[aquila48]

You just don’t understand. Wilma was “natural” destruction, that is to say - “good” destruction.

Now if man had done 1/10 of what Wilma did that would have been “bad” destruction - because man is selfish and evil and the world and all of ITS other noble and nonviolent creatures would be so much better off if he were exterminated.

I’m not exaggerating - they really think this!!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312347294/bookstorenow16-20

[cogitator]

Now if man had done 1/10 of what Wilma did that would have been “bad” destruction

Not exactly. Looking at this and your Mt. St. Helens example, subsequent to the event, the natural areas affected were allowed to recover. Recovery takes time. When a forest gets cut down for a housing development, there isn't a lot of recovery possible for the forest. Is that correct or not?