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 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, it´s not enough talk about it in a forum, come on!!

I don't get it.

Neither do I.

. . ?

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.

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?

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.

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
Link here!

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.

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.

All the more to rebuttal.

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.

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.

I take issue with that last statement, umm. Yes we should condemn corruption, otherwise it makes it acceptable.

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.

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.

Due to our unfortunate evolutionary path.

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.

Leave them to their own devices. If they're right we'll see in a few decades.

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.

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.

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


Before going on, your rebuttal isn't exactly a "death sentence" on what I've said. After all, I am rebutting back.
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...