Live data from Hacker News

Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

bbc.com

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#41

This is their modus operandi. Deny everything that doesn’t fit their world view or makes them look bad. Not even hard data or science is safe.

I think it's even simpler than that. Deny anything that is a threat to their power/money/hegemony. Their are plenty of people who will do and say anything (even if they don't believe it) for self gain. It's basic short-term vs long-term thinking. They stand to gain much in the short term and lose nothing in the long term because they'll all be dead when it comes time to collect. Combine this with loose ethics/morals…

And it’s even simpler than that again! I forget the essay I read on this subject, but a huge factor is signalling group membership.

Truth is a terrible signal, if our group says that Dinosaurs died out 65 mission years ago, and humans rose about 100,000 years ago, anybody can pretend to be a member and agree with us. There is no cost to saying the truth.

And if your group’s beliefs are the same as every other group’s beliefs, there are no “switching costs,” so your members can leave easily. You have a really porous border between your group and the rest of the world.

But if we say that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, and humans rode dinosaurs, and there were unicorns, but they died because they didn’t board the Ark, and so on, well, you sound ridiculous to people outside of the tribe when you say that.

Saying that has a real cost, so saying that proves your loyalty to the group and by virtue of lowering your standing outside the group, drives you to seek your comfort and standing from the group.

I am not putting it rigorously, but it boils down to the fact that humans want to belong to groups, and groups that organize themselves around things that are untrue (or at least rejected by all other groups) generate more loyalty and more of a “we versus them” dynamic than groups that emphasize truth and uncontroversial beliefs.

So it doesn’t even have to be a belief that is self-serving to the group’s leaders (although it doesn’t hurt to have beliefs that the group leader gets all the money and all the young and comely followers as partners).

It’s enough to demand that the group’s members base their loyalty on their faith in beliefs rejected by everyone else.

(None of this disagrees with your point, after all, if a leader bases their power on the size and loyalty of the group, false beliefs are inherently protecting the leader’s power. You don’t need cults to see this. Most companies have a lot of beliefs that every reasoning person can see are false. They know that the diversity initiative is a sham in most companies. They know that “employees are our greatest resource” is said often, but the company behaves like a cobalt mine in the third world, and so on. But loyalty demands that everyone pretend these things are true.)

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#42
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying being rewarding is definitely not a recent phenomenon.

Well the difference is that people used to condemn the author when it got caught lying which doesn't seem to be the case anymore. People no longer pay politically when they lie. It all transformed into a world-wide propaganda machine where people think in war/dictatorship terms(we against them).

Most people accept that politicians lie. Saying that a politician lies is like saying "The Pope is Catholic" or "Water is wet".

What people care about is whether the politicians will instigate policies that are beneficial to them.

Bolsonaro ran with one of his main issues being law and order. In Brazil the crime rates are quite shocking (IIRC the murder rate is huge like 100s a day). It doesn't matter if he lies about the Rainforest if people see if cleaning up the streets.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually meant the exact opposite of that. Stop reading headlines and start looking at what is being done.

It's clear that you're unable to "engage" if you think he'll "come around" on the matter. I'm curious, if you're so busy you can't engage with current events, what do you have time for?

Okay, I'll engage once because your question seems genuine. I have plenty of skin in the game in Brazil (different than most Brazilians here who live elsewhere and see the country through biased headlines).

He recently suggested fixing diesel prices causing a big turmoil and was advised to go back on the idea, which he did. It happened a few times with different matters. That's why I think he'll come around. He's also former military (and they usually have respect for the environment).

> if you're so busy you can't engage with current events, what do you have time for?

I don't like to engage in political discussion because nothing good comes out of it, and prefer to use the time to get work done and to research information that can help me make better decisions (where to live and do business, how to invest capital, etc.).

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#44
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with facts, though, is that your opponent would nonetheless disagree on what set of facts is actually a good outcome.

And that's fine. A productive discussion can be had along those lines. However if someone refuses to even acknowledge that there are facts then there's no discussion to be had. It almost feels like we're in an age with a kind of new post-modernism. Everyone can have their own reality and make up their own "facts" to fit. This makes science and philosophy irrelevant because there is no shared reality that can be inves…

IMHO, it stems from never updating our basic education from an information-scarce world to an information-flooded one.

I'm firmly in favor of making a media consumption class mandatory for primary education. Essentially a mix of logic & fallacies, evaluating sources, and meta scientific news literacy.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

79% of Brazilian soybean exports go to China. Very very little goes to the US as it’s a net exporter (by a significant margin). Source: https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/bra/show...

Good correction, I meant beef, it's linked. Although USA does seem to avoid Brazilian soybean and beef.

Because like soya, the USA is a huge beef producer domestically.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#47
It's funny how the HN community which is left leaning, start to whine whenever they see news like this.

Y'all let them CNN, The Guardian, and the BBC drive you. You all ask for hard evidence. Yet I am waiting for one of you to confirm you have been in the Amazon.

Why didn't you say anything for ~20 years when the duo Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro have been destroying the Amazon? Destroying.

Why didn't you say anything about it for ~12 years when Chavez's friends Lula Da Silva/Dilma Rousseff were ruling Brazil?

Yet, Bolsonaro hadn't taken office and The Guardian was talking about it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/brazils-...

I've seen first hand during decades what's been going on in the Amazon. Guess what.. Greenpeace does not give a fuck. They look the other way when it comes down to criticize left leaning government:

1. That's why they don't say anything about Maduro's impact in the Amazon.

2. That's why they don't say anything about Lula and Dilma's impact in the Amazon.

Most of you are the same ones who whine on the Donald Trump and immigrants issue, yet say NOTHING about Obama being the president who deported the most people out of our country. It's on the ICE website.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#49
post #2

We really live in the age of head-in-sand. How do you do anything about that? Somehow reality has become not just optional and uncertain in our policies, perceptions and opinions, but downright irrelevant. When there's no merit in even trying to be truthful and accurate, well... you get this.

Take power from propaganda and give it to factitious media, somehow someway...

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#50
post #2

We really live in the age of head-in-sand. How do you do anything about that? Somehow reality has become not just optional and uncertain in our policies, perceptions and opinions, but downright irrelevant. When there's no merit in even trying to be truthful and accurate, well... you get this.

> head-in-sand.

I think this was the case before. Nowadays it's a different, worse situation. We have more means of knowing but people a proactively smearing information. It's a super impressive neurotic trend of "modern" societies.

Now what to do ? I don't know, but I wish. It's kind of a quest, find knowledgeable and courageous people to gather, find ideas and enact them.

Post reply on HN