Bolsonaro, Brazil, The Amazon and Fishkeepers

[MississippiNick]

Literally the opposite of rational thinking is conspiracy mongering and denial of science. It seems that the newly elected President of Brazil and the people who he is appointing to important positions are wackadoos who don't believe in science.

The new president of Brazil has publicly stated that he plans to open vast areas of Brazil to development. Scientists and experts have forecast the negative implications of this.

Why should anyone care? Brazil contains the greatest and most biodiverse forest on Earth. Without the Amazon, global warming will accelerate at the detriment of the whole planet. Here's an economic analysis of the cost of global warming led by Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson: https://riskybusiness.org/

Species of animals and plants could be wiped out before even being discovered by science. Could one be the cure for cancer? Who knows. It's now cattle grazing land. Man has wiped out 60% of animal species since 1970 on its own. (https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds).

Civilizations of indigenous people will be exterminated or at least no longer isolated. Who cares about genocide? Cheap aquarium fish should be the last of our worries.

Common sense and rationality says, "What can we - individually and collectively - do to convince Brazil's leadership to not destroy the Amazon?"

appeal to emotion logical fallacy

and please demonstrate the precise spots where I denied science.

and quoting the Guardian? hahahahaha, might as well link to mother jones next!

this is the problem with arguing with fanatics, they are irrational ,hyperbolic ,delirious and impossible .

 

[dogofwar]

The newly elected President of Brazil and the people who he is appointing to important positions are wackadoos who don't believe in science (although they do believe in some odd conspiracies).

You seem to be arguing that being concerned about Bolsonaro and his policies accelerating the destruction of the Amazon... is based on emotion. That only fanatics should be concerned that destroying the Amazon...

My point is that it's just the opposite: Scientists, business leaders and our Department of Defense (among others) have made the rational case for taking steps to reduce - not increase - destruction of our planet.

The Guardian article - if you had bothered to read it - referenced the recent report by WWF and scientists around the world that shows that wildlife populations have declined by over half in less than 50 years. You can find the report referenced all over the media. Should this loss of wildlife cause us alarm? I think so... https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018

appeal to emotion logical fallacy

and please demonstrate the precise spots where I denied science.

and quoting the Guardian? hahahahaha, might as well link to mother jones next!

this is the problem with arguing with fanatics, they are irrational ,hyperbolic ,delirious and impossible .

 

[Supergeorge123]

This is what happens when emotions rule over common sense.

A- it's their legally elected officials doing stuff in their own country

B- It's easy to get all high and mighty from your fancy computer/phone and tell the peasant classes to eat cake, but they don't have to listen to you

C- most enviornmental freakouts, while well intentioned don't seem to notice the extreme arrogance of their position. It's always "oh we are so bad, boo hoo humans bad" but is chased with a "I want to see Bison and tigers ...etc" so which is it, are humans bad for developing the land, albeit crudely, and increasing their wealth and quality of life at the expense of some species? Or is it ok that we live in hovels so you can get to see tiger? (trust me, the people who see tigers all the time, don't want to see them as they tend to not see them for long except from the inside)

D- our lifespan covers such a small amount of geologic time that our impact is really miniscule, if the entirety of civilization was in a book about the History of the Planet, that was the size of the bible, we'd be the last sentence of the last page. No matter if we launched every nuke tomorrow and burned every forest and boiled the oceans, in a few million years life would be doing it's thing ,completely unconcerned about what came before it. Do you lament the loss of the dinosaurs? They got hit by a large space object moving at high speed that did more damage than we could do in a billion years, and yet here we are!

E- life goes on, and maybe yeah, it sucks that some fish we like will be extinct in nature, but to say that "welp, sorry Brazil, you gotta keep living in huts so I can have cheap fish" is about as arrogant and elitist as it gets.


Yes, I understand that this practical view of things might not be popular around here, but it's how I see things. People tend to get too emotionally wound up about stuff and put rational thinking and context aside because of how they feel and what they want. I don't find this wise.

There has been more destruction of the environment since the 1990s then all of human history before put together due to globalization. All of Bolsonaros plans are to ship the resources of the Amazon to Europe, America, China, etc, not to use them for Brazilians. There is more than enough resources in Brazil for them to take care of themselves sustainably, indefinitely. What will the people of Brazil do in twenty years when the resources are gone shipped to every other country and all that is left is an empty, polluted wasteland? What will humans do with the untold global consequences of eliminating the worlds largest rainforest?

 

[Galantspeedz]

get your own house in order before minding other people's house...

simple as that

 

[dan518]

Chopping the rainforest down will be a global catastrophe.
Standing on our soap box hypocriticaly preaching to the Brazilian people isn't going to stop them. 1 American, Canadian, Australian, Saudi, has the same carbon footprint as 10 Brazilians, 1 European has the same carbon footprint as 7 Brazilians.
All the above countries have got massively rich through selling there natural resources, fossil fuels, minerals, ores etc. Brazil is expected to keep exporting oxygen free of charge from its natural resource while its people only dream of a life style many of our people have.
Many scientists have started the only real way to stop this is for the most polluting rich countries to pay the poor oxygen contributing countrys.
I don't think this will ever happen, we are more then willing to pay extortionate prices for gas and oil, not the air we breathe.

 

[dogofwar]

Step 1 is acknowledging science and that there is a desperate problem.

Dan - what you're describing is actually a market-based solution that both major parties in the US agreed upon in 2008 and could be implemented world wide with the right leadership:

"McCain's major solution is to implement a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions, like a similar program in the Clean Air Act that was used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions that triggered acid rain.
Industries would be given emission targets, and those coming in under their limit could sell their surplus polluting capacity to companies unable to meet their target.

McCain wants the country to return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level sixty percent below that by 2050.

"As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt — and that is good economic policy."

Chopping the rainforest down will be a global catastrophe.
Standing on our soap box hypocriticaly preaching to the Brazilian people isn't going to stop them. 1 American, Canadian, Australian, Saudi, has the same carbon footprint as 10 Brazilians, 1 European has the same carbon footprint as 7 Brazilians.
All the above countries have got massively rich through selling there natural resources, fossil fuels, minerals, ores etc. Brazil is expected to keep exporting oxygen free of charge from its natural resource while its people only dream of a life style many of our people have.
Many scientists have started the only real way to stop this is for the most polluting rich countries to pay the poor oxygen contributing countrys.
I don't think this will ever happen, we are more then willing to pay extortionate prices for gas and oil, not the air we breathe.

 

[Deadliestviper7]

This is what happens when emotions rule over common sense.

A- it's their legally elected officials doing stuff in their own country

B- It's easy to get all high and mighty from your fancy computer/phone and tell the peasant classes to eat cake, but they don't have to listen to you

C- most enviornmental freakouts, while well intentioned don't seem to notice the extreme arrogance of their position. It's always "oh we are so bad, boo hoo humans bad" but is chased with a "I want to see Bison and tigers ...etc" so which is it, are humans bad for developing the land, albeit crudely, and increasing their wealth and quality of life at the expense of some species? Or is it ok that we live in hovels so you can get to see tiger? (trust me, the people who see tigers all the time, don't want to see them as they tend to not see them for long except from the inside)

D- our lifespan covers such a small amount of geologic time that our impact is really miniscule, if the entirety of civilization was in a book about the History of the Planet, that was the size of the bible, we'd be the last sentence of the last page. No matter if we launched every nuke tomorrow and burned every forest and boiled the oceans, in a few million years life would be doing it's thing ,completely unconcerned about what came before it. Do you lament the loss of the dinosaurs? They got hit by a large space object moving at high speed that did more damage than we could do in a billion years, and yet here we are!

E- life goes on, and maybe yeah, it sucks that some fish we like will be extinct in nature, but to say that "welp, sorry Brazil, you gotta keep living in huts so I can have cheap fish" is about as arrogant and elitist as it gets.


Yes, I understand that this practical view of things might not be popular around here, but it's how I see things. People tend to get too emotionally wound up about stuff and put rational thinking and context aside because of how they feel and what they want. I don't find this wise.

You have a lot of holes in your argument, all these reserves tend to put vast amounts of money into their economies, people come to the reserves and pay the following:
Local guides
Lodging
Food
Trinkets

This isn't making the villagers poorer, it's making them much richer.

Same goes for the villagers who collect fish for the pet trade: they make 3x what a commercial meat fisherman makes, and they tend to do it in a sustainable manner.

Another thing: do you know what the first thing a oil company or logging company does before they work on a tract of land?

They get rid of the tribespeople who live their! Usually by killing them.

The only people who will benefit from destroying the land are the ultra rich.
The tribes people are brutalized and killed.
The hired loggers are left behind and end up beggars.
The hunters go hungry.
The farmers can't grow anything anymore.
The fishermen get skinnier by the day.
The mercenaries kill each other and everyone else.
And the rich logging owners and oil tycoons grin from the windows of their private planes, clutching their blood money.

 

[Supergeorge123]

get your own house in order before minding other people's house...

simple as that

That is what exactly i am doing. There is only one house, this house, this house that humans call earth and that is totally unconcerned with the imaginary lines in the sand that they draw on it to separate themselves.

 

[krichardson]

That is what exactly i am doing. There is only one house, this house, this house that humans call earth and that is totally unconcerned with the imaginary lines in the sand that they draw on it to separate themselves.

Great answer.

 

[Galantspeedz]

That is what exactly i am doing. There is only one house, this house, this house that humans call earth and that is totally unconcerned with the imaginary lines in the sand that they draw on it to separate themselves.

sounds noble.... then why are you boycotting brazil only, if it is just a imaginary line in the sand?