Which one live without?

Letter writers disagree with columnist Sandy MacDougall.

Editor, The News:

Re: Happy not to be labelled anything (Sidewinder, Feb. 21).

As we get older, our perceptions and opinions tend to change.

I’m hoping that’s wisdom.

Sometimes, our views don’t change much. That can be good, but sometimes not.

For instance, till now,  my admiration of Sandy MacDougall’s common sense and good intent has never waned.

But after reading his recent article, I do now question his ability to perceive the relevance of what once passed for knowledge in our society.

His recent article, which justified the standard for the abuse of our planet because it made his life easy, left me feeling some guilt in my complicity for justifying the same. It’s easier to use this convenient excuse than it is to demand, then accepting change.

We’ve had it too good, for too long on this ball of salty water and rock. And the reality is, we have been peeing in our own well for quite a while now. At some point we are going to find the water not to our taste.

Not to mention the filthy air.

At that point, we will be confronted with the tough choice. Drink what’s available, or not. Either way, it’s no way to live.

So when guys like Mr. Mcdougall say that people who oppose more oil pipelines, fracking for gas and paving over farmland are ‘environmentalists,’ ‘tree huggers’ or any other label to discredit their concerns, I have to say to Mr. Macdougall and his ilk: this, my friends, is where you have failed to gain wisdom.

If someone is shouting and waving a sign saying, “Stop the destruction of the only planet we live on”.

He may look desperate and he probably is. But that doesn’t make him wrong.

Most of us are too distracted by the demands of the monetary system to take the time to realize the rapidly nearing limits of our earth’s ecosystem. We can live without one of those systems, but we cannot without the other. Should we wait to find out which one? Or should we stop peeing in our well.

Grant Baker

Maple Ridge


You are confused

Editor, The News:

Re: Happy not to be labelled anything (Sidewinder, Feb. 21).

Please, Sandy Macdougall, do some research on the difference between genetically modified and natural hybridization.

It appears that you have confused the two processes – without trying to explain the difference here, I hope you will at least do your own reading, on the many science based sites, not just the information provided by the multi-national firms that have only their own financial benefit as motive.

A. McDonald

Maple Ridge