We don’t have to Kill Trees

We don’t have to Kill Trees

Is a tree worth a life? What should people care about more, their needs or environmental issues? How can this everlasting debate between humans and the environment be resolved? Many people claim that one shouldn’t kill a tree to save his/her life; an intelligent path to this problem proves to support the other view. People’s lives are worth cutting trees because the benefit a human can bring to the world around is greater than that of a tree, humans are social beings and they have someone they need to support, because humans may save a lot more trees than were cut to save their lives.

Environmentalists who argue against cutting trees for the benefit of humanity have talked about the need to preserve the environment. Each year more and more trees are cut down to satisfy the needs of the market economy and humans that wish to live in luxury and abundance. For instance, one of the reasons millions of trees are cut on a daily basis is people’s need of lumber to build houses. Buildings need to be built and only wood can be used for this. At the same time, lots of people overuse lumber for furniture and other types of objects to decorate houses. This happens, for example, when they tend to change their wooden furniture every couple of years or so. As a matter of fact, people that live in Highland Park, like to have their furniture replaced every two years. Sadly, they buy only wooden furniture that is made of the best timber found in the United States.

Another important argument against killing trees for the people’s benefit is many species are endangered and risk disappearing in a decade or more. For example, some states of the United States have launched a campaign against cutting the Pacific yew trees for the benefit of cancer treatment. According to Sally Christensen, they are concerned that the Pacific yew as a species may be decimated by the demand for taxol. Similarly, in Montana, the Save the Yaak Committee has protested the Kootenai National Forest's intention to harvest yew trees and make them available for experimental use, as Christensen, the author of Is A Tree Worth a Life? Said.

Environmentalists worry about the fact the Pacific yew trees are a habitat for certain species that are likely to suffer from their homes being cut down. As Christensen says the yew may be prime habitat for spotted owls. This and passed arguments are all a weapon to persuade people that no tree should be killed for the need of humanity. This is outstanding evidence in Tinsdale’s article, where the author opposes the view that trees may be cut in order to save human lives. At the same time, there can be found solid arguments that prove that in certain cases killing trees for human benefit is highly justified.

Cutting down a tree to save a life of a human is justified by the fact that the benefit can bring to the world a change in humanity. Sally Chritensen, who had been ill with ovarian cancer, was herself saved thanks to trees. She says humans can produce extraordinary drugs from certain trees, which are extremely effective in cancer treatment. “It takes about three 100-year-old Pacific yew trees, or roughly 60 pounds of bark, to produce enough taxol to treat one patient”. Taxol appears to be extremely useful when one needs to cure ovarian cancer and conventional medicine does not deal with it. This medication has saved a number of human lives. A person that has been saved like this can bring a lot of good to the people around and to the world that one lives in. For example, Christensen who was cured of cancer is sharing her experience of taking a new drug and this may help other people struggle with this deadly disease.

Humans are social beings and being saved thanks to trees they can bring a lot of benefit to other people. Specifically, people won’t have to leave their children orphaned or families broken. For example, Christensen who

...