Amazon Forest De-Forestation

[Bordoy 0]

The massive reduction in species diversity is definately the thing that pisses me off most about losing vast chunks of the amazon everyday, we're shooting ourselves in the balls with that one (Brazilians most of all).

But hey, the way we're continuing the human race will either go extinct or become machines so we might as well get it over with and wage a full scale war on nature to turn the planet into one big production line and then work out why we've done it afterwards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4563499.stm

[Ares1978 0]

Rainforrests produce more then 90% of the worlds oxygen, and if they go down at that rate polution will increase.

http://www.ran.org/info_center/about_rainforests.html

While it's true that rainforests produce vast amounts of oxygen through photosynthesis, they consume as much as they produce in the decay of organic matter. Rainforests do affect our atmosphere and climate, but not through supplying the world's oxygen. (Caufield, Catherine, In the Rainforest)

[Ares1978 0]

Besides everybody knows that only granola eating, smelly, commie, tree-hugging hippies care about the enviornment.

They're like those ELF (Enviornmental Liberation Front) terrorists and since they're terrorists, then what they stand for must be evil and God told Bush he must fight evil and lead American against evil... so we need to support deforestation cuz its good for God and capitalism.

(sarcasm off)

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Granola-eating pot-smoking, smelly, commie, tree-hugging hippies and environmental terrorists don't have anything to do with protecting the environment (and be sure to tell them that at every opportunity). They are just like all the other fascists; they have the will, but not the brains or the skills to do good. As a result, they become hypocritical smelly granola-eating commie tree-hugger hippie (hippie=terrorist, just ask Spielberg) fanatics.

.............

Deforestation, extinction: What's the difference? Seriously. Nothing lasts forever, species become extinct and the climate changes constantly. That's how it was before humans became something more than just food for large predators and it will be the same after we are gone. Mother Nature is a bitch. It's clear that most other species are dying out because they haven't yet been able to evolve to deal with humans. That's their problem, not ours. We are doing what we can, we don't have any obligation to do what some of us think we should be doing. If we happen to kill ourselves in the process (our own extinction is unavoidable, by the way), thats just how the system works. Don't panic, nobody's going to miss us.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Rainforests, woods, and all those things are of course neccesary as they produce air, but they're always so nasty and if you enter them you'll either come out dead(If you come out at all, that is.), become deadly ill, or leave with some kind of malignant entity or poison as a result. To supplement this, there's a good chance the natives would flay you, do something horrible to you, or just kill you if they saw you. Air is good, but I hate the rainforest.

By the way, check out the headline. That, my friends, is bias, if not propaganda.

i see human beings are real the problem not a rainforest which happens to home to countless plants and animals. carelessly wiping out the rain forest could very well effect peoplel living there. that land they need for crops isn't going to stay fertile if they keep on slashing and clearing all those plants. as for the natives, quite truthfully they have a very good reason for being hostile to outsiders. those south americans treat them very poorly, hardline christian groups wana force them to convert and government and radical groups kill them for land. they really should leave them alone since they aren't at all like radical muslims their villiges don't even have electricity.

To nemesis6: Don't go to the rainforest.

To Red Oct: You got a point there.

Remember what Agent Smith said in the first Matrix movie, to Morpheus...

[Ares1978 0]

Remember what Agent Smith said in the first Matrix movie, to Morpheus...

I remember, and I disagree with Hugo Weaving. I think he also used the word "equilibrium", which really isn't possible.

[Daddl 10]

Just got the latest FAO InfoSilva newsletter - there's some good links to news articles about the amazonian rain forest disappearing:

Quote[/b] ]Brazil:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4561189.stm

Amazon destruction accelerating

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/19/amazon.ap/index.html

Greenpeace: Brazil rainforest destruction 'a national shame'

[...]

http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/sciences/20050520.OBS7289.html

Nouvelles pertes pour la foręt amazonienne

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2066120.htm

Brazil losing fight to save the Amazon

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3996152

The economy booms, the trees vanish

These are maybe a good start if you want to read up a bit on what's going on there.

From the first article above:

[krycek 349]

And people are wondering why they have mass floodings,extreme climate changes and global warming.We just

need someone to nuke Antartica and we're all set.

No one said we should live in caves and hunting with bows just to preserve the nature but like mentioned in one of those articles we still can have a balance.

[Bordoy 0]

I don't see how Brazil could say there economy is good becuase of lots of de-forestation. It's still crap TBH, and they are still paid a pittance of what we are paid. Most of Rio is still shanty towns etc.

[Victor_S. 0]

Some of you people didnt read the original article very well. It is not football fields we are talking here it is a foot ball "pitch" which could be any thing from a few feet to a few meters. This was a hot topic in the 80's. You guys are getting all worked up about this, but im sure you'll forget about it in no time . You can say humans are stupid, capitalisms a virus, people are evil, whatever. The fact is that those farmers down there are just struggling to survive. Besides if you watch the news you would know that mankind will end long before we have to worry about the rain forest. We will be hit by a meteor, burned up by the sun, the polar ice caps will melt and flood the world, we will all nuke each other. Hey it might be a crisis, but personnaly I dont give a shit.

[Bordoy 0]

Some of you people didnt read the original article very well. It is not football fields we are talking here it is a foot ball "pitch" which could be any thing from a few feet to a few meters. This was a hot topic in the 80's. You guys are getting all worked up about this, but im sure you'll forget about it in no time . You can say humans are stupid, capitalisms a virus, people are evil, whatever. The fact is that those farmers down there are just struggling to survive. Besides if you watch the news you would know that mankind will end long before we have to worry about the rain forest. We will be hit by a meteor, burned up by the sun, the polar ice caps will melt and flood the world, we will all nuke each other. Hey it might be a crisis, but personnaly I dont give a shit.

In the UK, a football pitch is like what premiership and championship teams play on, not kiddies.

[Victor_S. 0]

well it didnt say a profesional pitch, and judging by the article they probably are making it sound worse than it is or else they would have given an exact figure. Where was the article written from?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Victor_S.-

Quote[/b] ]"they probably are making it sound worse than it is or else they would have given an exact figure"

"The environment ministry said 26,000 sq km of forest were chopped down in the 12 months prior to August 2004" -Amazon destruction accelerating.. BBC

Right.

The Amazon rainforest is vanishing. They dont have to make anything up. Yet from the first google link i found:

*A single river in the Amazon may harbor more types of fish than are found in all the rivers of Europe combined. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994

*The Amazon is home to one in every four plants found on Earth. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994

*Only 5,000 of the world´s 250,000 plant species (2%) have been screened in the laboratory to determine their therapeutic potential. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994

*The Amazon is home to the world´s largest eagle, snake, anteater, armadillo, spider, freshwater turtle, and freshwater fish. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994

*One quarter of all prescription drugs sold today have plant based chemicals as active ingredients. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994

*The Earth's rainforests are shrinking at the rate of 100 acres per minute. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994 (that was in 1994 so you can almost double it for todays figure)

-I cant vouch for this author but i expect all of these facts are verifiable. And its now getting worse again thanks to slash and burn soya farming.

----------------------

Do you know what a species is?

Taken from Bordoys link:

"THE LIVING PLANET INDEX

The Living Planet Index is a measure of the state of the world's biodiversity. It measures trends of vertebrate populations in terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments "

If you dont care it is only because you are totally failing to think (it cannot be because you are selfish).

Quote[/b] ]"The fact is that those farmers down there are just struggling to survive"

Thats quite true but there are myriad ways of struggling to survive that dont involve -destroying the majority of species on earth before they are even documented- just for a few measly dollars.

[Denwad 0]

measly dollars? i bet you if your family were starving you'd go to any length to subsist. that's exactly what those people are doing.

until Brazil gives them an incentive to stop their ways ( like giving them food ) they'll continue.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]measly dollars? i bet you if your family were starving you'd go to any length to subsist. that's exactly what those people are doing.

The amazon rainforest is one of the wonders of the natural world and it is being destroyed for what given that fact are a few measly dollars here or there.

I dont think its only Brazil who should act. If some of my taxes go to diverting Brazilian farmers from slashing and burning the rainforest to developing more sustainable forms of agriculture im certainly not going to complain (even though its the Brazilian governments job). Do you really think burning the rainforest is the only way of making money in Brazil? People are giving in to the simplest and easiest option despite the repercussions. Miraculously there are plenty of people not burning the rainforest who are still alive in Brazil.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

This article suggests that its not only poor farmers with starving families but large logging companies supported by the Brazilian government and even legal system doing the business of removing the amazon from the face of the planet. And further that Indians truly living at a subsistence level are the victims.

What about these appallingly treated tribes living at a subsistence level in the amazon rainforest in a sustainable way? They are being annihilated or driven into reservations. Sounds familiar somehow. Those poor logging companies..

[brgnorway 0]

Just to correct a general misconception mentioned a lot. Poor indians/settlers who burn land to later grow crops are not to blame for the ecologic crisis. Quite contrary, what they do is very ecological because when the land is exhausted from their crops or their garden is getting unmanagable for further crops they burn new land - letting the old land be the most fertile land for new plants and trees.

Logging however is to blame and it's the real threat to the rainforests. All that just to give us furniture, flooring on boats, and garden furniture.

[miles teg 1]

Actually its not very ecological it can take decades for a agricultural area to return as a rainforest.  In the process many species are wiped out in slash and burn agriculture.  In logging they can replant the trees also.  But its the same problem.  It takes a tremendous amount of time.  Slash and burn agriculture can be done in a sustainable manner, but it has to be done methodically.  Alot of development work is geared towards limiting the need for slash and burn agriculture using various methods of crop rotation, fertilizers, ect..    Many countries like Indonesia, have made great progress in this regard as they were forced to learn careful land management due to the scarcity of land in places like Java where ever inch of land is used for growing something (usually edible).  I used to live in Yogyakart, central Java.   Java is the most densely populated place on Earth and yet its one of the greenest places I've ever lived in. I'm not saying that Brazilians should try to be like the Indonesians (cuz biodiversity is very poor on Java), but that there are certain land management practices that if coupled with good population control programs and other ecologically frienldy economic development programs, could drastically reduce the amount of rainforest that is destroyed and allow for new areas of mixed-ecosystems in more agricultural areas to increase biodiversity in areas already scared by deforestation.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[brgnorway 0]

Actually its not very ecological it can take decades for a agricultural area to return as a rainforest.  In the process many species are wiped out in slash and burn agriculture.  In logging they can replant the trees also.  But its the same problem.  It takes a tremendous amount of time.  Slash and burn agriculture can be done in a sustainable manner, but it has to be done methodically.  Alot of development work is geared towards limiting the need for slash and burn agriculture using various methods of crop rotation, fertilizers, ect..    Many countries like Indonesia, have made great progress in this regard as they were forced to learn careful land management due to the scarcity of land in places like Java where ever inch of land is used for growing something (usually edible).  I used to live in Yogyakart, central Java.   Java is the most densely populated place on Earth and yet its one of the greenest places I've ever lived in.  I'm not saying that Brazilians should try to be like the Indonesians (cuz biodiversity is very poor on Java), but that there are certain land management practices that if coupled with good population control programs and other ecologically frienldy economic development programs, could drastically reduce the amount of rainforest that is destroyed and allow for new areas of mixed-ecosystems in more agricultural areas to increase biodiversity in areas already scared by deforestation.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

There's a great difference between Java which happen to be the worst deforested areas on the planet. Slash and burn agriculture is almost always done by hunter and gather societies in the rainforests - and it's ecological because it actually refreshes the earth, although as you said it takes time to grow to the 3 levels/hights.

In indonesia and Java where the rainforests are comparatively smaller you would find fertiliser to be positive because it secures the borders of the rainforests. You don't however want to bring fertilisers to the borders of the brasilian rainforests. Mining and logging is the main problem for the south american rainforests - not slash and burn which is the only way to grow what you need in the middle of the jungle.

I don't think you would do "development work" with the indigenous population of amazonas

[miles teg 1]

Actually its not very ecological it can take decades for a agricultural area to return as a rainforest.  In the process many species are wiped out in slash and burn agriculture.  In logging they can replant the trees also.  But its the same problem.  It takes a tremendous amount of time.  Slash and burn agriculture can be done in a sustainable manner, but it has to be done methodically.  Alot of development work is geared towards limiting the need for slash and burn agriculture using various methods of crop rotation, fertilizers, ect..    Many countries like Indonesia, have made great progress in this regard as they were forced to learn careful land management due to the scarcity of land in places like Java where ever inch of land is used for growing something (usually edible).  I used to live in Yogyakart, central Java.   Java is the most densely populated place on Earth and yet its one of the greenest places I've ever lived in.  I'm not saying that Brazilians should try to be like the Indonesians (cuz biodiversity is very poor on Java), but that there are certain land management practices that if coupled with good population control programs and other ecologically frienldy economic development programs, could drastically reduce the amount of rainforest that is destroyed and allow for new areas of mixed-ecosystems in more agricultural areas to increase biodiversity in areas already scared by deforestation.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

There's a great difference between Java which happen to be the worst deforested areas on the planet. Slash and burn agriculture is almost always done by hunter and gather societies in the rainforests - and it's ecological because it actually refreshes the earth, although as you said it takes time to grow to the 3 levels/hights.

In indonesia and Java where the rainforests are comparatively smaller you would find fertiliser to be positive because it secures the borders of the rainforests. You don't however want to bring fertilisers to the borders of the brasilian rainforests. Mining and logging is the main problem for the south american rainforests - not slash and burn which is the only way to grow what you need in the middle of the jungle.

I don't think you would do "development work" with the indigenous population of amazonas  

I never said that Brazil should follow Java as an exact model. Only that the Javanese Indonesians have been superbly successful at creating self-sustaining agriculture due to the shortage of land. I didn't say that they were successful in maintaining their forests. Thats why I said they have very poor biodiversity. But nevertheless its one of the greenests places I've ever lived. The stuff that can used in Brazil is the self-sustaining agricultrual techniques. But of coarse there are tons of other factors like soil types that make it harder or easier to do self-sustaining agriculture and you are more limited in the number of crops that you can grow.

Also you are right...fertilizers can have a very detrimental effect on rainforests, but organic based fertilizers possibly less so. I haven't read up on studies concerning that.

My main point is that if they can reuse the same land plots, they wouldn't need to continue slashing and burning as their soil got depleted. But unfortunately the soil nutrient level in rainforests is very low and all the nutrients tend to be on the top level of soil so its easily washed away.

But right now the biggest user of former rain forest land in Brazil at least seems to be large scale soybean farmers.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Scrub 0]

[sarcasm] Oh come on, all the animals we need are cows, pigs, chickens, whitefish (cod's almost gone, are whitefish still around?) and dogs.  Insects serve NO purpose whatso ever, except to irritate us stuperior beings.. [/sarcasm]

About 5 years back, there was an active 'web of life' online that represented the known structure and interweaving dependancies of groups of life on this planet, and the strength each had from it's population.  Looked pretty ragged in spots then.   Wonder what it's like now.  

BTW: Anybody know if anyone/nation has used imported volcanic ash or ground up lava to beef-up their farmland? Just look at the greenery on some of those islands. Can't help to think how long the effect would last due to the density of the minerals in that form, compared to the sprays used these days. Basaltic fertilizer, anyone?

[brgnorway 0]

My main point is that if they can reuse the same land plots, they wouldn't need to continue slashing and burning as their soil got depleted.  But unfortunately the soil nutrient level in rainforests is very low and all the nutrients tend to be on the top level of soil so its easily washed away.  

But right now the biggest user of former rain forest land in Brazil at least seems to be large scale soybean farmers.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Good points Miles, but the main reason why they use slash and burn agriculture in the rainforests of south america and indeed on Papua New Guinea is first and foremost because the gardens regrow into being unmanagable to tend and because of snakes (papua new guinea) . You'd be surprised to see how soon the jungle reclaims it's grounds where hunter- and gatherers have practised subsitence farming.

[Daddl 10]

Good points Miles, but the main reason why they use slash and burn agriculture in the rainforests of south america and indeed on Papua New Guinea is first and foremost because the gardens regrow into being unmanagable to tend and because of snakes (papua new guinea) . You'd be surprised to see how soon the jungle reclaims it's grounds where hunter- and gatherers have practised subsitence farming.

The problem is that due to the soils in the amazonian the slash&burn agriculture is in fact not sustainable at all. You have to remember that the soils are very poor in terms of nutritians which are contained (almost) only in the thin layer of dead organic material covering the soil.

As long as the forest is not disturbed this is not a problem as the high turn-over always guarantees enough dead material on the ground. But once you burn the forest and use that patch of land for agriculture the daily rain will start sweeping away the organic layer and the agricultural plants (which are also removed once you harvest them) use up what's left. After 2-3 years the soil's exhausted and the farmer has to move on.

Of course there will be forest again - but of the same ecological quality? No, that might actualy take many hundreds of years - if it happens at all (just remember that an area once settled is seldom left completely alone). Forest != forest.

Also you have to remember that it's not a few poor farmers doing so, but huge masses of them. They follow the roads the logging companies create to gain access to an area, then settle along that road. The reason? They are poor and need to feed their families, so simple prohibition isn't a solution. Brazil needs to provide them with alternative way of doing so - and I doubt they can do that all by themselves.

[Pathy 0]

And people ask me why i went to South America to do volunteer conservation work.....

[crassus 0]

Moderators: So, with a Star Wars Mod in development, that thread is locked, but An Amazon Forest thread is allowed to progress for four pages.

So how is this even remotely related to OFP?

Correction: The Star Wars Mod thread was not locked, but a thread discussing the movie. Still....

[Bordoy 0]

Moderators: So, with a Star Wars Mod in development, that thread is locked, but An Amazon Forest thread is allowed to progress for four pages.

So how is this even remotely related to OFP?

Correction: The Star Wars Mod thread was not locked, but a thread discussing the movie. Still....

(about military, politics, science, other military games and similiar topics loosely related to the game)

There you go mate. Star Wars is non of the above.