One of my favourite fans sent me a thought-provoking email the other day. It happens, you know, when you're a world-famous writer. Or, in my case, when you're a town-famous writer.
The clip was simple and to the point: “Pretend I'm a Tree and Save Me.”
And to drive the point home further, there was a picture of an unborn human (known by the pro-death forces as a “fetus”) in the corner of the page. Regardless of what side of the life-before-birth dialogue one comes down on, the simple email drew an unavoidable parallel between trees and babies. One simple question came to mind when I saw it, which, in turn, produced a host of others.
The one main question is, of course, “What is the link between trees and humans?” Before you shake your head at such an apparently stupid question, hear me out. And buckle up for the ride—I have a few more thoughts to throw at you...
Trees are very important, to be sure. No homesite is complete without them. One doesn't go for a stroll in a desert (no trees); one goes for a stroll in a forest (nothing but trees). Our respiratory system works better when we're near trees. They provide shade on hot days, entertainment on boring days, beauty on any day. And there are even “poems as lovely as a tree.”
But in a culture gone mad with environmentalism, methinks we have carried the cause of trees too far. And the inverse is likely true about children.
Can we have enough trees? Probably never. Can we have enough babies? Probably never. Old trees and old people are cut down on a regular basis and must be replaced. But even though the “enlightened” element of our world thinks we need more trees and less people, they are sadly misguided.
Have you hugged a tree today? A tree-hugger is an environmentalist out of touch with common sense. There is a place for peaceful disagreement, for civil protest—perhaps something our “Occupy” friends (a new word for “unemployed and belligerent squatters”) should learn. The Great Rain Bear Forest (I believe I have the term right) on BC's mid-coast is a wonderful example of the coming together of all interests, namely, First Nations, desperate industries, and environmental activists.
The real question should be: Have you hugged a baby today? Where is the pathos and passion—the fete and the fight, if you will--for the good of the children? Where are the activists when it comes to the children?
Elections have been fought over the future of old growth forests. Has there ever been one fought over the welfare of young children? It would refreshing to see a politician stake his or her success at the polls based on his or her defence of children.
When a cluster of well-established trees are cut down, there is a loud hue and cry. But when humans are murdered before they even have a chance to become established, let alone well-established (something we euphemistically call a “woman's choice”), many turn a blind eye.
On the family front, let's be reasonable here: Not every one can handle a lot of kids. But at least they do value the ones they're have. That's not the issue here. Today's discussion is simply the misplaced emphasis far too many in our society place on things—such as trees—while at the same time marginalize the very “thing” that will keep future generations alive.
Trees can be replaced, children cannot. Don't believe me? Ask those parents of recent car accident victims in Magrath and Grande Prairie. They certainly seemed to have their priorities straight. And they might even plant trees in their honour, not to replace them but to remember them
So, we have a simple lesson: Don't confuse a child with a tree. Unless, of course, it's part of a family tree.
No comments:
Post a Comment