RE: [GreenYes] Sliced Peanut Butter

[Grifola8@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/18/01 12:41:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
hither@qwest.net writes:

> So what is the problem?  It appears that the sticky knives, product left in 
> the jar and water saved just might be worth it.

Can anyone tell me why I should believe that water conservation measures 
aren't essentially ANTI-environmental?  That is, a way to cram even more 
houses, people, and industrial capacity into landscapes that have already 
been developed beyond sane limits (think Las Vegas).  Even when environmental 
benefits can be claimed, are they not canceled by the habitat loss and 
increased consumption that occurs when yet more development is made possible?

A critical distinction needs to be made between environmental measures that 
unequivocally benefit nature (e. g. forest preserves), versus those that 
translate into increased human carrying capacity, i. e. mostly benefit us.  
This second category is always more marketable, but has dubious long-term 
value for the environment writ large.  By our jealous hording of space, soil, 
sunlight, water, in short all of life's basic necessities, we humans have 
defined ourselves as Nature's lethal adversaries.  Civilization is the 
dreadnought we use to storm and plunder it, and that which benefits us can be 
seen as harmful BY DEFINITION to the natural world.  Those few of us who 
would reform this relationship need to clarify our thinking -- in the popular 
interpretation of this purpose, there is much subversion.