Conserve or consume the natural world

'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?

jesus christ .. man!

how about to start a thread about Vikki Blows instead? :P

You can start what ever thread you wish.
Do me a favour.........introduce me to Vikki

true, maybe i would alienate less players than by arguing senseless.

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?

Both. Resources should be managed not just used. Resources should be replaced as they are used wherever possible.

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?

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.

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 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!

I bet your one of those who have a plot of land on the moon arn't you

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.

'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'

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The former director of the UN FAO<!-/Quote-!>

That ruined the rest of the information and rendered it useless for human consumption.

UN sucks.

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.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

And you wonder why the rest of the world don't like you.<!-/Quote-!>

Not really.

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

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.

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.

Nix where are you getting your info? I thought most of the damage in the amazon is done by clearing land for cattle.

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.

Hi Zde. Well said mate.

Pathetic Sheep. 'Or so you can have a cheap Macidee?' I call McDonalds Macidees.

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.

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.

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.