Bolsonaro, Brazil, The Amazon and Fishkeepers
- Thread starter Supergeorge123
- Start date
If the Amazon goes then Brazil goes with it. What happens when there is nothing left but scorched earth? When the rivers and air in rio is as toxic as it is in beijing? What about the 900,000 natives who are at risk at the hands of loggers, miners, industrialists or the government itself? Other countries in latin America have higher quality of lives than Brazil and they managed to do it without destroying the environment. The reality is that we already have an example of what the policies proposed by Bolsonaro lead to. The history of hispaniola, split between Haiti and The Dominican Rebuplic, show those end results.
You wanna know why we’re so high and they’re not? It’s because our society evolved because of the land! If they try to do what we did then they’ll be up there too. Have you ever heard of the phrase “Do as I say, not as I do”? Yeah, that phrase applies here.
Ha, world war 3. What other countries side with Brazil? I’m honestly curious as I have not done research on it before.
Ha, world war 3. What other countries side with Brazil? I’m honestly curious as I have not done research on it before.
What our ancestors did in this country was terrible. Our country and the world would be richer if more of the land had been protected intead of exploited, if you could still go to places and watch bison run across the plains or if the natives had been allowed in places to live their lives the ways they always had instead of being exterminated, forced to convert and live on reservations.
We can not do anything about that now but we can do something about this and i believe we should. We have our own history to call upon.
The plan to destroy the Amazon for monetary gain is very short sighted, after the land has been cut, it only produces for farms or ranches for a few years, before becoming a wasteland, the removal of trees allows more sun to hit any water and heats up the water creating a solar powered mosquito factory, everyone gets malaria and such, and since there are no trees to hold back the soil the waterways get clogged with soil and such and cannot produce fish.
End result: a new Argentina , a politician or two sits on a vast pile of money.
The villagers either starve or die of some disease, there are no fruit for the people because there are no trees, neither is there any fish or other meat,people fight each other over crumbs, many tribes die out.
End result: a new Argentina , a politician or two sits on a vast pile of money.
The villagers either starve or die of some disease, there are no fruit for the people because there are no trees, neither is there any fish or other meat,people fight each other over crumbs, many tribes die out.
Committing mass genocide against a country for not doing what you wanted it to with in its own borders is what you're basically talking about. Most nations would oppose it because they will be worried who is next.
I agree, but the most polluting countrys on the plant preaching to one of the least about environmentalism isn't going to work. Most Brazilians don't get any income of there rainforest, to me that's the problem.
Tourism is one of the biggest industries in brazil, in 2017 it brought in $6.8bn usd, 32% of the country's GDP. I guarantee you, people aren't traveling to brazil to see the favelas. If they destroy the rainforest for short term gain, they are shooting themselves in the foot economically 10 years down the line.
I agree that it seems hypocritical coming from an American, to lecture a developing nation on not abusing the natural resources, since that is exactly what we did. But we did it at a time when we didn't know the repurcussions of our actions, and environmental science was nonexistent. Nowadays, we know exactly what will happen if we continue down this path, and to do so, to me is far more reckless.
Not to justify what the rest of the western world has done; it's all awful. But I think anything we can do to stop it from getting worse, we need to, even if it seems hypocritical.
I agree that it seems hypocritical coming from an American, to lecture a developing nation on not abusing the natural resources, since that is exactly what we did. But we did it at a time when we didn't know the repurcussions of our actions, and environmental science was nonexistent. Nowadays, we know exactly what will happen if we continue down this path, and to do so, to me is far more reckless.
Not to justify what the rest of the western world has done; it's all awful. But I think anything we can do to stop it from getting worse, we need to, even if it seems hypocritical.
