[Powderworks] Re: Re: Golf? improving nature? fooouurrr
andrew pye
apye@bigpond.com
Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:00:03 +1000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_011C_01C1D0F1.76729100
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message>hmm....improving on nature? from a parking lot to a golf course, =
yes. tear down a shopping mall and slap down some turf, maybe. but =
suggesting a golf course is an improvement on nature only highlights the =
cause of this inherited dilemma...(myopic human arrogance and the =
interpretation that man is separate from nature.)=20
Nah, I wasnt suggesting it was improving on nature. I have seen them go =
into places that were once a waste land. Had already been cleared and =
nothing constructive done with it. I am certainly not suggesting the =
removale of old (or new for that matter) growth forrests. Merely that =
they can make an already desecrated piece of land better! If you want to =
challenge golf course construction, then the wider issue of population =
growth and urban sprawl must first be address as a golf course is just a =
part of that urban landscape.
>i am surprised this has become an issue to debate being that =
historically, the evidence against golf courses has become an =
irrefutable fact.=20
I'm not suggesting they are perfect, however, the implications of course =
construction and pollution cannot compare in severity with other many =
more damaging activities man has done and continues to do! IMHO, the =
notion that Midnight Oil band members should not play golf because of =
the damage golf courses do to the environment is a bit extreme. And to =
be honest, I'm having a hard time believing that any of them do play =
anyway! We've all seen Pete dance! Imagine that with a golf club in his =
hand! Scarey!
>andrew, it sounds like the golf course you worked on accomplished some =
improvement over the convention. hats should be tipped to those =
responsible. however I would hesitate to make the conclusion, as you =
did, that golf courses as a whole do not have a "significant" impact on =
the environment merely because of this experience.
Well I guess you have to define significant dont you! Or I should =
definite maybe!!! We're not talking vanalism on the scale of Prince =
William Sound or the deforestation rate of the Amazon here! Golf courses =
are, in the whole scheme of things pretty small. It makes no sence =
whatsoever for green keepers to use more fertilzers and chemicals that =
they do, if for no other reason than he economic cost. And I am sure =
there are courses that haven't done all they can to minimise there =
impact on the environment. I think this is a trend that can and will =
become less prevelant as time goes on. But what I do think (and this =
based on no facts at all) is that the area that is affected due to golf =
course existance would be so minimal that I find it a bit of a joke that =
a boycott is called for! Especially by a rock band!
As for the human rights issue (ie girls being used for caddies) I have =
no knowledge of this because it does not happen here, and there is no =
way I am going to defend that!
By the way, has anyone noticed of late that the Oils have been publicly =
coming out and trying to divert attention away from the things they sing =
about, trying to draw more attention to the band instead of the issue? =
I've seen them do it about half a dozen times in the last year or 2. =
most recently the interview with Rob for which the link was posted a =
couple of days ago, and his initial reluctance to talk about the boat =
people debacle.
------=_NextPart_000_011C_01C1D0F1.76729100
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4912.300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>hmm....improving on nature? from a =
parking lot=20
to a golf course, yes. tear down a shopping mall and slap down some =
turf, maybe.=20
but suggesting a golf course is an improvement on nature only =
highlights=20
the cause of this inherited dilemma...(myopic human=20
arrogance and the interpretation that man is separate from=20
nature.) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nah, I wasnt suggesting it was =
improving on nature.=20
I have seen them go into places that were once a waste land. Had already =
been=20
cleared and nothing constructive done with it. I am certainly not =
suggesting the=20
removale of old (or new for that matter) growth forrests. Merely that =
they can=20
make an already desecrated piece of land better! If you want to =
challenge golf=20
course construction, then the wider issue of population growth and urban =
sprawl=20
must first be address as a golf course is just a part of that urban=20
landscape.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>i am surprised this has =
become an=20
issue to debate being that historically, the evidence against =
golf=20
courses has become an irrefutable fact. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm not suggesting they are perfect, =
however, the=20
implications of course construction and pollution cannot compare in=20
severity with other many more damaging activities man has done and=20
continues to do! IMHO, the notion that Midnight Oil band members should =
not play=20
golf because of the damage golf courses do to the environment is a bit =
extreme.=20
And to be honest, I'm having a hard time believing that any of them do =
play=20
anyway! We've all seen Pete dance! Imagine that with a golf club in his =
hand!=20
Scarey!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>andrew, it sounds like the golf =
course you=20
worked on accomplished some improvement over the convention. hats should =
be=20
tipped to those responsible. however I would hesitate to make the=20
conclusion, as you did, that golf courses as a whole do not have a =
"significant"=20
impact on the environment merely because of this =
experience.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Well I guess you have to define =
significant dont=20
you! Or I should definite maybe!!! We're not talking vanalism =
on the=20
scale of Prince William Sound or the deforestation rate of the Amazon =
here! Golf=20
courses are, in the whole scheme of things pretty small. It makes no =
sence=20
whatsoever for green keepers to use more fertilzers and chemicals that =
they do,=20
if for no other reason than he economic cost. And I am sure there are =
courses=20
that haven't done all they can to minimise there impact on the =
environment. I=20
think this is a trend that can and will become less prevelant as time =
goes on.=20
But what I do think (and this based on no facts at all) is that the area =
that is=20
affected due to golf course existance would be so minimal that I find it =
a bit=20
of a joke that a boycott is called for! Especially by a rock =
band!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As for the human rights issue (ie girls =
being used=20
for caddies) I have no knowledge of this because it does not happen =
here, and=20
there is no way I am going to defend that!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>By the way, has anyone noticed of late =
that the=20
Oils have been publicly coming out and trying to divert =
attention away=20
from the things they sing about, trying to draw more attention to the =
band=20
instead of the issue? I've seen them do it about half a dozen times in =
the last=20
year or 2. most recently the interview with Rob for which the link was =
posted a=20
couple of days ago, and his initial reluctance to talk about the boat =
people=20
debacle.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_011C_01C1D0F1.76729100--