Help stop forests being sold off to private companies

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Isard

Who are they actually selling to?



EDIT: And I'm sure beating on police officers will change everybody's minds. Might even solve world hunger while you're at it.

Yet again, you prove how little you know about politics. Maybe you should heed your own advice and stick to your own country.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by txen

If you are expecting one letter standing alone to make a substantial difference, then yes you are correct.
Form letters and internet petitions really don't count when compared to actual letters.

Ok, so one individual letter makes no difference, but organizing many people to make a petition or write the identical letter l does not count either.
According to thisogic, a campaign that would work would have to tell people to all write letters with the same content but a slightly different form and that then would count? Do you really think so? That simply because the letters are a little different makes all the difference? I am highly doubtful about it, but maybe it works - I have not seen such a campaign yet, I guess if it is a novel idea, it should be started then.
My take would be that the people who read the mail will file all these letters under the same topic and put them in the same box - same as with form letters.
The question that really matters is, if the person who is in charge thinks his decision is right or if he is doubtful, if he gives a rats arse about the opinion of the people or if he has the economy, the "greater good of civilization" or the money from the lobbyists in his mind. If he is a truely democratic person, it does not matter if it is a petition or form letters or individual letter - he will get the message in any case, that a certain number of people oppose this kind of project. Assigning an identity to each signature on the list however makes it a lot more credible of course than anything that someone with a valid email adress can sign. So form letters or petitions with full adresses would be a lot better than anonymous lists like this one, but in the end, all of this roots in the belief that the person doing the decisions acts upon the input of people. If he does, a petition signed by a lot of people would tell him to maybe make a public poll before the decision is made, if he does not, personal letters will not change his mind either.

[Isard]

Lets look at it this way...


One person spends an hour writing a letter, and 500 people spend 20 seconds signing it. Read dedication there.

Consider that next to 500 people spending an hour each writing their own letters. Which are you going to consider the more serious group?

Originally Posted by Human No More

Yet again, you prove how little you know about politics. Maybe you should heed your own advice and stick to your own country.

If you're referring to the beating police comment, sorry, but not all governments are run by brawlers.

If its on the "Who are they selling to?" comment, perfectly reasonable question. Not every person or corporation is going to bulldoze or destroy them. (crazy as it seems, some companies actually do preserve areas of land)

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Isard

One person spends an hour writing a letter, and 500 people spend 20 seconds signing it. Read dedication there.

Consider that next to 500 people spending an hour each writing their own letters. Which are you going to consider the more serious group?

Again - the question is not so much what the people want, the question is if or if not the person in charge has any interest in what the people want to hear. If he wants to hear, he will consider the 500 signatures (usually it is more like 10000 in such actions) and maybe do a poll. If he does not he also won't care for 500 handwritten and wax-sealed letters. And that is the big fallacy of representative democracy - what kind of democracy is that if the people, the ones who are supposed to be the ones in power (literally) have to crawl in the dust in front of the ones who really have the power? Who am I to be forced to organize hundreds of people to write personal letters, to manage to put up as much work as it would take to build a small house in terms of cumulative work - just to make a voice of the publich heard? It is the obligation(!) of the people who have been voted into positions of decisionmakers to listen to the ones they represent - and not only every 4 years, but on the decisions that have enough importance.

It is not perfect, but we have a system here locally that comes a lot closer to it. The system works like this - if there is a big decision ahead that is controversial, citizens can collect a certain amount of signatures and file a poll request that has to be granted. Then there will be a public poll or vote on that issue and that is binding. It still has the problems of regular majority democracy, but it is a hell lot more democratic than people begging their representatives to actually represent them.

[Human No More]

BBC News - Why are we a nation of tree-huggers?

"Essentially, we [British people] are woodland creatures - we like to live on the edge of woods. We all know that life surrounded by trees is so much more comfortable."

The amount of opposition to this plan is getting huge now, hopefully it should be enough to make the government see reason. Sign if you haven't already

[Tsyal Makto]

Yup, perfect example of biophilia.

[auroraglacialis]

Way to go! I think, people living in an area that is by its climate and setting originally a forest will expect that subconsciously there "should be a forest" here. Same for people living on the dry plains or in the savannah. I think there is a certain expectation of how the landscape would look like naturally - England used to be full of temperate (rain)forests - people still feel that... But that is just a theory of course

Oh and I was thinking about that "write a letter to your representative" thing... I wonder - who would be "my representative" in a government that I did not vote for?

[Human No More]

England was never as heavily forested as Europe - although there did used to be more than there is now. Still, even more of an excuse to keep what we have...

[auroraglacialis]

Yes. i have no real good history about britain, but it seems that the highlands were above tree line and the lowlands were heavily forested:

[...]upland areas may have held particular attractions [to pastoralists and hunters][...] compared with the woodlands below which were broken only by rivers and the coast. [...]
the theoretical maximum sustainable population of man could be calculated. However,
most archaeologists and palaeoecologists would agree that the density of man’s population in Mesolithic times was low, kept at such levels either by the Malthusian check of fluctuating food supplies or by social mechanisms which kept family sizes small, and well below the theoretical maximum.

(Simmons 2004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(75)90043-6)

[Human No More]

BBC News - Cameron 'to abandon plans to change forest ownership'

Ministers are preparing to ditch controversial plans to sell thousands of acres of state-owned woodland in England, the BBC understands.

Government sources said they will announce on Friday that the current consultation be halted.

This is by no means the end, but it's still a significant improvement

[Marvellous Chester]

This is great news certainly! Gaia shall be pleased