Old Topic. Do you think I40 should have gone through midtown?

[Pearlbob]

Right, but someone tore down 300 year old trees to build the house that you live in. And the building that you work in. The stores that you shop in.

I am all for keeping nature as much as possible, but in this instance, I think the benefit of the zoo outweighs the benefit of an unused plot of trees. Overton Park has a horrible reputation for being unsafe, with several murders and attacks occuring in the wooded areas. Whether the bad rep is deserved or not, I think many more people will benefit from a zoo.

[bjh]

Originally Posted by strumpeace

Now the zoo wants to take out a 300-year old forest.

Originally Posted by Pearlbob

I don't understand the tizzy about the zoo and the forest. It's not like they are tearing down trees to put up a Starbucks. They are tearing them down to build another "nature" type setting. I think making it into part of the zoo will make 100x better use of the area. In this particular instance, I think tearing down that section of Overton park make much more sense; they are replacing the trees with something else that is outdoorsy, cultural, and educational.

Originally Posted by Pearlbob

Right, but someone tore down 300 year old trees to build the house that you live in. And the building that you work in. The stores that you shop in.

So there has been enough of that already. If what is in a park can't be saved, what can!? Blimey, let's keep some of the old growth forest.

[strumpeace]

Originally Posted by Pearlbob

Right, but someone tore down 300 year old trees to build the house that you live in. And the building that you work in. The stores that you shop in.

That's an out-there argument. Summary: Because we've done wrong for years, we should keep doing it.

(The fallacy with your argument, of course, is that all land in the area was not covered by forest. And over the years, agriculture--not houses or offices or stores--has been the primary culprit of deforestation.)

[UofMGrad92]

I'm all for preserving the trees when you can, but how else would the zoo expand? The zoo is one of the few "great" things about this city, and this expansion will only make it better. Who benefits from saving the trees? Honestly, whose life does those 300 year old trees make better?

The notion that the world is a better place if the trees are saved is fine if there is some other way, but in this case, how else would the zoo expand?

Now, I would agree that it was good that the interstate didn't go through Overton Park, but more because the interstate system had such a devastating effect on neighborhoods. The 300 year old trees? Well, plant some new ones and in 300 years, someone else can have the same fight.

[UofMGrad92]

Originally Posted by strumpeace

That's an out-there argument. Summary: Because we've done wrong for years, we should keep doing it.

(The fallacy with your argument, of course, is that all land in the area was not covered by forest. And over the years, agriculture--not houses or offices or stores--has been the primary culprit of deforestation.)

So it was okay to cut down the trees to grow cotton, but not to develop infrastructure, commerce or housing? And why would you consider it wrong to cut down trees to build your house, or your place of employment, or the stores you shop in? Would you prefer to live in a cave or just out in the open under the stars? Can we only build those things where nothing grows (or at least nothing we really like grows...I guess no one would be opposed to cutting down some poison ivy or kudzu to build a store)?

Again, I say save trees where you can. Clear cutting a subdivision just because it's easier isn't the way to go. But you do in fact have to alter mother nature on occassion to make way for the needs or wants of people. The same way you have to kill and fry a chicken on occasion so we can eat a good meal.

[Pearlbob]

My points exactly

I wasn't arguing for or against anything really. My point was just that it's odd to me that people make such a big deal about tearing down some trees, when this is done everywhere, everyday, for much worse reasons. Why not do something about that instead of slamming the zoo. The zoo is such a wonderful place and it is one of the shining stars of this city. The trees, while nice, are not. If it worries people that much, they should go out and plant more trees to make up for it and to plan for the next 300 years. But I highly doubt the people complaining are all out doing that.

Originally Posted by UofMGrad92

So it was okay to cut down the trees to grow cotton, but not to develop infrastructure, commerce or housing? And why would you consider it wrong to cut down trees to build your house, or your place of employment, or the stores you shop in? Would you prefer to live in a cave or just out in the open under the stars? Can we only build those things where nothing grows (or at least nothing we really like grows...I guess no one would be opposed to cutting down some poison ivy or kudzu to build a store)?

Again, I say save trees where you can. Clear cutting a subdivision just because it's easier isn't the way to go. But you do in fact have to alter mother nature on occassion to make way for the needs or wants of people. The same way you have to kill and fry a chicken on occasion so we can eat a good meal.

[bjh]

Me like trees. Me talk pretty like Jane some day.