|
The current attitude amoung many in the US seems to be of an anti-nature stance, not just one of skepticism.
It`s kind of suprizing to find that attitude comming from people who want to use natures benefits(hunters, offroader) but think it infinte. It amost seems to done out of political spite/greed from a personal nature, not out of common sense of what is good for humanities quality of life.
Some people want to name each tree `rainbow freedom` and are rightfully used as laughing-stock poster-children for the `right`, but the reality is that nature serves as an industrial and economic function.
Want building supplies? Gotta have forests.
Want to reduce health problems and birth defects? Gotta have polution scrubbers.
Want to hunt a variety of wild game? Gotta have wild.
State planning commissions probably have the most influence over future pollution and quality of life standards. Controlling urban sprawl means a reduction in transportation costs and time for everything, which leaves money avilable for every other aspect of a higher culture. For instance, if a loaf of bread requires $10 in gas to get to the supermarket, what happens to it`s price? How efficient are workers who spend 4 hours a day in heavy traffic?
|