The story highlights the overharvesting of the forest and the negative impacts. Overharvesting is bad. Many here seem to think it is ok to overharvest and not replace the trees based on their not liking the movie. The environment should not be abused, which many here disagree with. There is a critical balance that needs to be found. Some laws go too far, but some are necessary to protect the the environment and our way of life. Like what I wrote before, many on the right and left go to the extremes. Many here are extreme.
I find nothing wrong with the movie. Many are reading way too
much into it. We can agree to disagree on this movie.
>>Many here seem to think it is ok to overharvest and not replace the trees based on their not liking the movie.<<
Would you please point to that post?
And not mine, because I never saw the movie.
No one said that.
The environment should not be abused, which many here disagree with.
No one said that.
We can agree to disagree on this movie
I disagree. You're entirely wrong and dishonest and the movie is pure leftist propaganda.
Which post expressed that? Or are you reading minds, Svengali?
I have not seen anyone here promoting over harvesting. Far from it...we are all saying we need to be good conservationists and my point to my grandkids is that overharvesting is not occurring...it leads companies to bankrupcy.
When they see the millions of acres of forest in an area being harvested and worked by logging...they are smart enough to figure it out and understand that logging is good and not evil.
The overall message of the movie to a young mind was that lumbering, and business and factories in general are bad. Sorry, but that’s simply the tone of the movie...and needs to be countered, which I am glad I was able to do with my own.
You are free to do whatever you please with your kids and grandkids when the time comes.
“many here seem to think it is ok to overharvest and not replace trees ...”
False - I read every post and not one thought it was OK to overharvest. Most mentioned that trees are renewable and mentioned replanting.
Well, I won't get on your case because a few others have already done so (accurately pointing out there was not even a single post that either said or implied what you assert.) I don't want to pile on.
I think what most people have a problem with is being unable by federal fiat and law to utilize natural resources in this country. Take a look at this map:
The states with the highest levels of government ownership are also those that are richest in natural resources, for the most part. Look at Alaska as a case in point.
The problems with this are manifold, but primarily it takes large parts of the most resource rich parts of our country, places them off-limits, and requires us to get the same resources from other countries who do not care at all about the environment, and in many cases dislike us intensely and wish us ill. We end up having to send our money to these countries, enriching them, and causing us to pay more for these resources than we would normally have to if we could exploit them here.
So, in addition to making any industry in our country pay more for the raw resources to produce products because we have to buy them from other countries, we also fund them by funneling money into their economies, and our economy withers because we are not allowed to grow and develop the industries to obtain those resources here which would generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.
On top of that, it would enlarge our industrial base and make our products more attractive not only at home, but also abroad because they would be more competitive from a cost perspective.
From your comments, I would find it difficult to classify you as a conservative, though I will table that assessment to give you the benefit of the doubt, simply since I don't know you or your posting history that well.
But I need to say this: Most conservatives are not anti-government. We understand that government is necessary and has a role to play. We simply do not think it should be monolithic, overreaching, and all-powerful.
Most conservatives are not anti-environment. We do not subscribe to the rape and pillage of the environment. We believe that government should have a role in promoting environmentalism by various mechanisms, but what we see today is so far-reaching and overreaching that it is far, far outside the scope of any role that we think government should play.
The reason we think this is evident, and it is because resources that are part of our national right to exploit have them placed off-limits in the name of radical environmentalism. As a result, it has made our industry far less robust and competitive than it should be. In a growing world, we should be growing our industry, and being able to provide for ourselves, both things are not happening.
The problem we have has a semantic aspect to it that you have illustrated very well with your rhetoric. It boils down to this: Conservatives do not feel that exploiting our natural resources is abusing the environment. Liberals and environmentalists believe that exploiting our natural resources is by its very nature abuse of the environment.
I am willing to agree or disagree on this movie. But I don't think that I'm willing to compromise on the basic principle of what is being done via indoctrination, and how much I condemn it.