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

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#211

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 11:41 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #209

anigbrowl wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm advocating maintaining tactical parity. 'fight fire with a fire' is a fairly common metaphor for reciprocal action.

But the initial action was literally fire

That was one action mentioned, but I think you're being over-literal here - I said tactical parity, not mirroring every action.

Essentially I am saying that people abandoned by the state should consider taking the defense of land back into their own hands when they experience violence, as was summarized here:

People affected by it, like loggers who lose their property and livelihoods can hardly do anything, since the invaders will often get violent and the State wont do anything.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#212

Post by Sporktacular » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 1:17 AM UTC

Gravyness wrote: post #198

Sporktacular wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 500 IQ comment in its full glory.

Is the person you commented ugly too, or do you have an argument better than calling someone an imbecile?

Yes, I do. I just prefer ridicule in this case.

And I have no idea about their attractiveness, nor why my having a better argument would be dichotomous to their unattractiveness.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#213

Post by Sporktacular » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 1:21 AM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #139

Sporktacular wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a value that greater than just their economic value! The environment created us, we created economics. It's an artificial concept that will never capture the true value of nature.

> They have a value that greater than just their economic value! Then investing at the economic value would be profitable, and people should clearly do this.

Perhaps you misunderstood. They have non-economic value, that is more valuable than their economic value alone. Economic investment may not yield an economic return.

Not everything reduces to a price tag.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#214

Post by Sporktacular » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 1:30 AM UTC

ElectricalUnion wrote: post #189

Sporktacular wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the current government doesn't WANT to investigate and arrest criminals. They cut funding, merged environmental protection and indigenous affairs into the agricultural ministry. This is well documented. The forest is on the edge of becoming a net carbon producer for the first time. This doesn't simply reverse when it regrows from some saplings. Its capacity to create clouds to replenish water is a…

> The forest is on the edge of becoming a net carbon producer for the first time. Forests in general are stable - _carbon neutral_, unless disturbed. Oceans are where most of the Earth oxygen is converted from CO₂. The real reason why Brazil needs to save the Amazon, for South America, is water supply - rain forest induced water evaporation is main source of water for the Río de la Plata basin - where several of the…

It's becoming a carbon source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03629-6.epdf

But if those cities dry up then what? Economic loss? Not everything is reducible to a price tag.

The species in Amazonian ecosystems have as much of a right to exist as any other, including humans. Brazil should save it because it's the right thing to do.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#215

Post by Sporktacular » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

orbital223 wrote: post #168

Sporktacular wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 larg…

Lula's personal culpability has never been established to the degree you suggest.

Just compare him to Temer, Bolsonaro and the entire Bolsonaro clan, which bought off Moro, is weakening protections for the rainforest (benefiting his associates), and is systematically dismantling anti-corruption institutions.

https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/10/13/transparenc...

Just because the investigations haven't begun doesn't mean they're not coming.

It's a weak argument given the responsible alternatives to explore that benefit more people. The government deserves criticism.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#216

Post by kennywinker » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 5:00 AM UTC

9dev wrote: post #207

kennywinker wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I do share your perspective, and think the same of the middle east and lots of African countries. That blame game doesn't solve the problem, however.

Well yes the blame game matters because it’s literally still happening! Ignoring the causes is like figuring out what bandages to put on a patient who is still being actively and repeatedly stabbed.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#217

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 8:33 AM UTC

boeingUH60 wrote: post #104

collegeburner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"regime change is bad except when it's for a reason i like"

Quite scary to see Americans still thinking like this. Surely this explains the country's many fuckups in this century, e.g., Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm not even American, I'm german, for what it's worth.

My point is, sometimes intervention is needed to stop massacres. Certainly worked for my country back in the days.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#218

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 8:40 AM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #112

mschuster91 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are only four economically viable solutions: 1) Boycott or put drastic tariffs on Brazilian meat and soy, aka the products that are made out of the areas which were former rainforest. The problem: China won't give a fuck about Western sanction and Bolsonaro and his goons will happily sell to them (aided by the fact that China still has issues with pig fever in their domestic meat production). 2) Pay off Bolsona…

I really don't think the CIA should be the global judge, jury and executioner. I don't think the US assassinating the leader of one of the world's largest countries to "send a signal" is conductive to world peace.

We do need a world police to enforce at least some basic rules like to not genocide minorities (like China does) or to permanently kill off an ecosystem that is important for the whole planet's climate for short-term profits.

I don't like the idea either, but given the corruption and deadlock of the UN, I prefer the role being taken up by the US instead of Russia or China.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#219

Post by epups » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 8:55 AM UTC

orbital223 wrote: post #168

Sporktacular wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 larg…

> 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.

Lula and Dilma spearheaded the biggest infrastructure investment in Brazilian history, both in absolute and relative terms. There was corruption, but the claim that it was the largest corruption scheme is laughable, a talking point of dumbass bolsonaristas.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#220

Post by helloworld11 » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 2:48 PM UTC

specialp wrote: post #31

The United States once had one of the largest forests on Earth. The Eastern Forest covered almost everywhere east of the Mississippi. 2,560,000 km2 of forest. Now it is largely gone. Replaced with farmland and sprawl. So it is hard to criticize. Even areas that are now heavily forested like Vermont were clear cut almost entirely by the turn of the century. The Amazon should be preserved, but to do that the world is g…

The Eastern Forest has fragmented a lot since it first started being settled, but don't exaggerate for dramatic effect. Vast tracts of it remain or have regrown and many of the eastern US states are thickly, heavily forested in ways that would make, say for example a European gaze in wonder at actually seeing them. Even many urban Americans simply have no idea just how many and huge the remaining or regrown eastern forest sections of the U.S are. They don't see them and their limited sight of woodland largely consists of scattered fragments around their cities, where obviously, the least forest would be visible. Also worth noting, they continue to grow back each year. You can largely thank industrialized, centralizad agriculture and urbanization for that.