Short-sidedness

[sbrettt]

Well, I made the point and you referred me to the link posted by Opendebate as well. I will say this, those evil multinationals PAY to extract those resources - this is the local population selling their resources to fund their country, their lives.

I hope you aren't taking this as a way to spite corporations. For me, it doesn't really matter who's doing it. It just matters that's happening especially at this rate.

 

[clownboy]

I hope you aren't taking this as a way to spite corporations. For me, it doesn't really matter who's doing it. It just matters that's happening especially at this rate.

Oh no, just saying it's a far more complex issue than just "oh no, they're cutting down the rainforests, we have to make them stop!". Involved are issues of sovereignty, the rights of people on their own land, the needs of people to grow their populations and provide for the populations they have and the resources necessary to make that happen.

I explained why the cure for cancers argument is a non-starter.

 

[Cyrylek]

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?.

"None" or "all" are not going to be truthful answers to most anything.

But the involvement of big companies is mostly indirect. For example, palm oil is being purchased in large quantities by the likes of Nestlé, thus "enabling" deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia. (Governments pushing for "alternative fuels" are another "enabler").

But it is naïve to think that if, say, consumer activism forces Nestlé to abandon palm oil those Indonesians will just say: "Okey-dokey, we will stop growing and selling stuff, cut our expenses, and start having fewer children". They will grow something else, perhaps with even greater negative effect on the Old Growth.

In the long term, the only solution is to help the poor countries to become richer, and their agriculture - more intensive and rational.

The lush forests of New England were wiped out by the mid-19th century. Sheep, mostly. As the region grew richer and more developed, the trees grew back, with vengeance. 90% of what was the woods in 1630 is the woods now!

 

[sbrettt]

Oh no, just saying it's a far more complex issue than just "oh no, they're cutting down the rainforests, we have to make them stop!". Involved are issues of sovereignty, the rights of people on their own land, the needs of people to grow their populations and provide for the populations they have and the resources necessary to make that happen.

I explained why the cure for cancers argument is a non-starter.

Ehh, I think the cure for cancers argument is a double edged sword. In my opinion, the best way to make progress on this is awareness and political activism.

 

[Lutherf]

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 need to talk to Sawyer about sustainable forestry.

When I was living in Idaho you could definitely tell where the reforestation was taking place but the management was fantastic. New growth had plenty of room to thrive and the forest floors were fairly clean which decreased fire danger. The canopies were thick and healthy. It just shows that when we want to manage something well we can and we STILL get to use the resources available.

 

[sbrettt]

"None" or "all" are not going to be truthful answers to most anything.

But the involvement of big companies is mostly indirect. For example, palm oil is being purchased in large quantities by the likes of Nestlé, thus "enabling" deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia. (Governments pushing for "alternative fuels" are another "enabler").

But it is naïve to think that if, say, consumer activism forces Nestlé to abandon palm oil those Indonesians will just say: "Okey-dokey, we will stop growing and selling stuff, cut our expenses, and start having fewer children". They will grow something else, perhaps with even greater negative effect on the Old Growth.

In the long term, the only solution is to help the poor countries to become richer, and their agriculture - more intensive and rational.

The lush forests of New England were wiped out by the mid-19th century. Sheep, mostly. As the region grew richer and more developed, the trees grew back, with vengeance. 90% of what was the woods in 1630 is the woods now!

I couldn't find anything here to disagree with. eace I know I already said it, but in my opinion the best way to go about it is spreading awareness, and political activism. By the way, I never knew New England's forests were wiped out on that level, and I've seen their beauty first hand so that's very encouraging to hear. In fact, the trees are just starting to change for fall. :mrgreen:

 

[clownboy]

You need to talk to Sawyer about sustainable forestry.

When I was living in Idaho you could definitely tell where the reforestation was taking place but the management was fantastic. New growth had plenty of room to thrive and the forest floors were fairly clean which decreased fire danger. The canopies were thick and healthy. It just shows that when we want to manage something well we can and we STILL get to use the resources available.

It's little different with rain forests, but I absolutely agree that good forest management is far preferrrable to locking the forest down from use. Congress robbed us in the West of the great forest management we once had when they neutered our forest service.

 

[Lutherf]

It's little different with rain forests, but I absolutely agree that good forest management is far preferrrable to locking the forest down from use. Congress robbed us in the West of the great forest management we once had when they neutered our forest service.

I'm not sure how much of the reforestation in Idaho was Forest service and how much was Boise Cascade but I suspect it was the latter that really had the better results.

 

[Cyrylek]

Ehh, I think the cure for cancers argument is a double edged sword.

Yeah, I would leave "cancer cures" alone. Sure, plants and bugs of the rainforests harbor a multitude of undiscovered and potentially useful molecules. But as we keep inching toward understanding actual biochemical mechanisms behind various forms of cancer, rational design of drugs from a scratch has better and better chances vs serendipity and "ethnobotanical" trove of knowledge. Even massive high-throughput synthesis and testing of compounds also could be more effective than trying to hit the jackpot in the jungle.

Never say never, and some useful medicines will keep coming "from the wild", but it is not a strong selling point.

 

[sbrettt]

Yeah, I would leave "cancer cures" alone. Sure, plants and bugs of the rainforests harbor a multitude of undiscovered and potentially useful molecules. But as we keep inching toward understanding actual biochemical mechanisms behind various forms of cancer, rational design of drugs from a scratch has better and better chances vs serendipity and "ethnobotanical" trove of knowledge. Even massive high-throughput synthesis and testing of compounds also could be more effective than trying to hit the jackpot in the jungle.

Never say never, and some useful medicines will keep coming "from the wild", but it is not a strong selling point.

We are making incredible progress in medicine with synthesized medicine, but I wouldn't rule out a cure being somewhere in a rainforest. Especially when we've only looked into roughly 1% of the plant life.

 

[clownboy]

I'm not sure how much of the reforestation in Idaho was Forest service and how much was Boise Cascade but I suspect it was the latter that really had the better results.

Oh indeed. Of course I was talking about our large national forest and BLM lands out here. The private companies here in Oregon have done a great job where it comes to renewablity and management in recent times.

 

[clownboy]

We are making incredible progress in medicine with synthesized medicine, but I wouldn't rule out a cure being somewhere in a rainforest. Especially when we've only looked into roughly 1% of the plant life.

But once again, that only counts for the intial discovery, the meds don't require the source material. Take for example Paclitaxel. It's original source was found in yew trees here in the Pacific Northwest. But the tree is not needed in the manufacture of the drug.

 

[tech30528]

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.

It's shortsighted as in not being able to see long term.

 

[sbrettt]

But once again, that only counts for the intial discovery, the meds don't require the source material. Take for example Paclitaxel. It's original source was found in yew trees here in the Pacific Northwest. But the tree is not needed in the manufacture of the drug.

Okay, but we should still treasure the rainforests. :lol:eace

 

[sbrettt]

It's shortsighted as in not being able to see long term.

LOL I should have known. Thank you. :lol:

 

[Muhammed]

Who is that specifically?

Farmers.

 

[clownboy]

Okay, but we should still treasure the rainforests. :lol:eace

I'm fine with treasuring all forests as a general statement.

 

[tech30528]

LOL I should have known. Thank you. :lol:

Doesn't change the content, no harm no foul. Thing is you can't make foreign countries change policies.

 

[sbrettt]

Doesn't change the content, no harm no foul. Thing is you can't make foreign countries change policies.

Right, none of us can do that on our own. Although we can spread awareness, but you're right, it's up to their citizens to be activist on this.

 

[beerftw]

The people deforesting, and the people enabling them.

alot of that deforesting is to grow crops,problem is cropsonly growon that land for a short time,forcing them to deforest more.

most countries with rain forests have poor agriculteral systems,resulting in using new land rather than crop rotations like america and the first world uses.some are torn down for housing,while many are deforested for mining or other industrial purposes.

id advocate helping these countries withcrop rotations,while limiting deforestation for new land and promoting use of non forest land for new construction.mining should not cease from rain forests but rather strict rules should be placed,and cutting down the rainforest for wood should be forbidden,as most the world has adequate wood supplies,

 

[Juanita]

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.

This has been going on for a very long time..As usual, it's all about greed and money.

 

[sbrettt]

This has been going on for a very long time..As usual, it's all about greed and money.

On the bright side, progress is being made to cut down on it in the Amazon, but apparently it's worse than ever in Bolivia.

 

[Juanita]

On the bright side, progress is being made to cut down on it in the Amazon, but apparently it's worse than ever in Bolivia.

Isn't Bolivia one of the poorest countries in South America?

 

[sbrettt]

Isn't Bolivia one of the poorest countries in South America?

I had to look it up, but it doesn't look like they're doing all that well. Economy of Bolivia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As many people pointed out, it's not always greed that causes people to tear down their forests. I'm not sure about Bolivia, but it could be due, in part, to people needing the land for agriculture, and it's resources. None the less, it's pretty sad to me. Especially when, in the long run, they're not really doing themselves any good.