Conserve or consume the natural world

<!-Quote-!>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.<!-/Quote-!>

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.

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

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.

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.

<!-Quote-!>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.<!-/Quote-!>

Sand Pile Theory. meh.

<!-Quote-!>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.<!-/Quote-!>

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?

My family has grazed cattle since 1826 on this same land.

/me checks...Still grows sweet grass.

Try again.

<!-Quote-!>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.<!-/Quote-!>

But why just one type of tree? Wjy would you, Nix, not replace the trees with the same species you'd cut down?

<!-Quote-!>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.<!-/Quote-!>

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.

Happy Earth Day fun nix!

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.