OK...Here it goes- Please pay close attention as this will get a tad complicated.
Given the choice I believe Mother Nature would vote for a conservative (most times that reads republican but some dems qualify also) I use the following reasons to reach this conclusion.
1) Survival of the fittest and to each his own. Mother natures way of telling some folks they were destined to be culled from the herd. One of the main tenets of the conservative movement is that individual freedom is paramount and that each one of us knows best how to lead our lives. I trust you to spend your money wisely and be charitable when you can. Republicans generally believe this as well. Al gore doesn't think you can be trusted to spend your own money properly. Al gore would prefer to take YOUR money from you, skim 50 or 60 percent and then give it to a charity that you may not agree with. Al Gore doesn't think you can be trusted with even a teeny amount of your own social security dollars. Tax cuts (returning that portion of YOUR money to you that the gov't won't spend without new programs) are described as risky schemes and unaffordable. I ask for whom? Part two (or one) is survival of the fittest. Conservatives believe that competition breeds the finest products and people. In nature and in business the strong survive. Look at microsoft. A man with a vision (a good idea) tried for the short term gain by marketing his new idea to a large corporation (they control everything remember). They said no and he went out on his own. Bill Gates could now buy IBM and have enough dough left to keep hanging out with Warren Buffett. He has personally created enough wealth to cover his karma for thousands of years. Hopefully you get the point here. And don't come back with the emotional crud about the less fortunate as charitable giving doubled during the eighties because tax RATES were cut and people gave to the causes THEY thought deserved the money with their newfound disposable cash.
2) The Profit Motive. Nature benefits from the profit motive. There is not an excess of rabbits in nature because the predators of the rabbit profit (eat) by being able to run faster or be smarter. Conservatives believe that the personal profit motive is the driving factor in much of our discourse and that it is a positive influence. The profit motive got me to clean up the environment and win a prestigious award from the gov. of WA. My company also was fortunate in that we saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in wastewater treatment costs. The profit motive led to a cleaner environment. If we told Weyerhauser today that they could only log on the land they currently own and 5000 acres of fed land how well do you think they would care for it??? I would venture to guess that those acres would be the most pristine in the country as the survival of the firm would rely TOTALLY upon them. We now farm less than 30% of the land than in the thirties but feed over twice as many people with it. The profit motive has led PRIVATE business to become more efficient and less harmful with limited resources. As I said before, the logger is much like the sportangler as he can pick and choose which trees die. Wildfire, on the other hand, kills everything in its path much like a gillnet. Wildfire without logging and access roads is like a growing gillnet drifting from one river to the next. I think those of you who think we humans actually posess the ability to destroy mother earth are terrifically arrogant and elitist. When the earth has had enough of us it will shake us off like a bad hairpiece and there is nothing we can do about it. (as an aside...regarding greenhouse gasses and "global warming"...since when are massive global temperature changes unique to humans and their hair spray...I don't recall seeing aquanet cans near the pre-iceage mastedon fossils...it is this sort of egotistical attitude toward the earth and its mysteries that irks me)
3) The natural ebb and flow of things. Lots of fish in a river leads to lots of predators. Those predators clean out nearly all of the fish and go elsewhere looking for more productive streams. In their absence the fish population renews itself and the cycle starts over. Thats nature. In life you begin poor. You spend time learning then working. You begin to amass wealth of both knowledge and money. You grow old and senile and lose both while your children begin the cycle anew. You get out of school and qualify for poverty. You get a job and a few promotions and become middle class. You get promoted some more and become wealthy (or better yet, start your own business) and have poor people working for you who are learning the trade to someday take your place. It is the NATURAL cycle of things. The marketplace and life is fluid and people are always moving in and out of different classes. Much like some animals move back and forth from predator to prey. Now mother nature did not make all animals predators for good reason. She also did not make all humans capable of being wildly successful or wealthy. In the same light, she did not make them (or us) all prey. There is a balance (known in eastern cultures as Yin and Yang) passive and aggressive.
I don't think mother nature would blame the rich folk in their expensive sleds with those brand new rods and special country club lures for YOUR bad day of fishing and neither should you.
Yes indeed sir when compared to the ideals of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness I believe that mother nature would have no choice but to be a conservative. This country was not founded on the right to comfort, security, happiness, freedom from being offended, other peoples money or free (to the recipient) prescription drugs but rather the aforementioned LIFE, LIBERTY and the P-U-R-S-U-I-T of happiness and conservatives on the whole plan on preserving those ideals for generations to come.

Hopefully enough said

[This message has been edited by wit45cal (edited 09-08-2000).]