Thanks Giving!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well apart from the fact that having a christmas tree is an idiotic custom (putting christmas decorations on a tree that took years to grow and throwing it away after christmas is barbaric) it is not really the same thing.

nobody was given free food on christmas and then went around to kill the people who gave them that food.

also not only germans have christmas trees so you might wanna look a bit harder for your examples.

So having a Christmas Tree makes me a Nazi?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Yes, as we gorge ourselves on turkey, let's give thanks. We have much to be thankful for afterall. Particularly that we aren't on the receiving end of this two-fold genocidal celebration. Not just a Holiday, but a Holy Day of thanks where we gather together and celibrate the genocide of the Native Americans by snuffing out millions of turkeys. Who ...[text shortened]... ditional burning of the Jew log on a roaring fire. Much drinking and gluttony will follow.

Wow, just substitute Canada for the U.S., and one has the same story. I guess the Iroquois and Ojibwa just handed Canada the "keys' to the Provinces and said "it's all yours"...next time you eat spaghetti, just remeber the slaves in Rome that grew the wheat; next time you buy any electronic gizmo, remember the many Chinese working in slave-lavor so you (and I) can play our video games....just be thankful...

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well apart from the fact that having a christmas tree is an idiotic custom (putting christmas decorations on a tree that took years to grow and throwing it away after christmas is barbaric) ....

I go to a Christmas tree farm about 3 miles away from where I live. I cut
down a tree that's specifically grown for that purpose. After the Christmas
season is over I cut the tree to the trunk and large branches that can be
used for bird perching at Cascades Raptor Center. The rest of the branches
and needles are taken to the forest near the raptor center, where it
becomes part of the forest compost..

Originally posted by Badwater
I go to a Christmas tree farm about 3 miles away from where I live. I cut
down a tree that's specifically grown for that purpose. After the Christmas
season is over I cut the tree to the trunk and large branches that can be
used for bird perching at Cascades Raptor Center. The rest of the branches
and needles are taken to the forest near the raptor center, where it
becomes part of the forest compost..

well that is better than throwing it away in the garbage i suppose. but in the end it is simply a way to make up a little for the waste in the first place. that farm that grows trees for exactly this reason could plant trees to fix the soil of a hill with landslide risk. or plant a park in some city instead.

the gains in my opinion are to minor to justify the cutting of a tree.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
So having a Christmas Tree makes me a Nazi?

err you might have quoted the wrong person, i said that being a nazi had nothing to do with christmas trees

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well that is better than throwing it away in the garbage i suppose. but in the end it is simply a way to make up a little for the waste in the first place. that farm that grows trees for exactly this reason could plant trees to fix the soil of a hill with landslide risk. or plant a park in some city instead.

the gains in my opinion are to minor to justify the cutting of a tree.

How is there waste? The tree is grown on farmland here. It is not exclusive of trees that are also used in ways that you describe, which also happens here. If I'm reusing all parts of the tree - and I am - where is the waste?

Originally posted by Badwater
How is there waste? The tree is grown on farmland here. It is not exclusive of trees that are also used in ways that you describe, which also happens here. If I'm reusing [b]all parts of the tree - and I am - where is the waste?[/b]

one could cut down a 1000 year old sequoia and make toilet paper out of it. so by this argument there is no waste.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
one could cut down a 1000 year old sequoia and make toilet paper out of it. so by this argument there is no waste.

One could equally argue that any object that is used by man that is not maximally used to further the longevity of the species is 'waste'.

Badwater has the right to entertainment that he pays for himself and carries out in the most environmentally conscious way available to him and should in fact be commended for his environmental consciousness.

Once you try to dig deeper you start to deal with a whole lot of what ifs that cannot really be answered. For example if the farm was not growing Christmas trees it could easily be doing something far less desirable etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
One could equally argue that any object that is used by man that is not maximally used to further the longevity of the species is 'waste'.

Badwater has the right to entertainment that he pays for himself and carries out in the most environmentally conscious way available to him and should in fact be commended for his environmental consciousness.

Onc ...[text shortened]... arm was not growing Christmas trees it could easily be doing something far less desirable etc.

sure, one can look at the empty half of the glass. one could say "it is good enough and it could be much worse" instead of saying "this is unacceptable, we want something better"

this issue is ultimately about costs and gains. We must ask ourselves if having a christmas tree for 2 -3 weeks and bird perches and forest compost is worth growing a tree for let's say 10 years and then cutting it down.

i am not the ultimate green, chain myself to a tree and live in the woods. but i am not "after me, the flood" kind of guy. resources must be used responsibly and all indulging must be carefully regulated. why drive an SUV with the consumption and size of a tank instead of a crappy economic car, or perish the thought, taking the bus to work?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure, one can look at the empty half of the glass. one could say "it is good enough and it could be much worse" instead of saying "this is unacceptable, we want something better"

this issue is ultimately about costs and gains. We must ask ourselves if having a christmas tree for 2 -3 weeks and bird perches and forest compost is worth growing a tree for l ...[text shortened]... f a tank instead of a crappy economic car, or perish the thought, taking the bus to work?

But why pick on Christmas trees, and what is the correct balance?
If the tree is only say 1 year old is that acceptable? What about all the other wasteful practices we are involved in? But most of all I suspect you are judging the Christmas tree on the incorrect assumption that it is coming from virgin forest. You would not judge the use of the exact same land for some other luxury crop with equivalent harshness. If the land was used to grow tobacco, tea, coffee etc all of which are hardly essential and all of which take up to a year of growth just to produce a product that you would happily consume in a few minutes (with no recycling whatsoever), you would not be nearly as harsh in your judgment would you? You are not really looking at land use vs entertainment value at all, you are thinking 'chopping down trees is bad bad bad'.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure, one can look at the empty half of the glass. one could say "it is good enough and it could be much worse" instead of saying "this is unacceptable, we want something better"

this issue is ultimately about costs and gains. We must ask ourselves if having a christmas tree for 2 -3 weeks and bird perches and forest compost is worth growing a tree for l f a tank instead of a crappy economic car, or perish the thought, taking the bus to work?

The land where the tree is grown is in fact farmland in the Willamette Valley in Oregon. In its purely natural state, there would be no conifers in that part of the valley. It is, however, farmland; if Christmas trees were not grown there then another agricultural product would be. It seems to me that you're inventing a waste in this case where the is none. It's not like I am carving into a forest system on private or public land - it's a tree farm! Literally. A tree farm. 100 or so acres of trees. Again - where is the waste?

Originally posted by Badwater
The land where the tree is grown is in fact farmland in the Willamette Valley in Oregon. In its purely natural state, there would be no conifers in that part of the valley. It is, however, farmland; if Christmas trees were not grown there then another agricultural product would be. It seems to me that you're inventing a waste in this case where the is none. ...[text shortened]... 's a tree farm! Literally. A tree farm. 100 or so acres of trees. Again - where is the waste?

would you say it is a waste of time and agricultural space if a farm were to grow a sequoia tree for about 500 years and then turn it into toothpicks?
500 years gone and all we have to show for is a truck of toothpicks. which will be thrown away because nobody recycles 1 little wooden splinter.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But why pick on Christmas trees, and what is the correct balance?
If the tree is only say 1 year old is that acceptable? What about all the other wasteful practices we are involved in? But most of all I suspect you are judging the Christmas tree on the incorrect assumption that it is coming from virgin forest. You would not judge the use of the exact sam ...[text shortened]... land use vs entertainment value at all, you are thinking 'chopping down trees is bad bad bad'.

coffee is essential. sadly, the whole economic system relies on coffee. i do. had one this morning.

and i never said i condone growing tobacco. that is wasteful, more so than christmas trees.

i am not suggesting banning christmas trees. i am suggesting improving our practices in all domains.

you fail to realize that everything we do is wasteful. why kill a piggie and eat it? why not allow it to die of old age? why make furniture? why drive SUVS? there is one thing to minimize waste wherever we can and to give up our civilization all together.

are you saying that because there is a line we will not cross, all greens are hypocrites and we should just let go of any pretense and just use anything we find available?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am not suggesting banning christmas trees. i am suggesting improving our practices in all domains.

A recent copy of Time Magazine has an article about whether real Christmas trees or fake ones are better. It quotes two studies by two organization that each get funding from the two stake holders (Christmas tree growers and Christmas tree makers) and of course they reach the two different conclusions.

you fail to realize that everything we do is wasteful.
I did not fail to realize that, in fact I thought I already stated it. I am merely questioning why you are picking on Christmas trees.

why kill a piggie and eat it? why not allow it to die of old age?
Because it is far less wasteful to kill it in its prime. It may be less humane too but that is a different story.

are you saying that because there is a line we will not cross, all greens are hypocrites and we should just let go of any pretense and just use anything we find available?
No, not at all. I am saying that when you criticize the wrong things just because you are 'green' you end up discouraging people for no good reason.
Overall planting trees even if you harvest them every few years is probably a good thing. If you can get someone to pay you to do it then even better. If the tree was being burnt afterwards I might change my mind, but if the wood is used for something then I see nothing wrong with the practice - unless the alternative that the land would otherwise be allowed to return to natural forest which I rather doubt.

Why not put your energy into persuading people to insulate their houses and buy smaller cars?

Originally posted by twhitehead
A recent copy of Time Magazine has an article about whether real Christmas trees or fake ones are better. It quotes two studies by two organization that each get funding from the two stake holders (Christmas tree growers and Christmas tree makers) and of course they reach the two different conclusions.

[b]you fail to realize that everything we do is wa
Why not put your energy into persuading people to insulate their houses and buy smaller cars?

why is an action more worthy than another if both can improve life.

why buy an armani suit when you can get a excellent suit from a less well known firm.

why chop down a tree for three weeks of holidays when you can let it reach adulthood and make a lot of more important stuff like paper and construction materials?

it is wrong to approach the problem from this point of view: "i am not gonna tell people to not buy christmas trees because they should insulate their houses before". they should do both.