Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies' • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by defterGoose » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

davesmith1983 wrote: post #94

toyg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be the same Farage that made sure his anti-immigration message in the 2016 Brexit campaign had "the only prominent white person in the photograph obscured by a box of text": https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farag... Also, how can you brand somebody as "patriotic" when his party is a US-based corporation with links to the Russian government and tax havens? Sad to see this rubbish on HN…

Unfortunately I should have guessed I would have someone miss the entire point I was trying to make (How the media constantly mis-represent things to the point that the public doesn't trust even if they accurately present the truth) because I was trying to be objective and politically neutral about a successful politician. > This would be the same Farage that made sure his anti-immigration message in the 2016 Brexit…

> "Well you know it true and you aren't admitting it". It isn't an argument of any sort.

Most unfortunately, it's becomes impossible to make what we previously conceived of as an "argument" when one or more of the parties involved refuses to acknowledge the validity of objective reality (more commonly referred to as "facts").

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

#102

Post by lbrito » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

The article is great a sample of the way Bolsonaro thinks.

There must be a stage in infant development where the child is still unable to extrapolate and can't fathom that things exist outside of their own immediate line of sight. Bolsonaro is basically stuck in that stage of intellectual development.

Basically, he interprets reality strictly through the synthesis of his own everyday experiences + "news"/memes shared by fans through social media. A corollary to that is that he's utterly incapable of synthesizing data, statistics, analogies, etc -- basically any kind of abstract thought -- into his own worldview. Thus, when those pieces of abstract thought contradict his day-to-day experiences, he immediately dismisses them as "communist propaganda" or "fake news". In his own sense he is right -- in his reality, those things are not real because reality is only what he himself experiences or gets through memes.

Amazon deforestation can't be real, because he flew over the Amazon and saw many trees.

Europe has no forests, because he traveled through it and didn't see any.

Brazil has no hunger problems, because he never saw any hungry-looking bony person on the streets.

All of these examples are literally things he has said.

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

#103

Post by CM30 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #80

spodek wrote: post #75

I see remarkable similarity in Bolsonaro's response on a national scale to nearly every American's response when choosing between making money and the environment. Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. Not to dwell on flying, we could talk of miles driven, plastic discarded, air conditioning empty rooms, eating more beef than ever. The scale is diffe…

> Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. I see it as the reason why individual solutions will never work and why you need the government to step in to make sure those negatives externalities (aka killing the planet for our children) are properly priced in so that we subset those practices.

The problem with having the government step in is that well, the vast majority of the population would disagree with any attempts to limit consumerism/things that may damage the environment, and any politician who tried them would be a political pariah.

I mean, imagine a government actually trying to limit how often people/companies could fly/run planes, how much meat they're allowed to have, what kinds of cars were allowed, etc.

The immediate reaction would basically be:

A: Most of the population flat out ignoring them and their attempted guidelines, leading to bad press if they tried to enforce them.

B: The opposition having a golden opportunity to win over the current ruling party's supporters with claims they'll revert said changes after the next election.

C: Said main party's polling support crashing straight through the floor as most of their supporters abandon them.

D: Tons of bad press in general, especially if certain people/companies seem to be 'getting away with' behaviour they don't allow the rest of the population to indulge in. You can already see this (for good reason) with complaints about stuff like Davos and how all these politicians and actors/celebrities are taking private planes everywhere.

E: Their own party members jumping ship, especially if it's a larger/established party which went all eco intense.

F: If things got bad enough, outright civil war/revolution/military coup/riots/etc. And given the percentage of people who'd back such restrictions/law changes is so tiny, it probably wouldn't end in their favour.

The government stepping in would (if done as strictly as some articles/guidelines suggest), lead to a lot of civil instability and any political party implementing it basically collapsing.

So the options are basically either 'hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious (unlikely)', 'get the government to step in' (unlikely, may lead to wars and revolutions, would sink their reputation), 'hope some sort of invention makes carbon capture much easier/resource efficient or makes clean energy super cheap'.

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

#104

Post by defterGoose » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

dvtrn wrote: post #89

hanniabu wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean can you blame them when all you need to do to make a problem go away is say FAKE NEWS and people eat it up? It's much easier then presenting evidence yourself, especially when your motives go against facts, because then you need to find a way to create fake facts like the oil companies do with denying global warming.

I once watched, jaw somewhat agape as an attorney on twitter (or someone whose bio said she was an attorney) sparred with other netizens over a claim she had made about an event someone (a third-party) said was taking place in her community relating to a local business. Respondents began to reply asking for additional information, how the claim could be verified, many simply asked for a source-others expressed concer…

Then again, we all know that a lawyer's function is essentially to synthesize plausibility. But as with any job, there are of course people who are bad at it.

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

#105

Post by scottLobster » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

spodek wrote: post #75

I see remarkable similarity in Bolsonaro's response on a national scale to nearly every American's response when choosing between making money and the environment. Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. Not to dwell on flying, we could talk of miles driven, plastic discarded, air conditioning empty rooms, eating more beef than ever. The scale is diffe…

Which is why the fix must be economic, not moral. LED light bulbs and wind power in the Midwest aren't successes because everyone decided to pitch in, take their place on the line and give it all for Captain Planet, they're successes because they fulfill the fundamental promise of efficiency: do more with less. They save people money.

And if you doubt the efficacy of said approach, just look at Texas renewable numbers. Texas is arguably the capital of the American oil industry and is a solidly red state. And yet it's gone from 6% Wind to 19% Wind in 10 years, with Dallas likely to be 100% renewable by 2030: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/a-snapshot-of-t... https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/...

It's a concept most environmentalists I encounter look upon as the dark side of the force, like if they used economics and human selfishness towards a positive end it would somehow take away their environmentalist virtue. Guess it's hard to be a martyr when you take away the sacrifice. Doesn't help that they usually look down on the individuals in question, and can't seem to understand why "pay more and do less so you can make a negligible personal impact on the problem, because it's the right thing to do." is a hollow argument for many people. Maybe that person in the concentration camp who gave his last piece of bread died, and maybe you don't want to be that person.

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

#106

Post by rlander » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

emn13 wrote: 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.

In one episode of Parks and Rec, the lead character, councilwoman Leslie Knope, is trying to pass a bill that adds fluoride to the town’s water source, while being opposed by a councilman/dentist who wants to continue making money off of the many cavities that occur in the town. As she discusses the debate, she realizes, “On my side, I have facts, science, and reason. All he has is fear-mongering. Oh my god, he’s gonna win.”

Best series ever.

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

#107

Post by closeparen » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #88

harshreality wrote: post #51

Leaders do not operate in an environment where they can tell the truth and do things based on facts on the ground.[1] Leaders have one real job, that is to reward (through jobs/money/political clout) people who help them. If they don't think telling the truth about deforestation or global warming will help their sycophants, they will tell lies. [1] CGP Grey's Rules for Rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR…

Surely their real job is to get reelected? In that case should they not at least project an aura of being in touch with reality. On this issue voters either don't care, in that case they wont mind you telling the truth. Do care about deforestation but value jobs over environment, in which case you're losing their votes. Do care and value the environment over jobs, in which case they still don't want to be lied to, an…

>In that case should they not at least project an aura of being in touch with reality.

Voters in democracies around the world have made it overwhelmingly clear that they don't want that.

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

#108

Post by defterGoose » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

FailMore wrote: post #82

devxvda wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Place ownership of the rain forest in private hands and let the market determine the most valuable use of the land. I find it much easier to believe that this satire, because were it up to the “Market”, the rainforest would be gone, and every river polluted. Short-term profits are incompatible with environmental protection. Just because a few men get rich doesn’t mean the result is what’s overall best for society.…

Exactly, only if the environment is given financial value will things change. I can see that being the only solution to the current situation. It enables financial optimisation, but results in protection. There will be much resistance though.

> only if the environment is given financial value will things change.

Or maybe we should try to help people understand that it's futile to see in terms of human concepts (like profit) the entity which literally created our species. Perhaps financialization of literally everything we should hold dear is the problem? The value of human life itself has at times been boiled down to a dollar amount, but that doesn't mean you can go around killing as many people as you want as long as your bank account is big enough (oh, unless you're a corporation of course).

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

#109

Post by opportune » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #103

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. I see it as the reason why individual solutions will never work and why you need the government to step in to make sure those negatives externalities (aka killing the planet for our children) are properly priced in so that we subset those practices.

The problem with having the government step in is that well, the vast majority of the population would disagree with any attempts to limit consumerism/things that may damage the environment, and any politician who tried them would be a political pariah. I mean, imagine a government actually trying to limit how often people/companies could fly/run planes, how much meat they're allowed to have, what kinds of cars were…

The physics of air travel make clean energy not super useful. At best, we could try to figure out a carbon-neutral way to create combustible fuel, like biofuels.

You're right that in general people don't like government policies that potentially lower people's standards of living. Gas taxes are usually very unpopular. But I think "hope everyone becomes more environmentally conscious" is more possible than you think. This is very much a generational issue and I think as the negative effects of climate change become more apparent, the public will begin to see the light.

In the US, it would not take a huge change in public opinion to make truly effective environmental policy more tenable. With the current trend, it may only take another decade for over 60% of Americans to believe that climate change should be a top priority: 44% already claim to prioritize it, up from 26% in 2010. Of course, some of these people may not actually like how environment-focused policies affect their lifestyles, but that may change as well.

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

#110

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

hu3 wrote: post #81

jakelazaroff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bit about it being on a different plane is enough; Bolsonaro's response and that little anecdote are irrelevant. See for example Trey Radel, a former U.S. Representative who was arrested for purchasing cocaine after voting for a bill to drug test food stamp recipients: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trey-radel-drug-testing_n_430...

You're comparing someone who was caught with cocaine in his apartment with someone who wasn't even in the flight where cocaine was found.

No, I'm saying that supporting punishment for drug users does not mean that one doesn't use drugs themselves.