of whole forests being destroyed naturally (Mount Saint Helen's, other volcano explosions) and then quickly growing back exist. (In the case of Mt St Helen's, the land in private hands saw forests recover FASTER than land in the federal bureaucracy's hands.) Where whole forests will NOT recover, if such areas exist, they will not be completely cut by any lumber interest because it would damage their economic interests. 12. People who say lumber harvesting should be prevented are pampered yuppies who live in comfort, and do not care if higher lumber prices make it harder for low-income people to house their families or buy wooden products. 13. There is absolutely no serious hard evidence that deforestation affects global climate. And if it did, as noted - privatizing forests is often the best way to create more forested land. ==================================================================== DR. STEVEN E. PLAUT GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA, HAIFA 31905 ISRAEL PHONE (972) 4824-0110 FAX (972)4824-0059 OR (972) 4824-9194 EMAIL: RSEC792@UVM.HAIFA.AC.IL **** YOUR SOURCE FOR CYBER-SAMIZDAT **** ===================================================================== -- via PNEWS http://www.applicom.com/pnews