Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021 • Hacker News Board

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#161

Post by ratww » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

pibechorro wrote: post #155

ratww wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point is that Brazil won't get rich by doing what it is currently doing. The primary sector won't enrich the general population or make the country more developed. Only some people favoured by the current government. That's what's currently happening, not some cuckoo theory.

You just described what basically goes on in every country.. some more blatantly than others.

Not exactly. What is happening now wasn't the reality in Brazil for some time before. Things were getting better.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#162

Post by krainboltgreene » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #159

Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity. Specifically, I would like to question if Brazil can or even should be trusted to handle the Amazon forest in a responsible manner. Over the past decades, objectively, it has shown that the country, or maybe primarily its government, does…

Ah, the imperialist approach.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#163

Post by ajot » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

juve1996 wrote: post #146

specialp wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA could easily decide they would like to restore 50% of the forest by reclaiming farmland and exurbs and planting back trees. In 50 years it could be a large wild forest. Perhaps not old growth like before. So what is stopping this? It would cost a huge amount of money and drive food costs up dramatically. So even though it was not really as appreciated then to keep forests, it still is empty talk because nobod…

Brazil will face the same consequences as everyone else. They can be mad that other countries got rich in the past, or they can put their big boy pants on and preserve something that is just as critical to them (probably more so critical to them) as everyone else in the world.

Sure, but you can face the consequences with a higher development, or face them while also suffering from widespread poverty or malnourishment.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#164

Post by kennywinker » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #159

Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity. Specifically, I would like to question if Brazil can or even should be trusted to handle the Amazon forest in a responsible manner. Over the past decades, objectively, it has shown that the country, or maybe primarily its government, does…

What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves.

I’m no expert in what’s happening on the ground in the amazon, but the story used to be clearing amazon to raise cattle to sell to mcdonalds. Idk if that’s still the case, but i’d be willing to bet that the thing driving deforestation is resource extraction for global markets.

It’s temping to try to police brazil’s extraction, but the far less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to police our own demand for what they’re cutting down the rainforest to provide.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#165

Post by 9dev » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

krainboltgreene wrote: post #162

9dev wrote: post #159

Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity. Specifically, I would like to question if Brazil can or even should be trusted to handle the Amazon forest in a responsible manner. Over the past decades, objectively, it has shown that the country, or maybe primarily its government, does…

Ah, the imperialist approach.

No, it's different. I'm not suggesting "the west" taking control of the Amazon, but humanity as a whole. The other option is hoping for the best or trusting a corrupt government to do the right thing for the rest of the globe. It hasn't worked well yet.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#166

Post by 9dev » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #164

9dev wrote: post #159

Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity. Specifically, I would like to question if Brazil can or even should be trusted to handle the Amazon forest in a responsible manner. Over the past decades, objectively, it has shown that the country, or maybe primarily its government, does…

What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves. I’m no expert in what’s happening on the ground in the amazon, but the story used to be clearing amazon to raise cattle to sell to mcdonalds. Idk if that’s still the case, but i’d be willing to bet that the thing driving defor…

> What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves.

The difference here being that it's not about taking control of the developing world, but saving resources humanity as a whole requires to keep earth habitable for us - this affects everyone, poor or rich. It's just that Brazil, right now, has a very unfortunate combination of a corrupt government, very valuable resources, and responsibility for the integrity of the forest.

> It’s temping to try to police brazil’s extraction, but the far less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to police our own demand for what they’re cutting down the rainforest to provide.

That isn't mutually exclusive. At the very least, there should be sanctions put into place until Brazil starts actually trying to prevent extraction, not actively supporting it. But I could still see a global organization responsible for keeping core areas intact.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#167

Post by kennywinker » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #165

krainboltgreene wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the imperialist approach.

No, it's different. I'm not suggesting "the west" taking control of the Amazon, but humanity as a whole. The other option is hoping for the best or trusting a corrupt government to do the right thing for the rest of the globe. It hasn't worked well yet.

What incorruptible body could take control of the amazon on behalf of humanity? How would we chose its leaders? Who decides what is protected and what isn’t?

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#168

Post by orbital223 » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

Sporktacular wrote: post #40

hu3 wrote: post #13

If we really care about what happens in Brazil we should offer economically viable solutions rather than pointing fingers and accusing them of doing something that we did in the past for a long time.

Why should we also not point fingers? Deforestation fell dramatically under Lula while inequality fell and the economy grew quickly. What "we" did in the past means environmental protection should be subsidised by the west, but our history doesn't let Brazil's government off the hook.

Both deforestation and inequality fall when the economy does better and rise in times of economic crisis.

The economic improvement "under" Lula was mostly due to international factors (the boon in the price of commodities) which is why it collapsed under Dilma (Lula's protegé).

Instead of using the economic surplus that fell into his lap to invest in infrastructure and industrialization, Lula used it to fund the largest corruption scheme in our history.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#169

Post by 9dev » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #167

9dev wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's different. I'm not suggesting "the west" taking control of the Amazon, but humanity as a whole. The other option is hoping for the best or trusting a corrupt government to do the right thing for the rest of the globe. It hasn't worked well yet.

What incorruptible body could take control of the amazon on behalf of humanity? How would we chose its leaders? Who decides what is protected and what isn’t?

No body is incorruptible. But less corrupt would certainly be a step forward, no?

I would suggest something like a global conservation fund responsible for guarding critical "infrastructure" of our planet. At some point, we will need to take action to prevent earth from becoming inhospitable, and this requires steering. Merely admitting defeat to greedy human nature doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#170

Post by kennywinker » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #166

kennywinker wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves. I’m no expert in what’s happening on the ground in the amazon, but the story used to be clearing amazon to raise cattle to sell to mcdonalds. Idk if that’s still the case, but i’d be willing to bet that the thing driving defor…

> What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves. The difference here being that it's not about taking control of the developing world, but saving resources humanity as a whole requires to keep earth habitable for us - this affects everyone, poor or rich. It's just that Bra…

> It's just that Brazil, right now, has a very unfortunate combination of a corrupt government, very valuable resources, and responsibility for the integrity of the forest.

That’s not an accident. Not misfortune. That’s a result of western colonialism. I’m no expert in brazil, but its history includes colonial governments, CIA backed coups, and IMF influence.

It doesn’t have a bad gov because whoops we elected a bad guy in 2019. It has a bad gov because throughout its entire history western govs and corporations have been exercising influence to be allowed to pilfer its resources.