Amazon may become greenhouse gas emitter

• Hazeri wrote on 2012-01-25 03:48
  Some of you are really ****ed up in the head, specially the lady with the red name.
  The United States of America is the largest CO2 producer next to china, and when compared to the rest of the world, they're also a minority, a rather loud and obnoxious one, but still, a minority.
  
  I mean, if we're going to go around murdering minorities FOR THE GREATER GOOD why don't we get rid of the states? What divine right have the statetians over the brazilians? Mass genocide is not a ****ing solution you people.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-01-25 03:50

  Quote from Jana;747392:

  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.

  
  If you're saying 200 million shouldn't die so every single person doesn't die, including them, you're essentially advocating mandatory genocide of nearly 7 billion people.
  
  Just sayin.
  
  Watch this. It might change your opinion, or at least make you question things a little. Not all of it, of course, but up to 15:25. I will say ahead of time that it doesn't say any answer is right or wrong, but it is there to make you question the moral side of things.
  
  I realize you're saying there may be other solutions, and it'd be nice if that was true. Of course we would go with those if given the options.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-25 03:53

  Quote from Hazeri;747693:

  Some of you are really ****ed up in the head, specially the lady with the red name.
  The United States of America is the largest CO2 producer next to china, and when compared to the rest of the world, they're also a minority, a rather loud and obnoxious one, but still, a minority.
  
  I mean, if we're going to go around murdering minorities FOR THE GREATER GOOD why don't we get rid of the states? What divine right have the statetians over the brazilians? Mass genocide is not a ****ing solution you people.

  
  
  Good job at completely ignoring everything TA posted simply because you're too ignorant to consider anything but your own silly 'moral' opinion!
  
  Honestly, I cannot begin to understand why some of you are blatantly ignoring the facts of this situation. Being a bundle of morality is one thing, but you're all just being outright morons.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-25 03:55
  A few things:
  
  1) Would you be happy if the people in the third world countries came to the US, killed everybody, and took up residence in the space that we left behind? Overall, it's the same result whether we kill them or they kill us.
  
  2) As I mentioned before, the oceans are the earth's main carbon sink (50%).
  
  3) The obvious solution to the problem is to allow privatization of the rainforests so that the Tragedy of the Commons doesn't happen so much. Privatization would give incentive to develop more sustainable usages of the forests. (http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1002-amazon.html) I don't agree with everything in this article, but the idea is there.
  
  4) Demand for medicinal plants that grow in the rainforests provide a sustainable way of making a living off of rainforests. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021331.html)
• Chiyuri wrote on 2012-01-25 04:02
  Similar to Cynic's idea, I would say that instead, you post armed people around said amazon to protect what is left.
  Leave Signs "To Walk into this zone is to agree to been killed by the armed force around the area" in a language people around the place can read.
  And of course, if some people want those trees so much they are ready to get killed for it... well, it's up to them to try...
• Jana wrote on 2012-01-25 04:03
  There are so many solutions that are preferable to your genocide idea. Even if you go start a war, the environment there would die off more quickly that way. Have some common sense, killing off a continent of people is never an acceptable choice. But as long as you wish for my whole nationality to be out of the picture, I don't have any reason to be here.
• Hazeri wrote on 2012-01-25 04:04

  Quote from Cynic;747698:

  Good job at completely ignoring everything TA posted simply because you're too ignorant to consider anything but your own silly 'moral' opinion!
  
  Honestly, I cannot begin to understand why some of you are blatantly ignoring the facts of this situation. Being a bundle of morality is one thing, but you're all just being outright morons.

  
  
  Is not only morals, but the fact that she views murdering babies with their own umbilical cords as the best solution what tells me that she in fact, is a dangerous person, who probably needs medication and regular psychiatric visits.
  
  Jumping to arms is not the best, nor the first solution that should come to mind, and no nation has a right to intervene in the progress of another nation in development. I mean, look at the states, and tell me, do you honestly believe you guys have the right to criticize other countries' crazy expansionism?
  
  Yes, the amazon is a critical location for the planet's well being, but nothing, nothing justifies mass murdering. We are a civilized society for ****'s sake.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-01-25 04:06

  Quote from Jana;747705:

  Have some common sense, killing off a continent of people is never an acceptable choice.

  
  Apparently it is when it comes to saving the world, especially if they would've died with everyone else anyway.
  

  But as long as you wish for my whole nationality to be out of the picture, I don't have any reason to be here.

  If Americans were there instead, they would be in the same situation.
  

  Quote from Hazeri;747706:

  Is not only morals, but the fact that she views murdering babies with their own umbilical cords as the best solution what tells me that she in fact, is a dangerous person, who probably needs medication and regular psychiatric visits.

  
  Either you're trolling or you're taking it way too literally. Obviously there are better solutions, but the best solution may involve some killing.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-25 04:11

  Quote from Hazeri;747706:

  Is not only morals, but the fact that she views murdering babies with their own umbilical cords as the best solution what tells me that she in fact, is a dangerous person, who probably needs medication and regular psychiatric visits.
  
  Jumping to arms is not the best, nor the first solution that should come to mind, and no nation has a right to intervene in the progress of another nation in development. I mean, look at the states, and tell me, do you honestly believe you guys have the right to criticize other countries' crazy expansionism?
  
  Yes, the amazon is a critical location for the planet's well being, but nothing, nothing justifies mass murdering. We are a civilized society for ****'s sake.

  
  
  Ye~ah.. I'm sorry to break it to you all..
  
  But by staying there? They'd die either way.
  
  At-least by killing them, we'd be saving 7 billion people + all plants and animals on this earth. It's the lesser of two evils.
  
  If they refuse to move? There is no other option. You can't plant more trees or none of those other useless ideas.
  We all die.
  
  They do move? Possibly some casualties from unwilling folk, but we all live.
  We force them to move/kill them? We all live.
  
  
  At the end of the day, you're going to have to aim the trigger at someone.
  Will you kill 200 million people, or 7 billion + everything else?
  
  The choice is obvious. Don't play pretend and delude yourself into thinking there is another option if they refuse to move.
• TA wrote on 2012-01-25 04:16

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;747699:

  1) Would you be happy if the people in the third world countries came to the US, killed everybody, and took up residence in the space that we left behind? Overall, it's the same result whether we kill them or they kill us.

  
  It's really hard to even take you seriously...
  
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;747699:

  2) As I mentioned before, the oceans are the earth's main carbon sink (50%).

  
  
  Big. ****ing. Deal.
  
  Let me make it real ****ing simple for you, since it's obviously over your head.
  
  Real simple. I'll put it in a way a child could understand:
  
  

  [Image: http://i.minus.com/irwjNy5Bcn8fh.png]
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-01-25 04:16
  I'm just going to leave this here again, embedded this time. This thread as a whole is turning into a mess of morality. Watch until 15:25.
  
  [video=youtube;kBdfcR-8hEY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY[/video]
  
  Hopefully this makes people question some of the things they're saying. Oh, and don't worry, it's an interesting video. I've watched the whole hour and quite a bit of the other parts as well.
• Armi wrote on 2012-01-25 04:16
  How about we start killing americans and those who support industrial pollution.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-01-25 04:19

  Quote from Cynic;747713:

  Ye~ah.. I'm sorry to break it to you all..
  
  But by staying there? They'd die either way.
  
  At-least by killing them, we'd be saving 7 billion people + all plants and animals on this earth. It's the lesser of two evils.

  
  
  What makes you think that removing the rainforest will kill everybody? Over the past 6000-8000 years, the forest content of the planet has been cut by 75%, yet we're not all dying of asphyxiation. (http://www.desmatamento.cnpm.embrapa.br/)
  
  

  Quote from Cynic;747713:

  If they refuse to move? There is no other option. You can't plant more trees or none of those other useless ideas.
  We all die.

  
  
  It is now officially impossible to plant more trees!
  
  

  Quote from Cynic;747713:

  They do move? Possibly some casualties from unwilling folk, but we all live.
  We force them to move/kill them? We all live.
  
  
  At the end of the day, you're going to have to aim the trigger at someone.
  Will you kill 200 million people, or 7 billion + everything else?
  
  The choice is obvious. Don't play pretend and delude yourself into thinking there is another option if they refuse to move.

  
  
  Of course, the other "option" is to kill 200 million Americans (advocates of genocide are the first to go of course!), and let the poor people move into the US. But the much more humane option is to allow privatization of the Amazon so as to provide incentive to make a living off of it sustainably (http://mises.org/daily/5451)
• Hazeri wrote on 2012-01-25 04:21

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;747709:

  Apparently it is when it comes to saving the world, especially if they would've died with everyone else anyway.
  If Americans were there instead, they would be in the same situation.
  
  Either you're trolling or you're taking it way too literally. Obviously there are better solutions, but the best solution may involve some killing.

  
  
  

  Quote from Cynic;747713:

  Ye~ah.. I'm sorry to break it to you all..
  
  But by staying there? They'd die either way.
  
  At-least by killing them, we'd be saving 7 billion people + all plants and animals on this earth. It's the lesser of two evils.
  
  If they refuse to move? There is no other option. You can't plant more trees or none of those other useless ideas.
  We all die.
  
  They do move? Possibly some casualties from unwilling folk, but we all live.
  We force them to move/kill them? We all live.
  
  
  At the end of the day, you're going to have to aim the trigger at someone.
  Will you kill 200 million people, or 7 billion + everything else?
  
  The choice is obvious. Don't play pretend and delude yourself into thinking there is another option if they refuse to move.

  
  Kill, kill, kill. Are you people really that mental?
  I guess it's fair that I explain my aversion to killing, I live in mexico, where mass murdering, dismembering and other unmentionable things happen, So yeah, I've developed an aversion to the idea of murdering and "pulling triggers"
  
  Following your people's logic, why should brazil be erradicated from the map? why not the states? Once again I ask, what divine right to life have the statetians over the people of brazil? I mean, being honest, you guys do more harm than good to this planet that a bunch of people living in the jungle. They're killing one forest, you guys emit so much gas, produce so many toxic waste, **** up oceans, land, air, not to mention your people's unwillingness to do anything about it (Kyoto treatment, anyone? Americans still believing global warming isn't real?) I mean, seriously, you people go around asking for heads when the rest of the world should be asking for yours.
  
  No, no and no. Sorry, I won't be pulling any triggers. You're supposedly one of the most developed nations yet all you can think of is "Nuke them".
• abc33kr wrote on 2012-01-25 04:26
  plant ****load of manchineel trees around amazon rainforest.
  
  problem solved.
  
  no mass genocide required.
  no money required to send troops to protect amazon.
  brilliant idea?