One of the few magazines that I still take at home is the National Geographic. It's also one of the few that I have been known to read from cover to cover. I sometimes see some political leanings within the writing but in general - politics and social agendas are handled even-handedly.
I also like to read the letters to the editor just to see the giant chasm between views on an issue. There seems to be very little room for middle ground on any given subject. I'm afraid that's just a sign that those of us who are more moderate on an issue aren't sufficiently motivated by the plight of the two-tongued owl frog in lower Scandabuvia to get up off the couch and scratch off a letter or even zip off an e-mail to the folks at NG.
A while back I was reading a letter from a man (don't remember where he was from but almost certain it was the West or East Coast) concerning logging practices in the Northwest. He was adamantly opposed to continued but controlled harvesting of redwood trees. Now I understand his concern and I have some questions about the need to continue logging these giants myself. BUT his solution seemed a bit drastic to me!
His reasoning was to reduce the demand for lumber by reducing the world's population. There wouldn't be any need to cut these trees if there weren't so many people. In fact, he proposed "reducing" the world population by 3/4ths. I might have taken his suggestion a bit more seriously IF his letter contained an offer to be the first in line for "self -reduction".
No comments:
Post a Comment