Quantum Forest

Today I sent a letter to The Mercury, a small city newspaper that circulates mostly in Southern Tasmania. I do not have much hope about having it published, so I decided to publish it here as well (P.D. It was published today 03 February, although parts of it — emphasised in italics here — where left out). I wrote in response to a letter comparing forest research to propaganda, in the same way as Nazis tried to scientifically justify the gas chambers. In addition, the original letter called for a decision about Tasmanian forests based only on emotion and not science.

I refer to the letter by Peter Timms published in your newspaper on 28 of January, comparing the use of scientific grounds in the study of Tasmanian forests to propaganda. Propaganda is ‘the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause’. His letter seems to be an excellent example of this, trying to disqualify his opponents on the basis of being scientific and rational rather than emotional. Reducing the complexity of the discussion on the use of our forests to only ‘an emotional issue’ is equivalent to deciding the fate of the forest based on a popularity contest or on the whim of the day. Translating the use of our knowledge of the forest for making management decisions into propaganda, reflects either utter ignorance or a blatant attempt to mislead Tasmanians.

Tasmania is a wonderful place to live in, but one of its worrying features is the low quality of the debate concerning the use of the forests. The arguments have been reduced by a very vocal minority to slogans, like ‘Stop Forestry’ or ‘Shut up the Greens’, which contribute nothing to enlighten the majority of the population. If there is anything clear from the current discussion is that it will not lead to making sensible decisions about our forests.

A few years ago, Tasmania was involved in a Regional Forestry Agreement (RFA) process that, although imperfect, aimed to capture the views of Tasmanians concerning the use of our forests, in an attempt to balance conservation and production uses. While Mr Timms may consider the ‘wide ranging, sometimes ill-informed or capricious’ views of environmentalists as a sound basis for policy, I suggest that taking into account scientific studies, the RFA and the current emotions of all Tasmanians (not only the ones writing letters to the editor) should constitute a much better starting point for defining the future of our forests.

Although the idea of living in a national park may sound appealing, it does not guarantee the sustainability of that lifestyle. Tasmanian society will continue to exist only if it combines social, economic and environmental sustainability. Searching for only one component without consideration for the others is simplistic and, ironies of language, unsustainable.