1/5 of Amazon stripped !

:no:

thats awful !! and what are they trying to do to relocate the animals .......:crazy:
 
Don't eat soya - its a key reason that Matto Grosso is being felled in order to make way for agricultural land, Brasil being the world's largest exporter of the stuff - or alternatively buy it from producers who source properly (don't know where Provamel get their's from)

{Also (and goes without saying) don't eat meat - very inefficient use of tropospheric energy (ratio of land to feed for animals versus land to feed for humans) - the rainforest has been cleared for beef burgers too}

and join Greenpeace and help the Amazonia campaign by supporting them with a donation from time to time (their lives aren't threatened doing that job - much)
 
:sad: yeah totally .... i donate to alot of charities when ever i can ... theres some out there you just have to becareful of ie: they arent charities only cons.. but yeah i get what you are saying .. harsh land this is ... soya eugh ..meat eugh .. ppl should be more considerate .... this really sux
 
Suddenly, soya doesn't seem to be such a "clean" enviro- friendy food any more :(

There also seems to be some doubt about (processsed) tofu's healthiness -- http://www.psy-forum.co.uk/psyforum_vb/showthread.php?t=29227

So I've been cutting back on soy. Now, for breakfast, instead of weetabix and soy milk, Ive been having crumpets. :)
But I'm half-expecting some time soon to read about how crumpets are getting hunted to extinction on the plains of Africa :(
 
I think that going vegeterian and boycotting soya is the wrong attitude with problems like these. Come on, how much difference are a few thousands consumers in the UK gonna do? In the end of the day there's hardly ANY meat being imported from Brazil...

The problem needs to be battled at its source and this source is obviously MONEY and it's the sole reason the Brazilian government is not putting a stop to this madness...

The only viable solution I've heard is Carbon Trading. Look what Papua New Guinea is trying to do with its rainforest

http://www.psy-forum.co.uk/psyforum_vb/showthread.php?t=29461
 
Meijin said:
Don't eat soya - its a key reason that Matto Grosso is being felled in order to make way for agricultural land, Brasil being the world's largest exporter of the stuff - or alternatively buy it from producers who source properly (don't know where Provamel get their's from)

{Also (and goes without saying) don't eat meat - very inefficient use of tropospheric energy (ratio of land to feed for animals versus land to feed for humans) - the rainforest has been cleared for beef burgers too}

and join Greenpeace and help the Amazonia campaign by supporting them with a donation from time to time (their lives aren't threatened doing that job - much)
Click to expand...


I do agree with everything you have said honey, but we must remember that these people have reasons for doing what they are doing, its not for pleasure... People all over the world are starving, and as we all know the poor of brazil are very very poor... we must make sure those people are fed before we start boycotting the only way they know how to make money - this is the fault of big corporations and conglomarates, not the poor people that are simply trying to survive

we can do much to save the rainforests.. but it really does start at home

hope this makes sense x
 
UVFi said:
we must make sure those people are fed before we start boycotting the only way they know how to make money - this is the fault of big corporations and conglomarates, not the poor people that are simply trying to survive

we can do much to save the rainforests.. but it really does start at home
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the fault of big corporations, and governments etc, who make the vast majority of the profit out of destoying the rainforest and growing crops/cattle, so that's why we should boycott meat and soya. I don't think it's reasonable to say "oh, well, your people are starving so you can chop down half the world's remaining forests and condemn us all to an increased probability of global disaster".

Papua New Guinea's idea of subsidisation for -ve carbon quotas (via rainforests), as quoted by Blender, definitely sounds like the best way to go, as some way of trying to help the poor in Brazil. In the meantime, I think it's worth trying to reduce the demand for the land. Sure, 1000 people might not make a big difference, but gradually it brings the issue to the surface and increases awareness. 15 years ago or so there was no organic food in supermarkets, and McDonalds had free reign, so public attititudes can make a difference.
 
The Brailian government wants to cut down the whole lot to make way for plantations they dont care, but do not worry its happening all over northern europe siberia and much of south east asia also :)

everyone must have ID cards its going to cost you all $3 billion pounds
my office needs new hardwood floring and I need to have a new porshe and another wife
 
i totally understand that, and trust me dude i spend pretty much every second of my life trying to help the enviromnment, i really do see the importance in keeping our earth as it is...

but these people are starving, they need help and they they wont have to cut down the rain forest, i dont agree with the logistics of it all - but i can see where they are coming from... and i dont think anyone on this forum knows how it feels to be truely hungry

if someone told me i could feed my child for a week by cutting down a tree, i would cut down a tree - we need to help these people, not hinder them more

and as for condemming us all - they probably arent even aware of that, lack of education, among other things mean people cant see the truth

and tbh i wouldnt give a shite about the western worlds 'home comforts' if i was in there shoes...
there already in hell - whose to blame them for helping us to getting there
 
the thing is it's not actually the starving millions that profit from this kind of thing and ultimately in the grand cyclic nature of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer it's this kind of work that perpetuates our luxuries and prolongs their suffering.

It's a tough philosophical condunrum: allow it to continue, a few people get to eat and the human race ultimately fries, or put a stop to it, allow a few people to die and the human race continues. Who is more important? What is best for the greater good? What does history tell us about people who work towards a percieved greater good?

And don't forget the most powerful vote we have these days is with our money, so buy McD's if you believe it will help the starving millions. Or don't. You decide.

NB before I get shot down, none of this is necessarily my opinion, just throwing a few ideas around.
 
But who does Amazonia belong to?

a) it is a global biotic resource that belongs to everybody - it is the lungs of the planet

b) the brasilian government who should be free to 'develop' amazonia however it so wishes in order to feed the urban poor (and landless rural poor)

c) the tribal nations in amazonia who according to the ILO (International Labour Organisation - UN body) are classified as 'children' and whose land rights are treated on a case by case basis with the govt acting as 'custodians/guardians'

or, radically, the plants and animals have intrinsic value and therefore rights to exist above and beyond human desire/need and are 'ends in themselves'

To treat amazonian land as agricul;tural land is a terrifically satupid thing to do from an scientific/ecological point of view: the land/soil is very poor and it is the trees themselves that contribute fertility and contribute to tropospheric homeostasis.
The amazon rainforest is a bank of genetic resources. Some states, like Costa Rica, have decided to treat their rainforest as a bank of genetic resources and have deals with biotech and pharmaceutical companies where any profitable genetic resource found thru bioprospecting is patented. Patenting is itself extremely controversial but at least it protects in situ genetic resources - maybe one day a cure for cancers, maleria, parkinson's disease and many others will be found in those genes. This is NOT the issue in the monocultural wastelands of Bedfordshire or Kansas. Seems better to preserve genetic resources and work towards financial and technology transfer.
 
UVFi said:
I do agree with everything you have said honey, but we must remember that these people have reasons for doing what they are doing, its not for pleasure... People all over the world are starving, and as we all know the poor of brazil are very very poor... we must make sure those people are fed before we start boycotting the only way they know how to make money - this is the fault of big corporations and conglomarates, not the poor people that are simply trying to survive

we can do much to save the rainforests.. but it really does start at home

hope this makes sense x
Click to expand...

I agggree totally.........yes with 3 g's ;)

I just hope we haven't destroyed the only living source of some miracle cures....(fingers and toes crossed)
Wonder how long till they admit they've foooked up....
consume a lot less! that's what i say.......
 
Blender Bender said:
The only viable solution I've heard is Carbon Trading. Look what Papua New Guinea is trying to do with its rainforest

http://www.psy-forum.co.uk/psyforum_vb/showthread.php?t=29461
Click to expand...

Carbon trading is ok if you have carbon-or vegetation that "sinks" it-what could happen is clear that bushland to make way for carbon creditors by planting exotic fast-growing trees to make carbon=money.
Nah beware is it not all good or "sustainable", but a novel way of trading.
 
in 1984/5 an entire tribe of 2000 people 'vanished' in the Brazilian rainforest, during the building of one of the main roads. The tribes had been trying to protect there land, but obviously a bow and arrow isnt going to be much use against an army with machine guns. I havent been able to find the original artical, but I saw somthing on it on TV recently, well anyway, heres a few related links...

http://survival-international.org/news.php?id=486

(ok only one, dont have my bookmarkz on this pc)

boycott
Click to expand...

I dont think 'there only way of surviving' is the right way to look at it, the fact is they are contributing to the destruction of this world. I am fairly certain that the owners of these Soya fields are rich, so it is not a case of dont take away their means of survival, its a case of re-education and globalisation (not in the free-market-capitolist way, but global community...tribal style)
 
StealthSyst3ms said:
I agggree totally.........yes with 3 g's ;)

I just hope we haven't destroyed the only living source of some miracle cures....(fingers and toes crossed)
Wonder how long till they admit they've foooked up....
consume a lot less! that's what i say.......
Click to expand...

exactely - WE have destroyed this earth as a COLLECTIVE and thats how it needs to be considered, those soya bean aristocrates are rich because WE the rich western societies got them there

we can do something as a COLLECTIVE but this penalising small countries and making out we have nothing to do with it is just silly - we have the power to make this change, by making sure we eat decent food and everyday stuff like that

you cant blame the starving millions for finding ways to survive which infringe on our western living, if we all learnt to share abit, there wouldnt be a problem.

as for new 'amazon rain forest cures' i for one hope this race is killing off before we do any more damage, completely, irrationally and with no segregation

sorry to turn into a pessamist and all - but i am realistic about the lack of care we as a whole have, its time the segregation stopped though, in life and in death
 
The irony of it !!!! clearing rainforest to grow Soya for the vegitarian tree huggin hippy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top