sbrettt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,724
- Reaction score
- 783
- Location
- Prospect park, PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I think most are already in agreement with that, but who is to blame?
Who is that specifically?
It seems to pretty hard to find anything on what companies are doing this, and who's letting them. Maybe I wasn't entering the right keywords? I tried "responsible for deforestation" and "Who's deforesting the rainforests"? Couldn't find anything.
OK, that eliminates White Republicans.
I didn't have to research that. :lol: This issue really shouldn't be split between party lines in my opinion. It's more of common sense vs. short-sidedness.So that research did pay off.
I know, I sound like a tree hugging hippy. :lol: But take a moment to read these staggering stats. By the way, I'm talking tropical rainforests, not all forests.
We have researched 1% of the plant life in the Rainforests, yet from that research we've gotten 25% of all our meds. If there's a cure for cancer, there's a good chance it's in the rainforests. Tropical rainforests cover 6-7% of the dry land on the planet, but they are home to about 50% of the species on the whole planet including the oceans. By the way, that 6% used to be 14%. They are being deforested at a rate of 50,000 acres a day or 1.5 acres a second. Tropical rainforests contain 300 distinct tree species, and 10 million animal species. They're being killed off at a rate of 50,000 species annually, or 137 plant/animal species per day. Destroying them doesn't pay off in the long run either. Land converted for livestock use yields $60 per acre. Harvested for timber it's worth $400 per acre, but when you use renewable and sustainable practices the land yields $2,400 per acre. So really, short-sidedness is largely to blame. Tell me what you all think.
Search tropical rainforest stats on google, and look through every link until page 3 or 4. :lol:We are our own worst enemy. Those are truly depressing stats. What was your source? Multiple I assume.
Search tropical rainforest stats on google, and look through every link until page 3 or 4. :lol:
That's a good Sunday afternoon.
Yeah, it took a little over an hour to find relevant stats. Since the stats are so staggering it's easy for bs stats to seem legit, so I also had to look around to make sure none of them were debunked.
I like that big companies are taking action, but I wish politicians in places like Bolivia would be more proactive. Green washing reminds me of something make-up companies do. Apparently, some will say this product has not been tested on animals because they already tested them in the past.
I know, I sound like a tree hugging hippy. :lol: But take a moment to read these staggering stats. By the way, I'm talking tropical rainforests, not all forests.
We have researched 1% of the plant life in the Rainforests, yet from that research we've gotten 25% of all our meds. If there's a cure for cancer, there's a good chance it's in the rainforests. Tropical rainforests cover 6-7% of the dry land on the planet, but they are home to about 50% of the species on the whole planet including the oceans. By the way, that 6% used to be 14%. They are being deforested at a rate of 50,000 acres a day or 1.5 acres a second. Tropical rainforests contain 300 distinct tree species, and 10 million animal species. They're being killed off at a rate of 50,000 species annually, or 137 plant/animal species per day. Destroying them doesn't pay off in the long run either. Land converted for livestock use yields $60 per acre. Harvested for timber it's worth $400 per acre, but when you use renewable and sustainable practices the land yields $2,400 per acre. So really, short-sidedness is largely to blame. Tell me what you all think.
You can count on just about every well intended idea being hijacked by some greedy bastard(s) somewhere, somehow. It's worth the work to dig deeper and find the ones you can trust though. At least it is for me. Bottom line, find out who profits from deforestation and you will find out who is to blame.
Well I am a tree hugging hippy, a big selling point for Oregon here is when I was doing the Crest Trail and I saw pilgrims jailed for cutting down green boughs. I've lived in forest for most of my young life.
However, the cancer cure argument has the opposite effect the proponents believe in reality. In fact it argues for cutting the whole thing down and analyizing/cataloging everything. Most meds are not derived from the original source material but rather the palative elements are identified in the original material and then the useful stuff is chemically synthesied to yield the meds. After that point the original source becomes superfluous.
The people who live in countries that host rain forests need land to live on and grow modern crops too. They need the resources, both renewable and non to sell or use just like any other nation. Replanting is not always a possibility - especially where we're talking agricultural and housing need.
In terms of species count, there is only so much room in the system, the biome. When one species is wildly successful, other species are forced out. The system has a failsafe for this - disease, something we, a wildly successful species are very good at overcoming as you have noted.
It seems to pretty hard to find anything on what companies are doing this, and who's letting them.
I strongly disagree. When you're losing 137 plant/animal species daily it's very possible one containing the cure for cancer is one of them. You have a point that some of that could be natural, but I'm sure a lot of it is due to their habitat being decimated. As for the part about locals needing to deforest, you should check out the article Opendebate posted.
That's because you are looking for "companies", as in "multinational corporations", those all-purpose boogiemen of the Left. While the lion's share of deforestation comes from farming done by "the little guy" and "the medium guy". In the case of Amazon, the names of two main "villains" are well known: Cattle and Soy.
I was wondering when someone would make this point. :lol: I agree, it's not all big companies, but surely you're not arguing that none of it is? Also, you may want to check out the article Opendebate posted. It's about exactly what you're talking about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?