Amazon may become greenhouse gas emitter

• TA wrote on 2012-01-24 03:09

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;746319:

  Why shouldn't they be allowed to industrialize and better their lives and economies? Where are we going to relocate them to?

  
  
  Did you even read the article? Let me spell it out for you...
  
  Rain forest good.
  Carbon dioxide bad.
  
  If the Amazon Rainforest dies every living thing on Earth will also die.
  
  The Amazon Rainforest controls the Earth's climate.
  The Amazon Rainforest gives us 20% of the oxygen we breath.
  The Amazon Rainforest gives us 60% of all fresh water on Earth.
  
  If we let the Amazon Rainforest die we also die. Extinction. No more human. Goodbye. Get it?
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-01-24 03:17

  Quote from Sleeperdial;746279:

  Who else thought this was going to be about Amazon.com?

  
  
  I did.
• Xemnas wrote on 2012-01-24 04:08

  Quote from TA;746309:

  There was actually a good bit about this in the bonus disc for Avatar.

  
  
  Sadly this is what I thought of when I read the topic.
• Elena wrote on 2012-01-24 04:31
  I feel bad for thinking of the website first.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-24 06:11

  Quote from TA;746340:

  Did you even read the article? Let me spell it out for you...
  
  Rain forest good.
  Carbon dioxide bad.
  
  If the Amazon Rainforest dies every living thing on Earth will also die.
  
  The Amazon Rainforest controls the Earth's climate.
  The Amazon Rainforest gives us 20% of the oxygen we breath.
  The Amazon Rainforest gives us 60% of all fresh water on Earth.
  
  If we let the Amazon Rainforest die we also die. Extinction. No more human. Goodbye. Get it?

  
  
  I get that, but what are we going to do about all the poor people in third world countries whose livelihood depend on harvesting wood and clearing forests for farming?
  
  http://mises.org/daily/5586
• TA wrote on 2012-01-24 06:22

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;746628:

  I get that, but what are we going to do about all the poor people in third world countries whose livelihood depend on harvesting wood and clearing forests for farming?
  
  http://mises.org/daily/5586

  
  
  Kill them? I don't give a ****. Either all life on our planet dies, or a small group of people are inconvenienced. Real tough decision there.
  
  It's not like they can't be relocated.
  
  Just look at the Native Americans. We moved them, didn't we?
  
  Now they own casinos and smoke shops. Worked out pretty well for them.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-24 06:36
  Ugh I can't stand these discussions. Its like the whole "do you save a rabbit from a wolf" dilemma. One of the hardest problems for me to have faced in my life.
  
  Tiffany is right though... As a developed nation we're really the carnivores and the 3rd world countries are the meat. Either we can all suffer or a select group of individuals suffer for the sake of others.
  
  I don't know if we could ever distribute the world's wealth properly and evenly without demolishing our currently convenient lifestyle, but if there was a way, it would never happen because it would still require significant sacrifice and change that no one will be willing.
  
  But to force them to move or kill them... the humanitarian in me wouldn't allow it. But there's at least gotta be a way to save the amazon without wrecking the people who live nearby it. Hope they come to something soon.
• Jana wrote on 2012-01-24 09:32

  Quote from TA;746648:

  Just look at the Native Americans. We moved them, didn't we?
  
  Now they own casinos and smoke shops. Worked out pretty well for them.

  
  
  You should reconsider your words. Carefully.
• Hiccup wrote on 2012-01-24 09:44
  End of ze world 2012!
• Chillax wrote on 2012-01-24 10:05
  The Amazon is important, but it's overrated. The Amazon may be the largest rainforest, but the highest proportion of rainforests are in Africa. People are saying, "Why don't you plant the trees back?" The problem isn't planting the trees back, it's that once you **** up the ecosystem there, it's pretty much gone for at least decades. The ecological balance is incredibly fragile, and once you remove a part of that ecosystem, you get rid of the animals that live there. Once you try to restore that habitat after that, your attempts usually end up failing because the balance has already been lost.
  
  TA, your comments are pretty narrow-minded, and you should probably re-evaluate what you're saying. It's like saying, "If all the terrorists are in Afghanistan, why don't we just nuke them all so we solve the problem?"
• TA wrote on 2012-01-24 10:08

  Quote from Jana;747016:

  You should reconsider your words. Carefully.

  
  
  I take it you don't do well with sarcasm, do you?
  
  I know full well what we did.
  
  Digress to the first three sentences. That's all that is relevant. A small group of people are inconvenienced or we all die. Not a hard choice. I'd go in and slaughter every single one of them, even strangle infants with their umbilical cords, if it meant the survival of our species and every other oxygen breathing creature on our planet.
  
  Morality and ethics only go so far. When it comes down to survival or extinction, **** them. They can pack up and move. So their lives will be rough for a couple of years, big deal. It's not like their lives aren't already rough - look at the region they're in.
  
  The deforestation of the Amazon has to stop, one way or another. It has to.
• Jana wrote on 2012-01-24 10:21
  Even if I had seen that it was sarcasm, I think the comment was made in rather bad taste. But that's not really relevant to the topic at hand.
  
  I have a lot of family in Brazil. Even if they don't live near the rain forests, I know how delicate this issue is over there, and the overcrowding problem is veeeery bad. It's never so simple as just stopping expansion and letting people kill themselves off; the country has been trying very hard to get itself together as a first world country. However, I feel like the average Brazilian citizen (read: someone of average income/education level, not a favela dweller with no choice in the matter) would know how important the rain forest is too.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-24 12:58
  TA is right, though. I'm typically against the whole 'small sacrifice for the bigger picture' thing, but in this case, there isn't very much else we can do. If at all possible, it is best to save as many people as we can, but I personally would much rather sacrifice them than my Mom, animals and myself.
  
  So if relocating them isn't an option, why not just put them all to sleep? That seems ethic enough.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-01-24 13:28
  ecosystems take too long to bring back
  governments won't wait for that kind of stuff
• Jana wrote on 2012-01-24 21:48

  Quote from Cynic;747213:

  So if relocating them isn't an option, why not just put them all to sleep? That seems ethic enough.

  
  
  So genocide is your answer?