E-Bay bans all ivory sales!

A. G. Maisey · 24th October 2008, 04:06 AM

Fearn, from my perspective, we are not debating.

We are discussing.

I am not attempting to change your point of view, nor anybody else's point of view, I am merely putting forward my own. Debate involves the idea of "winning" and "losing". I am here to do neither.

Insofar as your point of view is concerned, I say again:- we are not in disagreement, it is just that your perspective is limited , perhaps by the nature of your area of speciality.

As a professional in the field of conservation, you would be aware of the figures on forest loss better than most. You would also be aware of the vital role played by the world's forests in maintenance of our world as we know it.

I think that probably everybody except that hermit who has been meditating in a cave in the Himalayas for the last 50 years is now aware that our world is going through a period of change. What name or nature we give to that change still seems to be a matter for some disagreement, however, the one thing that nobody can disagree about is the role of forests, and the the rate of reduction of those forests.

It is simple logic that a species cannot change its environment, and continue to live in that environment in the same way that it has lived in it in the past. Equally, no species can continue to grow in numbers when the place where it lives is limited.

I agree that the human race is not doomed. Of course the race will survive, but it will not survive in the numbers or form that it now has.

I have already said that I think in macro terms. I also think in abstract and philosophical terms.

Throw your mind forward 3000 years.

And in terms of the life of the planet, 3000 years is nothing.

I'm going to leave this discussion here, not simply because it can only become even more depressing from this point forward, but also because I have some commitments to keep that will remove me from my computer for a few days.

Remember:- we are not in disagreement.

24th October 2008, 04:06 AM	#30
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,861	Fearn, from my perspective, we are not debating. We are discussing. I am not attempting to change your point of view, nor anybody else's point of view, I am merely putting forward my own. Debate involves the idea of "winning" and "losing". I am here to do neither. Insofar as your point of view is concerned, I say again:- we are not in disagreement, it is just that your perspective is limited , perhaps by the nature of your area of speciality. As a professional in the field of conservation, you would be aware of the figures on forest loss better than most. You would also be aware of the vital role played by the world's forests in maintenance of our world as we know it. I think that probably everybody except that hermit who has been meditating in a cave in the Himalayas for the last 50 years is now aware that our world is going through a period of change. What name or nature we give to that change still seems to be a matter for some disagreement, however, the one thing that nobody can disagree about is the role of forests, and the the rate of reduction of those forests. It is simple logic that a species cannot change its environment, and continue to live in that environment in the same way that it has lived in it in the past. Equally, no species can continue to grow in numbers when the place where it lives is limited. I agree that the human race is not doomed. Of course the race will survive, but it will not survive in the numbers or form that it now has. I have already said that I think in macro terms. I also think in abstract and philosophical terms. Throw your mind forward 3000 years. And in terms of the life of the planet, 3000 years is nothing. I'm going to leave this discussion here, not simply because it can only become even more depressing from this point forward, but also because I have some commitments to keep that will remove me from my computer for a few days. Remember:- we are not in disagreement.