| nix001 | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 07:52 pm 
'This we know:
The earth does not belong to man,
man belongs to the earth.
All things are connected
like the blood that unites us all.
Man did not weave the web of life,
he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web,
he does to himself.
Chief Seattle
Dear Citizen of Earth November 1, 1999
The most important piece of Rainforests Destruction information to understand is this:
If no action is taken, between 2012 and 2016 the land area of virgin Rainforests will go below the critical built-in natural safeguard threshold providence of 10% virgin Rainforests area with its 50% species remaining.
This issue of Rainforests destruction and mass species extinctions is the # 1 issue facing humanity. We may have as little as 5 years to create the awareness to completely stop Rainforests destruction before this momentum brings us through our Omega Point.'
Some more info:
'Almost half of the world's oceans have been seriously affected by over-fishing, pollution and climate change, according to a major study of man's impact on marine life.'
So, should we continue to consume the Natural world? or is it time we put our desires on hold and start to conserve the Natural world? |
| Zdeněk Pavlovský (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 07:58 pm
jesus christ .. man!
how about to start a thread about Vikki Blows instead? :P |
| nix001 | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:01 pm
You can start what ever thread you wish.
Do me a favour.........introduce me to Vikki  |
| Zdeněk Pavlovský (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:05 pm
true, maybe i would alienate less players than by arguing senseless. |
| nix001 | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:11 pm
What is there to argue? Should we conserve or consume?
1999 Chief Seattle wrote that and nothing has changed. Why?
Maybe it's because until there is nothing left and the concequences become aparent, no one will believe there's going to be a problem?
Or maybe most of us just don't care? |
| The Goldern Khan (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:24 pm
Both. Resources should be managed not just used. Resources should be replaced as they are used wherever possible. |
| nix001 | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:25 pm
How do we replace a 2,000 year old tree? Or the other 90% of the rain forests that are needed to balance out the environment? |
| Pope Samicus IX (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:50 pm
Then go to Brazil and argue with them.
Its their forest not yours or mine. They should be able to do with it as they see fit. |
| nix001 (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 08:53 pm
Do they not chop them down for our dining tables? Or so you can have a cheap Macidee?
Do you think they would be doing this if our countries had'nt have already chopped most of our own trees down?
I'm going to have a look to see how many of our own companies are over there.
Check this out.
'Illegal and predatory logging plays a central role in the destruction of the Amazon. It is now generally accepted that illegal logging is the norm, rather than the exception in the Brazilian Amazon. Between 60 and 80 percent of all logging in the Brazilian Amazon is estimated to be illegal.
With the depletion of forests in Southeast Asia and central Africa, the Amazon is being targeted by domestic and transnational corporations as a key source for tropical timber products. Huge majestic trees like the Samauma, also known as the "Queen of the Forest", are being exploited to make cheap plywood for construction industries in the US, Japan and Europe.'
It's our governments/corporations that we should be talking to.
Anyways Sam AKA Johanna AKA Pope. What do you think? Conserve or consume? |
| The Goldern Khan (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 10:02 pm
The sooner people cut down the rain forests, the sooner rising sea levels and global warming shall wipe out humans. The the trees will be free to grow again. Help the environment! Cut down tress! |
| nix001 (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 10:14 pm
I bet your one of those who have a plot of land on the moon arn't you |
| Pope Samicus IX (Little Upsilon) | Friday, April 17, 2009 - 04:21 am
People need to eat. If cutting trees provides them with food they should be able to do as they please. Once again...Their trees.
Its not my place nor is it your comfortable Western lifestyles place to judge their actions. |
| nix001 (Kebir Blue) | Friday, April 17, 2009 - 04:42 am
'TRANSNATIONAL LOGGING COMPANIES have wreaked havoc in the world's forests for decades. In the Philippines in the 1950s and 1960s, for example, U.S. transnationals virtually denuded many forested areas with catastrophic effects on the local population such as flooding.2 The Philippines has now gone from being a net exporter of logs to being a net importer. The Philippines is far from being the only country to have experienced unsustainable logging. Research published in 1989 concluded that less than 1% of tropical timber in international trade came from sustainable sources.3
The former director of the UN FAO wrote in 1987:
"Over the last two decades, massive tracts of virgin tropical forests have come under exploitation, in all three under-developed regions. That exploitation, with a few honourable exceptions, has been reckless, wasteful, even devastating. Nearly all the operations ... have had no profound or durable impact on the social and economic life of the countries where they have taken place ... Local needs are not being met; the employment opportunities are trifling. A significant part of the exports, as logs or as primary processed timber, is exported 'within the firm', and transfer values are fixed to facilitate the accumulation of profits outside the country....The contribution of forestry to improving the lot of the common people has been negligible so far".4' |
| Pope Samicus IX (Little Upsilon) | Friday, April 17, 2009 - 04:46 am
Quote:The former director of the UN FAO
That ruined the rest of the information and rendered it useless for human consumption.
UN sucks. |
| nix001 (Kebir Blue) | Friday, April 17, 2009 - 04:52 am
Oh dear Sam.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
The former director of the UN FAO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That ruined the rest of the information and rendered it useless for human consumption.
UN sucks.
----------------------------------------------------------
I bet alot of you Yanks think like that don't you. And you wonder why the rest of the world don't like you.
God help the United States of America. |
| Pope Samicus IX (Kebir Blue) | Friday, April 17, 2009 - 05:33 am
Quote:And you wonder why the rest of the world don't like you.
Not really. |
| MasterofAll | Friday, April 17, 2009 - 07:23 pm
Although Sam is a bit blunt, I don't question why the world would dislike us. Our nation reflects the American mentality. We are convinced we are right, and, unlike most european nations, we act on that.
In my opinion, much of Europe doesn't realize that sometimes force is necessitated.
And yes, the UN is useless.
Ben |
| Pope Samicus IX | Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 04:41 am
I don't need or want the guidance of the UN.
As an American citizen I am protected by the Constitution and I see no mention of filthy hippies having a say in how I live my life...
In my opinion the UN is the worst single idea ever put into action. Its wasteful, ineffective, and a total fail at everything it has its hand in. |
| Stalin716 (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 05:24 am
The UN (Useless Nations) is one of the most bloated, unresponsive, corrupt organizations on the face of the planet.
Question that? Have they stopped the violence in Dafur? Have the halted the Somali pirates? Have they done anything to North Korea?
And all the resolutions against Iraq under Saddam
As a American citizen, I don't believe in obeying transnational laws, we have our own judicial system and our own laws.
Even President Obama (good socialist that he is) refuses to listen to the proclamations of that ridiculous body. |
| Pathetic Sheep (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 08:58 am
Nix where are you getting your info? I thought most of the damage in the amazon is done by clearing land for cattle. |
| Zdeněk Pavlovský (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 01:30 pm
I think the point nix was trying to make, or thats how I understood it, was something like ..
If we (do not hesitate to) interfere in other countries/peoples matters, because we believe its for our "safety" (or for some greater good ..), why not to interfere in case of the rain forest?
After all its called "lungs of the planet" for a reason, and since weather is global, cutting it down does certainly affects us, possibly affecting our "safety" - health.
Sure, its "their" forest, but to claim that we have no influence over its past, current and future state seems not accurate description of reality to me.
China might become, if not already became, the biggest polluter of the planet and the biggest consumer of natural resources, but who does not have Chinese goods in their possession? I know I do. |
| nix001 | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 04:25 pm
Hi Zde. Well said mate.
Pathetic Sheep. 'Or so you can have a cheap Macidee?' I call McDonalds Macidees. |
| Miles Prower (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 04:47 pm
The issue isn't cuttng them down. Its the fact that they're not being replaced by new plantation. Its also the fact that people do this because its the only way to make a living for themselves. And us simply removing the consumption aspect would result in disaster for the local peoples.
I can go without my burger. But can they go without everything?
Management is the answer to deforestation. |
| nix001 (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 04:57 pm
As I said. How can you replace a 2000 year old tree? Also, the local populations don't get anything out of the chopping down of their forests apart from flooding, land slides and a reduction in their natural resources. They used to get everything they needed from the forests. Now they rely on imports. |
| Zdeněk Pavlovský (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 05:22 pm
I thought the issue was if to get involved or not, if to (let them be) consume(d) them or not.
How to go about it is another matter. How to give locals work so they can reach the standards we for example have or how to preserve some equilibrium or sustainable growth or what its called is up for debate, but not until the question of getting involved or letting it be is answered.
First goal is set, then means how to fulfill it.
What is the goal?
Its like with this game. Seems to me theres no goal, just mindless fiddling with values. |
| Miles Prower (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 05:31 pm
Quote:As I said. How can you replace a 2000 year old tree? Also, the local populations don't get anything out of the chopping down of their forests apart from flooding, land slides and a reduction in their natural resources. They used to get everything they needed from the forests. Now they rely on imports.
Its not about replacing like for like. It's about planting a couple of new trees every time you cut one down.
The locals are the ones who cut down the trees. Local farmers and herders cutting down the forest in order to open up more grazing space for their cattle. Not to mention the logging that goes on down there. And the products of this industry are sold on.
The answer to woodland decline is sustainable forestry. |
| Aryan (Fearless Blue) | Monday, April 20, 2009 - 01:47 am
Nix You sound like some evil little greenie who's greatest desire is to throw the lot of us back into the stone age. My thought here is if you wanna save the dam planet. It is up you become more proactive. Turn off your computer save to the environment, and save us from having to read your Stupid liberal nonsense. Eb |
| nix001 (Kebir Blue) | Monday, April 20, 2009 - 01:54 am
Thats funny Aryan. Stone age when were talking about wood. Boom Boom
Miles. I know. But then you end up using one type of tree ( a fast growing thin type). Which in turn will destroy the Bio-diversity.
So what you might say. The problem is, if we break too many strands of the web, the web will collapse. Taking most of us with it. |
| Pathetic Sheep (Little Upsilon) | Monday, April 20, 2009 - 02:27 am
Miles,
the trees are not necessarily important. It is the canopy and the biodiversity that counts.
Suppose I burn down your house and dynamite the foundation and then put twice the studs and rafters back on the site. Would you consider that an improvement?
The forests have been occupied for thousands of years. When you clear it and graze on it the soil gets destroyed and it becomes unfit for grazing. The locals are under pressure from the financial system which is very much under global control.
Aryan,
You can easily power a laptop with a pedal generator. |
| FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) | Monday, April 20, 2009 - 02:28 am
Quote:So what you might say. The problem is, if we break too many strands of the web, the web will collapse. Taking most of us with it.
Sand Pile Theory. meh. |
| FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) | Monday, April 20, 2009 - 02:31 am
Quote:The forests have been occupied for thousands of years. When you clear it and graze on it the soil gets destroyed and it becomes unfit for grazing. The locals are under pressure from the financial system which is very much under global control.
They heard about this hypothesis in the American West?
But I'll leave our local rancher, Sam, to deal with this one.
As to the financial aspect, modern agricultural methods, but more importantly, financial advancement and security will enable the Brazilian people to value their natural heritage enough to preserve it. Just like has occured in the industrialized Northern Hemisphere. Environmentalism is a luxury for the wealthy. Hungry peasants tend to have different priorities.
Otherwise, volunteers to invade Brazil to protect the rainforest? |
| Pope Samicus IX (Kebir Blue) | Monday, April 20, 2009 - 04:56 am
My family has grazed cattle since 1826 on this same land.
/me checks...Still grows sweet grass.
Try again.
|
| Miles Prower (Fearless Blue) | Monday, April 20, 2009 - 10:08 am
Quote:Miles. I know. But then you end up using one type of tree ( a fast growing thin type). Which in turn will destroy the Bio-diversity.
But why just one type of tree? Wjy would you, Nix, not replace the trees with the same species you'd cut down?
Quote:the trees are not necessarily important. It is the canopy and the biodiversity that counts.
Suppose I burn down your house and dynamite the foundation and then put twice the studs and rafters back on the site. Would you consider that an improvement?
The forests have been occupied for thousands of years. When you clear it and graze on it the soil gets destroyed and it becomes unfit for grazing. The locals are under pressure from the financial system which is very much under global control.
Bad analogies aside, its not the simple act of grazing that destroys the soil. Its bad practice, which can be countered quite easily with a little education.
The rest of the world can manage its woodlands quite effectively without destroying local biodiversity. The rainforests are no different. |
| jason (Kebir Blue) | Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 02:32 am
Happy Earth Day fun nix! |
| nix001 | Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 02:53 pm
Miles.
The reason why they would/do use thin, fast growers is because they need to grow a tree in the same space that they chopped the other one down in. If they just planted one tree of the same type, it would take 100's of years for that tree to mature and have the same ability as the old tree. this means they need to plant a couple of the fast growing thin tree's in the area that supported the big slow grower that was chopped down.
Also surely to manage the rainforests we need to get then back to the state that they were in before we chopped them all down. This would mean having plantations of thin fast growers while also restocking the rainforests with the original tree's. A process that will take a couple of hundred years. And the only way we could do that is if we reduce the demand for wood and cattle.
I have a question for you. Why do we need outside?
Jason. Back at ya. |
