Rainforests turned into smoldering ruins

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Damod

As you so glibly assure me - it is alright to tear down the rain forest because the trees will just grow around whatever you build there!

At one time, Alaska was a rain forest. This is evidenced by the presence of oil. Now Alaska is a frozen desert and the rain forest is located in Brazil. So which state is the "right" state of being for each of these two areas. Are we supposed to be working to preserve Alaska as a frozen desert or to bring it back to its rain forest state?

At one time, the Carolinian Forest of North America was a unique place. Then it was logged to create wealth. Wealth that allowed you to build a house and live in relative comfort and with good health. Now you would deny others the right to exploit their natural resources to build the same lifestyle for themselves. But its ok because you are willing to recycle and plant trees?

As for preservation of species. Nature has a pretty good handle on that. For every species that goes extinct, another takes its place. Someday man will also go extinct. And that is how it should be.

Perhaps - just because you are so interested in species preservation - we should consider bringing back smallpox and polio???

As for preserving the rain forest for our use - like exploring to see if we can find pharmaceuticals that we can make a profit from? Isn't it just a little selfish to want to deny others the right to exploit their natural resources for their own benefit - just so we can exploit them for ours.

Are you really suggesting that others should live in grinding poverty just so that you can preserve the option to exploit their resources in the future?

How big of you!

Tired of Control Freaks

Lol first of all, a pine forest takes what 20 years to grow back (enough to matter) by planting trees and reseeding?

The rain forest will take what 4000 years? That will only be a small fraction of the natural species though. The rest will be extinct....

So what your saying is humans causing creatures and plants to extinct is a "natural process"????

WHAT!?!

The products from cutting down the rain forests do not go to the locals. It goes to you and me, but obviously all you care about is yourself so you have no problem with this. I'm sure the byproduct (crops being planted) will not go to the locals either. No, I'm sure they will end up like current African slave farms that produce for European nations while they starve to death.

(go ahead look it up.)

But who cares? They really aren't real people anyway. They would need a fancy cell phone and an internet connection to be a real person... oh, i forgot a dead end job too...

The locals however have been using the natural resources produced by the rainforests for centuries. Fruits are everywhere, food is plentiful but then again you don't care that the indigenous tribes are being made extinct as well. (not converted, but killed) They aren't people anyhow...

There is a difference between living in poverty and living off the land. You're right though. They have no food in South America.. and are incapable of using the natural resources...








THEY MUST BE STARVING!! THAT FRUIT DOESN'T GROW ON TREES YOU KNOW!

----------------------------------

Ok that smallpox and polio thing made me rofl. A deadly virus is different than a amazonian dolphin or the thousands of frog species. Putting them together is a very futile effort on your part and really disappointing. I really expected you to do better than this..

I have to quote this hilarity directly.

As for preserving the rain forest for our use - like exploring to see if we can find pharmaceuticals that we can make a profit from? Isn't it just a little selfish to want to deny others the right to exploit their natural resources for their own benefit - just so we can exploit them for ours.

Wouldn't a cure for cancer be something that everyone can use? Except for those [insert prejudice name here] in the rain forests right?

As I said previously the natural resources from the rain forests are their primary source of food... So basically you are promoting them starving to death. Who cares about the locals anyway right?

(They aren't wasteful importers like us...)

Are you really suggesting that others should live in grinding poverty just so that you can preserve the option to exploit their resources in the future?

The purpose for cutting down the rain forests is to supply people like me with natural exploitation via commercialism. This is happening right now, therefore that statement is not only irrelevant but idiotic...

The locals on the other hand will miss their mango fix... or any fix for that matter...

Edit:-----------------------------

One last thing. You think these little guys deserve to die?
















Edit again because you are making this too easy:

At one time, Alaska was a rain forest. This is evidenced by the presence of oil. Now Alaska is a frozen desert and the rain forest is located in Brazil. So which state is the "right" state of being for each of these two areas. Are we supposed to be working to preserve Alaska as a frozen desert or to bring it back to its rain forest state?

At one time, the Carolinian Forest of North America was a unique place. Then it was logged to create wealth. Wealth that allowed you to build a house and live in relative comfort and with good health. Now you would deny others the right to exploit their natural resources to build the same lifestyle for themselves. But its ok because you are willing to recycle and plant trees?

1. You've obviously never been to Alaska.

2. If you remember correctly the "Carolinian Forest" never belonged to us in the first place. We cut it down and killed its rightful owners. Also in the name of progress.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by DaMod]

Damod

You are merely twisting every word I said. The amazon forest belongs to the people of Brazil. To be used as they see fit. If they wish to preserve it in order to live off the land....so be it. If they choose to cut down and sell parts of it...so be it. The Amazon rain forest does not belong to the world. It belongs to the people of Brazil (for the most part)

Whether the Carolinian forest belonged to the Natives or to us is irrelevant. There is absolutely no doubt that we exploited it to create wealth.

As for fecundity - whereever did you get the idea that you can grow an old growth Carolinian forest in only 20 years? The Carolinian forest was destroyed (mostly) within the last 200 years and it ain't back yet.

The Amazon forest on the other hand - the soil is so fertile that even when the forest is clear cut for agricultural land, the field quickly becomes overgrown.

As to species extinction - do you really really believe that man is fit to decide what species survives and which doesn't? Does a polar bear have a superior right to existance than the bacteria that cause small pox and polio? On what grounds do you make this claim? Either you believe in species survival or you don't! Or is what you believe is that you are some kind of god to decide what species deserves to live or not?

Get over yourself! Cap and Trade is all about developed countries who have exploited their resources paying under-developed countries to preserve their resources. The cost is said to be somewhere in the range of 15 to 45 Trillion. And do you imagine that as the money travels from those who must pay to those who must benefit, that it will not stick to every hand it encounters on the way - until at the end of the line - the poor will always be starving, the rich will get richer and the natural resources will still be exploited.

How about if you pay attention to the natural resources in your own country. Volunteer to lower your standard of living in order to preserve something right here. Destroy your home and return your property to nature, then live off the land. Then I will believe you have a moral right to decide that its ok for others to live that way.

Tired of Control Freaks.

It's important to note that huge chunks of land in alaska still are rainforests.
Not tropical, monkeys-and-colorful-frogs rainforests, but rainforests nonetheless...

Just like parts are desert, just not sand-and-cacti desert...

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Its a bit more complicated that than. The rain forrest is the place where they are currently finding some of the most promising and natural compounds that can be used in drug development. We should all be concerned about its destruction.

You are 100% right in the simple fact that we have no right to stop these countries from modernizaiton. Here is the problem. Do a bit of research on the terms and conditions that the UN, IMF and World Bank place on loans to support agricultural infrastructure. They are prohibited from creating a farming industry like the one we have in the US. They are clearing the forrest to create "family farms", not to create an agri-business economy, despite that creating massive, corporate run farms are significantly more efficient. The do-gooders in the UN want to facilitate the existance of a community farming culture. That requires these countrys to clear tremendous amounts of forrest they otherwise would not have to clear

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Damod

You are merely twisting every word I said. The amazon forest belongs to the people of Brazil. To be used as they see fit. If they wish to preserve it in order to live off the land....so be it. If they choose to cut down and sell parts of it...so be it. The Amazon rain forest does not belong to the world. It belongs to the people of Brazil (for the most part)

Whether the Carolinian forest belonged to the Natives or to us is irrelevant. There is absolutely no doubt that we exploited it to create wealth.

As for fecundity - whereever did you get the idea that you can grow an old growth Carolinian forest in only 20 years? The Carolinian forest was destroyed (mostly) within the last 200 years and it ain't back yet.

The Amazon forest on the other hand - the soil is so fertile that even when the forest is clear cut for agricultural land, the field quickly becomes overgrown.

As to species extinction - do you really really believe that man is fit to decide what species survives and which doesn't? Does a polar bear have a superior right to existance than the bacteria that cause small pox and polio? On what grounds do you make this claim? Either you believe in species survival or you don't! Or is what you believe is that you are some kind of god to decide what species deserves to live or not?

Get over yourself! Cap and Trade is all about developed countries who have exploited their resources paying under-developed countries to preserve their resources. The cost is said to be somewhere in the range of 15 to 45 Trillion. And do you imagine that as the money travels from those who must pay to those who must benefit, that it will not stick to every hand it encounters on the way - until at the end of the line - the poor will always be starving, the rich will get richer and the natural resources will still be exploited.

How about if you pay attention to the natural resources in your own country. Volunteer to lower your standard of living in order to preserve something right here. Destroy your home and return your property to nature, then live off the land. Then I will believe you have a moral right to decide that its ok for others to live that way.

Tired of Control Freaks.

Wow, you still don't get it do you? The rain forests belong to no one. They existed long before our monkey selves did. Plus you seem to act like Brazil is a 3rd world country.....

Brazil has a federal economy . Measured nominally, its gross domestic product surpasses a trillion dollars, the tenth in the world and the second in the Americas; measured by purchasing power parity, $1.9 trillion, making it the ninth largest economy in the world and the second largest in the Americas, after the United States.[10] In Reais (Brazilian currency), its GDP is estimated at R$ 2.9 trillion reais in 2008.

You throw around words like 'Exploit' as if it doesn't matter if natural resources are destroyed. You act like it doesn't matter that there are other living beings on this planet.

You know, this planet is not here for us to A#@ F*#%. Sure, it isn't my right to decided what species go extinct or not, but it isn't theirs either.

As to species extinction - do you really really believe that man is fit to decide what species survives and which doesn't?

You use that as your argument yet you condone man made destruction of species. Therefore you are saying the exact opposite thing. By cutting down the rain forests we are deciding that 1/2 of the earths species need to go extinct. 1/2.

Basically what you are saying is they have no right to decide what species live and die, yet they have the right to drive them to extinction? Kind of hypocritical don't you think>

--------------------------------

Viruses aren't living things btw. They are radical proteins and have no cell, nor nucleus, nor anything but violent proteins.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by DaMod]

Dolphinfan

You got my point right off the bat!!!

The fact is that man - like every other species on the planet-exploits natural resources for survival. And perhaps those who have the most invested in a natural resource are those best able to make decisions on how it will be used. Those most invested in a resource are those that are most affected. In short, those people who are trying to live there and who know the most about it!

Trust me - if the pharmaceutical companies ever find some plant in the rain forest from which they can make a beneficial drug - they will clear cut it to the ground to make room for plantations of the required plant. And you can bet that the people displaced by this activity will benefit the least from this activity. This argument is only used in an attempt to gain concensus by appealing to everyone's self-interest.

I am now and have worked in the environmental field for decades. Whenever emotion comes into place - rational management of natural resources goes out the window!

Species extinction happens every single day - has always happened and will always happen. That is the earth's natural cycle. Most species in danger of extinction are viruses, bacteria and insects. And before you dismiss this - remember - an extinct bacteria will be replaced by another type of bacteria and the second type may cause deadly diseases in man.

In the meantime - the sovereinty of the host country and rights of indigenous people to not only survive but to thrive - must always be respected.

We have no right to demand that Brazil preserve the rainforest for the benefit of the world until the people of Brazil have a lifestyle that is equal to our own in terms of shelter, food, health and community. This would include a stable energy supply and clean water.

Now we can either pony up the cash and build such a society for them but like welfare this is unlikely to have any long term positive effect and is most likely to be beyond our means. The most effective means of achieving this goal and preserving the rain forest is to allow the people of Brazil to develop their natural resources and profit by their endeavours, just like we did!

To do less is self-centered hypocrisy at its finest! Not to mention genocide!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


You're right, these people must be miserable. No fun at all living in Brazil.





How could anyone live in such primitive conditions!?!?!?

Plus their methods of transportation! Appalling really... Can anyone say stone age?



Those alloy wheels must be from at least the 18th century...

The deliberate destruction of habitat by humanity therefore causing the extinction of species is not the natural process that has been going on for millions of years. You said you worked in the environmental field. I am shocked that you put these things together!

You also stated that "mother nature" has a way of cleaning up messes. Sure she can clean up messes but this is far beyond an accident on the carpet. We are rigging the house with c4....

[edit on 9-12-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by calstorm


You hit the nail on the head.

They feed us a bunch of garbage about global warming and want us to spend a fortune to correct the mess they made when a 5th grader can tell them the solution to the problems is to stop destroying the trees on the planet and to replant the ones that they removed.

We don't need warehouse sized homes to house 2 or 3 people and it should be outlawed for a developer to mass clear for construction.

Heck. The children may have it right. Maybe we should be building tree-houses.

reply to post by SpiritoftheNightSky

They feed us a bunch of garbage about global warming and want us to spend a fortune to correct the mess they made when a 5th grader can tell them the solution to the problems is to stop destroying the trees on the planet and to replant the ones that they removed.

You have that right SpiritoftheNightSky, just ask my granddaughter who is in the second grade and knows all about this, she will be nine next month, sad that there is this kind of burden on our children, on the other hand they will be the ones to make changes, hope it's not to late.

reply to post by SpiritoftheNightSky


Not such a bad idea is it?

Damod

Now you are just being foolish. Even the poorest countries in the world have modern cities where people live quite comfortably!

The AVERAGE yearly income in Brazil is only $15 or 16 thousand. That is the average - many have no income at ALL! In Brazil - police shoot abandoned children like rats in an alleyway. Children that were abandoned because their families could no longer feed them!

Further -what makes you think that man has not been destroying habitat for eons. Do you think those fires caveman used to cook their food never got out of control? Do you think the great wall of china didn't interfere with the travels of animal herds?

How does nature recover from devestating earthquates, floods, volanic explosions (far more destructive than man!)

That is the beauty of nature. Most people have this idealized vision of the environment. Its supposed to be clean (ie no mud, no evil smelling swamp gases, no slimy algae) and groomed to within an inch of its life! That is NOT nature. That is landscaping.

Nature is chaotic, unplanned, overgrown, muddy, slimy, evil-smelling etc etc. And if you try to destroy it - as you claim man has done - you no sooner finish destroying one thing and something comes along to fill in the niche. Nature is in constant flux with species constantly competing. Some species declining and others flourishing.

Do not think for an instant that man can destroy nature. Abandon your city and watch it get buried and isolated as has happened to many many cultures before ours. We can change it locally, we can divert it, we can challenge it in a weak fashion but trust me - we CANNOT destroy it!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Damod

Now you are just being foolish. Even the poorest countries in the world have modern cities where people live quite comfortably!

The AVERAGE yearly income in Brazil is only $15 or 16 thousand. That is the average - many have no income at ALL! In Brazil - police shoot abandoned children like rats in an alleyway. Children that were abandoned because their families could no longer feed them!

Further -what makes you think that man has not been destroying habitat for eons. Do you think those fires caveman used to cook their food never got out of control? Do you think the great wall of china didn't interfere with the travels of animal herds?

How does nature recover from devestating earthquates, floods, volanic explosions (far more destructive than man!)

That is the beauty of nature. Most people have this idealized vision of the environment. Its supposed to be clean (ie no mud, no evil smelling swamp gases, no slimy algae) and groomed to within an inch of its life! That is NOT nature. That is landscaping.

Nature is chaotic, unplanned, overgrown, muddy, slimy, evil-smelling etc etc. And if you try to destroy it - as you claim man has done - you no sooner finish destroying one thing and something comes along to fill in the niche. Nature is in constant flux with species constantly competing. Some species declining and others flourishing.

Do not think for an instant that man can destroy nature. Abandon your city and watch it get buried and isolated as has happened to many many cultures before ours. We can change it locally, we can divert it, we can challenge it in a weak fashion but trust me - we CANNOT destroy it!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Well you have to account for the Income:Cost of living ratio, but we won't go into that. Mankind has been destroying the environment for a long time. In order for the industrial age to have even taken place we needed to destroy environment. For eons it was necessary in order to provide energy and resources.

Technology has come a long way since then. I know there are kids starving in the streets in Brazil. I know there are parents that can't feed their families. We have that same situation (except for the children being killed thing) in the USA in many areas. Poverty follows society no matter what country you live in..

I watched an episode on the discovery channel a while back about the people living in the jungle (which is being cut down and destroyed) who daily live off the land and eat very well. They fish, they gather natural plants and resources that are abundant. In fact, as I was watching this I realized that these people eat better than I do..

Later on they took a trip to the market in one of the cities via canoe. Their boat was filled with all sorts of goodies, but I was checking out the fresh fish the most. This market was massive and plump to the brim with produce straight from the jungle. You cant get much more organic / fresh than that.

Exporting said produce would be a big boost. While build agriculture when it is growing wild all around you? We are cutting down the rain forests for wood pulp, designer cabinets, and paper products. Plain and simple. Oak or pine makes for some beautiful cabinets. Other, more common trees provide lumber. And do we really need paper? If we do how bout make it from bananas or hemp?

There are alternatives to the products we receive from deforestation of important habitats. We have the means to change this "destruction" like never before.

What about the Brazilians? Don't you think they will miss their jungle? What about the people that live off of the amazon? Their home will be destroyed along with everything else. What about the indigenous tribes still remaining? You know there is still tribes that have never come in contact with the rest of humanity.. What about them?

Damod

You are making my point!

Let local people decide how resources will be used.

Of course there are people living in the rain forest. Living off the land and eating well! There are indiginous people everywhere (including Canada)

But that doesn't give them clean water. It doesn't support a very long life. Are these people to be condemned to death by disease, to living in huts. For what - so that they can provide a photo op for the tourists?

And that doesn't help the children being shot in alleys or their parents who were so poor and desperate that they abandoned their children, now does it. Living off the land is not all that effecient a use of resources when you consider the entire population.

Until people like you put aside emotion and understand that economic well being is an integral part of the environment - then you will accomplish NOTHING!

Imagine if you will, a small town in the USA. Most of the population works at the local cotton mill (or whatever). Others grow the cotton. Along comes someone like yourself who determines that growing cotton depletes the soil. The required pesticides and fertilizers pollute the river. The operation of the cotton mill discharge pollutants to the air.

So you decide that the only way to preserve the environment is to close the mill and throw everyone out of work. Now the people are hungry, children are sick. There are many homeless.

UNACCEPTABLE

A less emotional person would accept that economic well being is as important as preserving the soil, land and water. Regulatory schemes would be developed to decrease the use of pesticides and control how they are used so that the maximum benefit is accomplished with the least amount of pollution. Best management farming practices would be implemented. Technology would allow for the use of pollution control devices to protect the air.

This is not to say that the environment would be as it once was before man arrived. But certainly there is room for fish, fowl and man to be in the same place all at once!

I am just saying that the rain forest is exactly the same thing to the Brazilians. And, living in your house, in an environment that you have exploited to your economic benefit - then it is NOT your place to condemn others to a hand to mount sub-existence so that you can satisfy your ideal of what nature should be.

Tired of Control Freaks

Damod

Excuse me - I just caught what you said about exporting produce that grows naturally in the jungle. LOL - how do you imagine that enough produce will be picked and moved to the world markets before it rots???

Are you imagining that there really is a Juan Valdez who picks each and every bean by hand to supply the worlds coffee demand?

In order to produce enough for export - you must be able to pick the produce by machine. And machines don't function all that well in the rain forest. Those trees keep getting in the way.

Tired of Control Freaks.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I do agree with you on one thing. If man abandoned his cities they would indeed flourish and return to their natural state with time, if not too much of the original foundation was removed or damaged.

If you think of a drought-ridden planet devoid of vegetation and mutated life forms as an acceptable habitat then again I will have to say you are right.

I, in my humble opinion view those that destroy what they can’t create as the control freaks and would prefer a world that is symbiotic to one that is parasitic.