Anti-ecologism & Capitalism In A Nutshell. - Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum
Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum
Go Back   Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum » General Forums » Environmentalism

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-24-2010, 01:11 AM
ZenitYerkes's Avatar
Karyu
ZenitYerkes - Progress means expanding everyone's freedom
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,329
Default Anti-ecologism & Capitalism In A Nutshell.

Two executives on the woods with the Secretary for Environment.

"How much is worth every tree, you say?"

Ten years later...

"The Department for Environment opened today a plan to protect this area..."

Guess where the money came from.

The End.
__________________
I love Plato, but I love Truth more - Aristotle

Last edited by ZenitYerkes; 03-25-2010 at 07:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-24-2010, 01:20 AM
Ateyo's Avatar
Sngiyu
Ateyo is a dream walker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PANDORA
Posts: 58
Default

I cannot guess where the money came from, it can be whatever... madness
the people that lives in that world have to change just now, and we have to do something too, its not enough talk about it in a forum, come on!!
__________________
I See You Ma Brother/Sister
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-24-2010, 10:47 PM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes View Post
"How much is worth every tree, you say?"

Ten years later...

"President opened today a plan to protect this area"

Guess where the money came from.

The End.
I don't get it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-28-2010, 07:35 PM
Lord Duke the Baron
Grif is Grif
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 984
Default

Neither do I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-30-2010, 01:36 AM
Txum_kali'weya's Avatar
Stupid Sky Person...
Txum_kali'weya is a stupid sky person...
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Terra, NA, US, AK, Fairbanks.
Posts: 837
Default

. . ?
__________________
"Sky People do not See, they do not learn" - Neytiri

[Today 11:06 PM] tallbluewanderer: logic must give way to AVATAR

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-30-2010, 08:10 AM
ZenitYerkes's Avatar
Karyu
ZenitYerkes - Progress means expanding everyone's freedom
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,329
Default

See, this is the kind of NVM stuff. I think I so put it in a nutshell I took out the original message.

It's "you take what you want from the environment for money, once the situation is f*cked you spend some of that money in protecting it while keeping your new mansion and yatch."
__________________
I love Plato, but I love Truth more - Aristotle
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-30-2010, 09:34 AM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes View Post
See, this is the kind of NVM stuff. I think I so put it in a nutshell I took out the original message.

It's "you take what you want from the environment for money, once the situation is f*cked you spend some of that money in protecting it while keeping your new mansion and yatch."
Well, I don't believe that's the case at all...

In fact, I think it's a complete myth that the rainforests are "slowly decreasing". The data is consistent with quota reports that about 1-2 trees are planted for every one that's chopped down. There's a relatively large concensus among many ecologists across the world that the rainforests are actually increasing, and when I see all this talk about the rainforests dying out I think, "The experts who actually work in the field and read the reports don't agree..."

Trust me, for a while I thought the environment kept by mankind is destined for the graveyard, but when I read the actual reports and quotes, I was astounded at why environmentalists would still be asserting that the rainforests are being destroyed... It just isn't true.

Last edited by Woodsprite; 03-30-2010 at 09:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-30-2010, 10:24 AM
ZenitYerkes's Avatar
Karyu
ZenitYerkes - Progress means expanding everyone's freedom
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
Well, I don't believe that's the case at all...

In fact, I think it's a complete myth that the rainforests are "slowly decreasing". The data is consistent with quota reports that about 1-2 trees are planted for every one that's chopped down. There's a relatively large concensus among many ecologists across the world that the rainforests are actually increasing, and when I see all this talk about the rainforests dying out I think, "The experts who actually work in the field and read the reports don't agree..."

Trust me, for a while I thought the environment kept by mankind is destined for the graveyard, but when I read the actual reports and quotes, I was astounded at why environmentalists would still be asserting that the rainforests are being destroyed... It just isn't true.
Actually that's just the legal face of the coin. On the other side we've got mafias and corruption that uncontrollably keep cuttting down as many trees as they need for their plans. If everything was just as nice as the information that's given to us, things of the globe would be really different.
__________________
I love Plato, but I love Truth more - Aristotle
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-30-2010, 02:02 PM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes View Post
Actually that's just the legal face of the coin. On the other side we've got mafias and corruption that uncontrollably keep cuttting down as many trees as they need for their plans. If everything was just as nice as the information that's given to us, things of the globe would be really different.
So you're saying that every piece of data and every quota report is corrupted in some form or another?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-30-2010, 04:02 PM
ZenitYerkes's Avatar
Karyu
ZenitYerkes - Progress means expanding everyone's freedom
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,329
Default

Nope, I'm not talking about corrupted information, I talk about corrupted people. What I say is that information it's just showing part of the problem. I'm not saying those plans don't exist, in fact I do support them; but you can't state there's no black market with the woods. Most of the information you are given is just representative in you area, state or country because it's the only supposed to concern you, so you might not be actually aware of what's going on the Amazon.
__________________
I love Plato, but I love Truth more - Aristotle

Last edited by ZenitYerkes; 03-30-2010 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-31-2010, 02:25 AM
Banned
PunkMaister censored by the PTB
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ponce, Puerto Rico
Posts: 306
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes View Post
Actually that's just the legal face of the coin. On the other side we've got mafias and corruption that uncontrollably keep cuttting down as many trees as they need for their plans. If everything was just as nice as the information that's given to us, things of the globe would be really different.
What? All we get from the media regarding the rain-forests glaciers etc is gloom and doom you really need to get deep, deep underground to get any real data nowadays.

Here is one such Underground article
Quote:
(Reuters) - The world's tropical rainforests are making a comeback, but young vegetation may not be able to sustain as much diverse wildlife or lock up nearly as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as old trees did, scientists report.

Green Business

The rainforest debate has raged publicly for decades, and more recently has been the subject of behind-the-scenes ferment among conservation scientists. It is the main topic of a Smithsonian symposium on Monday at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington.

These discussions are taking place as the international community is trying to figure out how to stem global warming. Because tropical forests sequester the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, they are considered an essential part of the solution.

About 135,000 square miles (350,000 square kilometers) of the original forested areas that were cut down by humans are growing back, according to Greg Asner of the Washington-based Carnegie Institution, a presenter at the symposium. That is only 1.7 percent of the original forest.

This regrowth is relatively quick, with the shady forest canopy closing in after just 15 years as trees grow taller and denser, offering habitat for creatures adapted to just this environment, such as birds with huge eyes able to see in the leafy gloom.

The basic question -- will rainforests survive? -- has been complicated by research by Joseph Wright of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and Helene Muller-Landau of the University of Minnesota.

RAINFORESTS RETURN AS PEOPLE LEAVE

These two scientists reported that the future of tropical forests may not be as bleak as other conservation experts warn, mostly because people who once lived in or near these forests are moving away, mostly toward cities, allowing vegetation to grow.

Using United Nations projections of population growth, Wright and Muller-Landau predicted in a 2006 journal article that "large areas of tropical forest cover will remain in 2030 and beyond, and thus that habitat loss will threaten extinction for a smaller proportion of tropical forest species than previously predicted."

Keeping a wide range of tropical rainforest species is important as a source for potential pharmaceuticals and disease-resistant crops. The prevailing scientific prediction is that up to half of all species may be lost in the coming decades.

But these young forests can't support what the old-growth forests did, said William Laurence, also of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Center.

From the Amazon in South America to the tropical woodlands of Africa and Southeast Asia, human beings have destroyed as much as 4.6 million square miles (12 million sq km) of rainforest, about half of the original tropical forests on the planet.

These forests are disappearing at the rate of 50 football fields a minute, or 32 million acres (13 million hectares) a year, Laurence said in a telephone interview before the conference.

"There's just no way that secondary forests are going to capture a lot of the biodiversity and critical ecosystem," Laurence said. "They're also much more vulnerable to fire."

Laurence also argues that people used to clear rainforest for small-scale farming, but this is being supplanted by more destructive large-scale industrial agriculture, logging and mining.
Link here!

Last edited by PunkMaister; 03-31-2010 at 02:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-31-2010, 03:54 AM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,174
Default

Well I just don't know anymore. I wrote this originally as a short response, but it just became longer and longer as I poured out my thoughts...

The official reports say the rainforests are increasing, and environmentalists are saying they're being destroyed more and more. Whether there's corruption involved is no question: corruption inhabits every asset of every business and organization. The question is: how much has the corruption spread? Like you've said, Zenit, how can we trust those reports? On the other hand, how can we trust the environmentalists?

The argument on one side is the government, corporations, and companies have little to no regard for nature when using it to their gain, thus making them "Capitalist 'fat cats'" that only care about money. On the other side, the argument states that the environment "scare" is just a way for the elite to force more regulation on the public, thus gaining more power.

I believe capitalism is ultimately the better way to go, and most capitalists are not evil. Competition and small business thrive on the capitalist system, and has made America (as well as many other free nations) better places overall. You can't honestly say that Wal Mart, though it's had its seedy dealings just as much as any other company, is an evil company. It helps economies across the world with savings. Of course there are corrupt corporations and companies out there, but that certainly doesn't mean we should condemn them all.

To be absolutely blunt, capitalism works. It's the only real system that's helped many nations become prosperous. Name one other type of government that has served a better purpose. Certainly not Communism, Socialism, or Fascism. Even Communism with its good intentions (originally slated from Marx; though Marx still believed certain populations of peoples should be "disposed of" for mankind's "greater good") may work theoretically, but you can't get people to work if they're subject to government handouts, none making more than the other, and no personal gain. It's been a disaster every time. The difference between capitalism and other forms of government are capitalism stands for the individual man's rights, and others stand for men's collective rights, which completely abandons anyone's will to stand for something or become something more, if the government controls everything.

So I disagree: capitalism is the better system. It may not be pretty sometimes, but it works in the long run; better than any other system in the organized society of a nation. The Na'vi don't need to follow any government system because they aren't technically organized by a particular clan member or group of individuals. Since they have a direct connection with Eywa, making it literally impossible for any Na'vi to be atheistic, there is no need for such government. Everyone works for the good of each clan because they want to, because they believe it's Eywa's will. If the Na'vi were more organized, and had a large form of people to form nations, without any literal entity to guide them, then the use of being a "good clansman" would cease. It would no longer work. Since each Na'vi individual works with each other as a bonding family would, that's the source of a utopia we would all desire.

Unfortunately, we are a bigger, more advanced, more cynical, more possessive conglomeration of people who would most likely all love to work with one another, but cannot per religious, political, and social reasons. We do not all speak the same language as the Na'vi do. The Bible indicates that before Babel, the entire world was united. They were in sin, but nevertheless united as one. Humans will never aquire such a peace like the Na'vi because we are too separated by both physical and spiritual boundries.

So I see many here say, "We can become more like the Na'vi! At least we can try!" It's a nice thought, but it'll never happen. And claiming all sorts of blames against who did what about the environment isn't helping anything. The Climategate papers were released, which showed concrete proof that many of the global warming scientist believers' claims were outright lying, as admitted by themselves in leaked emails. This isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact that's been well-known for a while, and has shocked our nation as well as others, which is why the belief that global warming is caused by us has dropped a staggering 9% in the U.S. since last year. This is a serious case that has gotten people questioning others like Al Gore, who was personally exposed to have made deliberate exaggerations of his "data findings" according the very sources he consulted (I have quotes).

The issues are serious, but to what point and purpose are they being used to sway the public mind? There are those who genuinely believe it's happening, while there are those who have discredited it with many smoking-gun factors that I've read and heard in interviews everywhere. The question is: are those who ask for debates with those "deniers" willing to admit they were wrong in other aspects of their claims when they were shown to be inaccurate? I'm not trying to flame anyone, but something has to be done about this.

It's time certain facts (as well as myths that are still constituted by some as "factual") to be realized so we can have a true debate on the subject. I believe, as a staunch Christian, that we were put on this earth for two primary reasons: to accept God into our hearts, and to be good stewards of the earth. I believe in cleaner energy and jobs. I believe we shouldn't litter. I believe we should try to find alternate sources of machines and vehicles that won't produce harmful gases... But I also believe we aren't the primary cause for certain factors as indicated by geological surveys and experts who've done their homework in the field. I also believe government regulation of carbon emissions and the declaration of carbon dioxide being a "toxic substance" (though plants use it to make oxygen....?) are foolish, and dangerous proclamations that will harm society, not benefit it. I believe charity and good-will of fellow citizens of every nation are the key in changing the way of life as we know it, NOT the government through forcing and overhauling.

I hope this post is understood as a call to action for REAL facts, and not just following the concensus of progressives and the elite who believe their word is "the best thing". Don't just watch a commercial or listen to a like-minded analyst (or even a scientist for that matter) who claims this and that. Look into the other side, and more importantly, look at the other side from the other side's perspective. Let's start getting an education on the matters, not indoctrination from the mainstream media.

Last edited by Woodsprite; 03-31-2010 at 04:04 AM. Reason: Changed "will" to "willing" in one sentence.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-31-2010, 07:34 AM
Spock's Avatar
Ikran Makto
Spock is hopeful.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 886
Default

You just signed your death sentence, as a Marxist its my responsibility to debate this with you. Ugh, I'm not actually looking forward to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
Well I just don't know anymore. I wrote this originally as a short response, but it just became longer and longer as I poured out my thoughts...
All the more to rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
The official reports say the rainforests are increasing, and environmentalists are saying they're being destroyed more and more. Whether there's corruption involved is no question: corruption inhabits every asset of every business and organization. The question is: how much has the corruption spread? Like you've said, Zenit, how can we trust those reports? On the other hand, how can we trust the environmentalists?
Whether rainforests are increasing at the 'present' moment, that is not to say that they won't decrease in the future. As a biologist, here is why.

As humanity has spread globally, we have introduced a range of different species to every corner of the globe, a native species in one area would be counted as exotic and a pest in another. What this does is destroy natural habitats, habitats that include producers like the rainforests. It can be seen that logging is not allways the main issue, if you read between the lines then you can see that there are several other endangering factors at play. Although, this may only apply to me, as I am trained to pick environmental issues like this up.

Further, the key is not to trust environmentalists or corporations, but to do your own investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
The argument on one side is the government, corporations, and companies have little to no regard for nature when using it to their gain, thus making them "Capitalist 'fat cats'" that only care about money. On the other side, the argument states that the environment "scare" is just a way for the elite to force more regulation on the public, thus gaining more power.
I don't care whether the environment is destroyed for financial gain, infact it would happen under communism and socialism as well. What worries me is that capitalism won't be able to respond to the implications environmental destruction could have, simply because it is not profitable. You can't say the same about socialist governments as the leading body, the government could make a concerted and persevering effort in order to overcome such issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
I believe capitalism is ultimately the better way to go, and most capitalists are not evil. Competition and small business thrive on the capitalist system, and has made America (as well as many other free nations) better places overall. You can't honestly say that Wal Mart, though it's had its seedy dealings just as much as any other company, is an evil company. It helps economies across the world with savings. Of course there are corrupt corporations and companies out there, but that certainly doesn't mean we should condemn them all.
I take issue with that last statement, umm. Yes we should condemn corruption, otherwise it makes it acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
To be absolutely blunt, capitalism works. It's the only real system that's helped many nations become prosperous. Name one other type of government that has served a better purpose. Certainly not Communism, Socialism, or Fascism. Even Communism with its good intentions (originally slated from Marx; though Marx still believed certain populations of peoples should be "disposed of" for mankind's "greater good") may work theoretically, but you can't get people to work if they're subject to government handouts, none making more than the other, and no personal gain. It's been a disaster every time. The difference between capitalism and other forms of government are capitalism stands for the individual man's rights, and others stand for men's collective rights, which completely abandons anyone's will to stand for something or become something more, if the government controls everything.
Prosperity under capitalism is entirely false, as an economically based system it revolves entirely around financial gain whilst falling down in other areas. Another thing I take issue with is the fact of personal gain, why would someone want anything more when they have a stake in the entire country? Further, capitalism does exactly the opposite than standing for the individual. Under capitalism, everyone would be stepped on over profit, this has happened throughout history and is continuing to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
So I disagree: capitalism is the better system. It may not be pretty sometimes, but it works in the long run; better than any other system in the organized society of a nation. The Na'vi don't need to follow any government system because they aren't technically organized by a particular clan member or group of individuals. Since they have a direct connection with Eywa, making it literally impossible for any Na'vi to be atheistic, there is no need for such government. Everyone works for the good of each clan because they want to, because they believe it's Eywa's will. If the Na'vi were more organized, and had a large form of people to form nations, without any literal entity to guide them, then the use of being a "good clansman" would cease. It would no longer work. Since each Na'vi individual works with each other as a bonding family would, that's the source of a utopia we would all desire.
I think you mean, capitalism works better in the short term. It won't survive another 100 years on this planet, I garuantee it. Capitalism will fail to deal with issues that will arise in the next 50-100 years. For example, if technology allows everyone to have an excellent standard of living for little cost, then there is little the corporations could cash in on at each level. The focus of the entire economy would have to shift its focus, or capitalism will cease to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
Unfortunately, we are a bigger, more advanced, more cynical, more possessive conglomeration of people who would most likely all love to work with one another, but cannot per religious, political, and social reasons. We do not all speak the same language as the Na'vi do. The Bible indicates that before Babel, the entire world was united. They were in sin, but nevertheless united as one. Humans will never aquire such a peace like the Na'vi because we are too separated by both physical and spiritual boundries.
Due to our unfortunate evolutionary path.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
So I see many here say, "We can become more like the Na'vi! At least we can try!" It's a nice thought, but it'll never happen. And claiming all sorts of blames against who did what about the environment isn't helping anything. The Climategate papers were released, which showed concrete proof that many of the global warming scientist believers' claims were outright lying, as admitted by themselves in leaked emails. This isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact that's been well-known for a while, and has shocked our nation as well as others, which is why the belief that global warming is caused by us has dropped a staggering 9% in the U.S. since last year. This is a serious case that has gotten people questioning others like Al Gore, who was personally exposed to have made deliberate exaggerations of his "data findings" according the very sources he consulted (I have quotes).
Whether or not its caused by us (which it is) is not the issue, its how we deal with the effects global warming will have that is the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
The issues are serious, but to what point and purpose are they being used to sway the public mind? There are those who genuinely believe it's happening, while there are those who have discredited it with many smoking-gun factors that I've read and heard in interviews everywhere. The question is: are those who ask for debates with those "deniers" willing to admit they were wrong in other aspects of their claims when they were shown to be inaccurate? I'm not trying to flame anyone, but something has to be done about this.
Leave them to their own devices. If they're right we'll see in a few decades.
__________________
Live long and prosper
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-31-2010, 07:35 AM
Spock's Avatar
Ikran Makto
Spock is hopeful.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
It's time certain facts (as well as myths that are still constituted by some as "factual") to be realized so we can have a true debate on the subject. I believe, as a staunch Christian, that we were put on this earth for two primary reasons: to accept God into our hearts, and to be good stewards of the earth. I believe in cleaner energy and jobs. I believe we shouldn't litter. I believe we should try to find alternate sources of machines and vehicles that won't produce harmful gases... But I also believe we aren't the primary cause for certain factors as indicated by geological surveys and experts who've done their homework in the field. I also believe government regulation of carbon emissions and the declaration of carbon dioxide being a "toxic substance" (though plants use it to make oxygen....?) are foolish, and dangerous proclamations that will harm society, not benefit it. I believe charity and good-will of fellow citizens of every nation are the key in changing the way of life as we know it, NOT the government through forcing and overhauling.
I agree to an extent. Carbon dioxide is a toxin above 3% atmosphere saturations, if you would like me to elaborate on this I will happily. The rest of it I agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
I hope this post is understood as a call to action for REAL facts, and not just following the concensus of progressives and the elite who believe their word is "the best thing". Don't just watch a commercial or listen to a like-minded analyst (or even a scientist for that matter) who claims this and that. Look into the other side, and more importantly, look at the other side from the other side's perspective. Let's start getting an education on the matters, not indoctrination from the mainstream media.
Ah, my personal advice to people is, do your own investigation, read between the lines, don't be bias, and consider all the facts. The real facts, as you've correctly stated, media and commercials are not an authority on factual information.
__________________
Live long and prosper
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-31-2010, 10:18 AM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,174
Default

I... kinda got carried away a bit...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
You just signed your death sentence, as a Marxist its my responsibility to debate this with you. Ugh, I'm not actually looking forward to it.
Before going on, your rebuttal isn't exactly a "death sentence" on what I've said. After all, I am rebutting back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
Whether rainforests are increasing at the 'present' moment, that is not to say that they won't decrease in the future. As a biologist, here is why.

As humanity has spread globally, we have introduced a range of different species to every corner of the globe, a native species in one area would be counted as exotic and a pest in another. What this does is destroy natural habitats, habitats that include producers like the rainforests. It can be seen that logging is not allways the main issue, if you read between the lines then you can see that there are several other endangering factors at play. Although, this may only apply to me, as I am trained to pick environmental issues like this up.
The rainforests aren't being destroyed because they're considered "pests" in the area. They're being cut down in their own environments. The Amazon, for instance, which is usually the primary example given, has had only 17% deforested as of 2009, according to the study by Brazil's INPE. I mean, they can see everything. You've got one of their researchers Claudio Almeida looking at satelite images and 20% of the deforested areas were "overgrown with vegetation" over the course of a few years. These are satelite images from last year.

Then you've got Patrick Moore. He said, "All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science," in an interview from a documentary, Clear-Cutting the Myths. Here we've got one of the founders of Greenpeace, who co-invented the Amazon crisis idea back in the 80s. Then you've got the claims of "20 football fields per minute" worth of Amazonian forest being cut down according to National Geographic... Which, if I just calculated correctly, would mean over 50 times the size of the entire Amazon would've been cut down by now.

Thaumaturgo Sotero Vaz, Brazilian Brigadier General spent 39 years in the military, 18 of those in the Amazon, and laughed, "That's very funny. They don't know the Amazon, believe me. Because all these lands in the north, west, it's almost untouchable because of this great capacity of regeneration."

This presents a real problem to me, because if anything's endangered, we should see less polar bears for all I know, yet according to the NCPA, polar bear numbers have increased from about 5,000... to over 25,000 today. But that's going into global warming.

In fact, we shouldn't even be talking about polar bears. The Rainforest Action Network. Al Gore. Tim Keating. The "Hall of Biodiversity" website. Many others. They all say to some extent that we're experiencing increasing amounts of different species of animals constantly going extinct, when most of the estimates (if not all) are based on research by Edward O. Wilson from a Time article back in 2000. The sources say "30,000 species a year" go extinct, others like Gore assert "100 extinctions each day", etc. Wilson argued at least 50,000 species per year were dying out... but these estimates were based on computer models, nothing more. Keating's excuse, when questioned about whether or not he could name a single species he asserted in his estimates, was, "No we cannot, because we don't know what those species are."

I could claim to you, for example, "I believe watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin. Prove me wrong." That's a loaded argument if there ever was one, and we both know anyone could keep anyone busy with statements like that for years.

There are scientists like ecologist and Science Mag. contributer Robin Chazdon, who said, "You can find species that will show increased growth and increased population as a result of logging." Examples abound from this statement, like in Western Brazil, 1982, when miners cleared a massive land tract area. They finished their work and hired scientists to reforest. Studies as of today show the area to be "virtually indistinguishable from its original form," and "Ninety-five percent of the original animal species have returned..."

We're thinking of loggers as Mayans: they'll destroy everything and replace it all with man-made things. With all due respect, we're smarter than the Mayans.


~Continued...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Visit our partner sites:

      pandoraworld.ru



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 AM.

Based on the Planet Earth theme by Themes by Design


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
All images and clips of Avatar are the exclusive property of 20th Century Fox.