Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!ptsfa!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom and property, round 2
Message-ID: <300@l5.uucp>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 21:02:23 EST
Article-I.D.: l5.300
Posted: Sun Dec  1 21:02:23 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 22:45:04 EST
References: <1137@mtuxo.UUCP> <280@l5.uucp> <1739@dciem.UUCP>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 22

In article <1739@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>
>Surely not if his tilling of 100 acres has damaged the ecology for the
>hunters and gatherers?  This is far from an academic example, because
>it is precisely the conversion of land to farmland (and other "wealth-
>producing") activities that is likely to destroy us all.  The original
>habitats of an enormous number of species are destroyed by our
>"Running Dog" behaviour.  Is Brazil entitled to allow the Amazonian
>forests to be destroyed because they are in its territory?  They have
>the power, because we currently have a quasi-libertarian approach to
>international affairs, but I strongly deny that they have a right to
>do so.

The original question propsed that the farmland that Running Dog tilled was
unused.  Are you serious in claiming that it is the conversion of land
to farmland that is likely to destroy us all?  Do you have any idea of the
life expectancy of pre-agrarian societies?  If the people in Brazil want to
knock down the Amazonian forests to improve their lives, I'm all for it.
-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa