Amazon may become greenhouse gas emitter

• Akemii wrote on 2012-01-24 21:52
  Welp, Brazil isn't a thirld world country the last time I checked so I'm gooooooood.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-24 21:53

  Quote from Jana;747376:

  So genocide is your answer?

  
  
  Seeing as you chose to deliberately ignore the first part of that sentence, I'll say it again; yes, if relocation is not a possible option.
  
  The lives of a few will mean nothing compared to the loss of the various living species that inhabit our planet, including us. Don't pretend that you would give up your own life in exchange for theirs, since I doubt you or really anyone else would.
  People are always quick to pretend to be heroes in these kinds of situations.. up until it actually happens.
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-01-24 21:59

  Quote from Jana;747376:

  So genocide is your answer?

  
  
  Genocide is the only answer. Impact is the deciding factor.
  
  No one cares enough about the Amazon for this to be an important issue to the public eye. Thus if any action is taken (meaning that this situation suddenly develops into something far more dire), it will likely be too late.
  
  Our planet is pretty good at recovering from the mistakes made by men. I question how well Humanity would recover from those same mistakes.
• Jana wrote on 2012-01-24 22:04
  I don't know if you realize the severity of what you're saying. So if we can't uproot the near 200 million people that live near the Amazon rain forest in multiple Central and South American countries (which, let's face it, is impossible to do), you would kill them all instead? Sounds like you're advocating genocide to me. Not to mention that no group of people would ever so kindly move themselves or let themselves be killed off; the US would certainly have to fight a war on multiple fronts if it were to try something like this. That is how Native Americans were relocated, after all: After a long and bloody war.
  
  I understand that the needs of the many may supersede the needs of the few, but killing off a significant portion of the world population because there isn't an easy solution to this issue is not the same thing at all.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-25 03:00
  **SATIRE ALERT: DON'T READ IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED**
  
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]All those in favor of genocide should be the first ones to die. That way, your deaths would open up room in the US for those in third world (who probably don't favor genocide) to move to. It's a win-win situation! The ones who are culled will die happy knowing that they saved the planet, and those who didn't die would get a boost to their standard of living by being able to move out of the third world countries![/SPOILER]
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-25 03:08
  At this point in time it's no use crying over spilled milk; what counts is finding the quickest, easiest and most importantly, most effective solution before it's too late.
  
  If they refuse relocation, is it really our fault for having to use drastic measures? They would die either way, be it by our hands or by the earth killing off basically every living species.
  
  Genocide or not; it doesn't matter. Our (and other) species as a whole is much more important than a smaller group of them. That goes without saying.
  I would like to avoid it if at all possible, but if need-be, I'm completely content with sacrificing them (as humanely as possible) for the greater good.
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-01-25 03:09

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;747640:

  **SATIRE ALERT: DON'T READ IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED**
  
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]All those in favor of genocide should be the first ones to die. That way, your deaths would open up room in the US for those in third world (who probably don't favor genocide) to move to. It's a win-win situation! The ones who are culled will die happy knowing that they saved the planet, and those who didn't die would get a boost to their standard of living by being able to move out of the third world countries![/SPOILER]

  
  
  As previously noted, nobody pays attention to the Amazon. It's too far outside the scope of most people's lives. The problem is that this situation won't see any publicity until it's potentially too late.
  
  In that case, it's likely going to end in some sort of genocide.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-25 03:14

  Quote from Cynic;747646:

  At this point in time it's no use crying over spilled milk; what counts is finding the quickest, easiest and most importantly, most effective solution before it's too late.
  
  If they refuse relocation, is it really our fault for having to use drastic measures? They would die either way, be it by our hands or by the earth killing off basically every living species.
  
  Genocide or not; it doesn't matter. Our (and other) species as a whole is much more important than a smaller group of them. That goes without saying.
  I would like to avoid it if at all possible, but if need-be, I'm completely content with sacrificing them (as humanely as possible) for the greater good.

  
  
  Right! We must preserve the master race and cull the inferior third world scum! ALL HAIL THE FUHRER!!
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]

  [Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/Hitlermusso2_edit.jpg/379px-Hitlermusso2_edit.jpg]

  [/SPOILER]
  
  So would you be content to sacrifice yourself "for the greater good"? If not, then you have no right to advocate the killing of people in the third world.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-25 03:14
  Also note that the ocean is the earth's major carbon sink, not the Amazon
  
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-01-25 03:24

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;747655:

  Right! We must preserve the master race and cull the inferior third world scum! ALL HAIL THE FUHRER!!
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]

  [Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/Hitlermusso2_edit.jpg/379px-Hitlermusso2_edit.jpg]

  [/SPOILER]
  
  So would you be content to sacrifice yourself "for the greater good"? If not, then you have no right to advocate the killing of people in the third world.

  
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-25 03:36

  Quote from Kaeporo;747667:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

  
  
  Interesting that you figured out my really subtle reference to Nazi Germany, but that still doesn't answer the question of whether or not genocide is acceptable in this situation.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-25 03:36
  Nope, I wouldn't willingly sacrifice myself. Would you?
  
  The greater good = The rest (and majority) of humanity, plants, animals, etc., by the way. Which also includes you.
  
  If that makes me a Hitler, then lololol. Some warped logic you got there, my friend.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-25 03:37

  Quote from Cynic;747680:

  Nope, I wouldn't willingly sacrifice myself. Would you?
  
  The greater good = The rest (and majority) of humanity, plants, animals, etc., by the way. Which also includes you.
  
  If that makes me a Hitler, then lololol. Some warped logic you got there, my friend.

  
  
  So then why is it okay to kill people in the third world?
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-25 03:38

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;747682:

  So then why is it okay to kill people in the third world?

  
  
  If the reason isn't obvious, then I'm not too sure why you're even apart of this debate due to your sheer ignorance.
• TA wrote on 2012-01-25 03:45
  Sparta........... You utter so much nonsense that I can barely even respond to you....
  
  See here for information about the Amazon. And here for more information on the situation.
  
  If the rain forests go, we (and every other animal) go extinct. It's really that simple. Even if we cut all polution entirely, it wouldn't be good enough. We wouldn't be able to get rid of carbon dioxide fast enough.
  
  And it has nothing to do with who is there. It's their geographical location and expansion that is the problem. They need to cease their expansion and deforestation immediately, and we need to start taking great efforts both to restore the rain forest (which is largely impossible at this point), and also make big efforts to cut down on emissions elsewhere in the world as well.
  
  I don't know how it's hard to comprehend. Their expansion and deforestation will lead to the extinction of every form of oxygen breathing life on the planet... and we're suddenly the bad guys for thinking they should stop?
  
  If they have such an overpopulation problem, just maybe it would behoove them to put in place birth restrictions. Put in place a reduced birth rate. Regulate it. Allow only a long-term sustainable birth rate.
  
  There really is no other option. They stop or we all die. There are a lot of various ways that they could stop, and I don't really care what method is used as long as they do in fact stop.
  
  I would, you know... prefer everything on the planet not go extinct.
  
  ...just some common sense here.
  :mad: