3 ms·

fine article but once again.. problematic public communications IMHO. The history of "Arbor Day", public parks, zoning hearings, personal choices of where to l

fine article but once again.. problematic public communications IMHO. The history of "Arbor Day", public parks, zoning hearings, personal choices of where to live and what to plant .. all say that many but not all adult humans have long term personal relationships with trees around them. Yet journalism "rings the alarm" at a time of heaping crisis. This pushes sensitive people (lots of readers here) to "doom" view.. The writer may believe it when they write "most people ignore trees" but it is at least bi-model right? Lots of people care deeply about trees and in fact are doing something about it. There has to be a better way to address the subject meaningfully, and not just a litany of dire situations.

xnyan 3y ago
> The writer may believe it when they write "most people ignore trees" but it is at least bi-model right? I grew up relatively poor, and I can tell you that most Americans I have met generally feel deep anxiety about their economic condition, and that trend is accelerating. There are not emotional resources enough in their minds for things that don’t affect their immediate survival and happiness. The problem is not people liking trees, they do. The problem is, if you were to ask most people if they would exchange 1/6 of earth’s tree diversity for a couple thousand dollars, their response would be “where do I sign?” I love nature and mourn for everything that has been lost, but I am convinced there’s no way we will be able to address the problems we face without first addressing the economic tragedy of most of the people around us. Sorry for the rant, but I have also tried/wanted to address problems with collective action and come to the conclusion that it’s not going to be possible until we’ve better addressed the most immediate needs of the people we live with.

xnyan 3y ago

> The writer may believe it when they write "most people ignore trees" but it is at least bi-model right? I grew up relatively poor, and I can tell you that most Americans I have met generally feel deep anxiety about their economic condition, and that trend is accelerating. There are not emotional resources enough in their minds for things that don’t affect their immediate survival and happiness. The problem is not people liking trees, they do. The problem is, if you were to ask most people if they would exchange 1/6 of earth’s tree diversity for a couple thousand dollars, their response would be “where do I sign?” I love nature and mourn for everything that has been lost, but I am convinced there’s no way we will be able to address the problems we face without first addressing the economic tragedy of most of the people around us. Sorry for the rant, but I have also tried/wanted to address problems with collective action and come to the conclusion that it’s not going to be possible until we’ve better addressed the most immediate needs of the people we live with.