# The Amazon is in bad shape and nearly "beyond hope"



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

Found this while surfing and found it very worrisome, sad, and depressing...

http://www.welt.de/z/plog/blog.php/the_free_west/the_free_wests_weblog/2006/07/23/amazon_desert



> Geoffrey Lean in Manaus and Fred Pearce report in today's Independent that 'studies by the blue-chip Woods Hole Research Centre, carried out in Amazonia, have concluded that the forest cannot withstand more than two consecutive years of drought without breaking down ... the Amazon now appears to be entering its second successive year of drought, raising the possibility that it could start dying next year. The immense forest contains 90 billion tons of carbon, enough in itself to increase the rate of global warming by 50 per cent. Dr Dan Nepstead expects "mega-fires" rapidly to sweep across the drying jungle. With the trees gone, the soil will bake in the sun and the rainforest could become desert. Dr Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri, one of the world's top forest ecologists, says the research shows that "the lock has broken" on the Amazon ecosystem. She adds: the Amazon is "headed in a terrible direction".
> 
> 'Top scientists at a symposium on the Rio ***** told a meeting that global warming and deforestation were rapidly pushing the entire enormous area towards a "tipping point", where it would irreversibly start to die. The consequences would be truly awesome. The wet Amazon, the planet's greatest celebration of life, would turn to dry savannah at best, desert at worst. This would cause much of the world - including Europe - to become hotter and drier, making this sweltering summer a mild foretaste of what is to come. In the longer term, it could make global warming spiral out of control, eventually making the world uninhabitable.'
> 
> ...


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Let the flaming begin

Thanks for sharing that Salt. "Nobody knows when the crucial threshold will be passed.." That's the fearful part to me. Many, I feel look at statements like that and say well, we may never pass that and the scientists are simply being apocolyptic. I feel though that we need to in some ways assume the worst and do all that we can to make sure we don't pass the points of no return. We spend so much time destroying simply for brief monetary gain, or worrying about what the costs will be to change our habits; our pollution, CO2 release and fossil fuel consumption, that we forget the cost in the end may be much more than money.

Well, I guess everyone here knows my stand on these issues by now. Many will say that the whole global warming thing is a natural cycle but somehow I doubt the Amazon region woul dhave naturally deforested close to 50% of itself without human greed. And that holds for everywhere, heck Ohio has once completely forested and now less than 25% is. Virtually part of the world has been stripped and raped by us in some way, why don't we think that will have an impact.


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

The impact is obviously in the negative direction and there seems to be no hope that it will be in the opposite direction. This is at least how it looks from the Middle East. UN seems to have no function of control anymore. The only obvious things left are the dark profits and values. But I still think that it is an episode of the cycle. I am not sure humankind can survive in this episode.


----------



## Burks (May 25, 2006)

I doubt there will be an Amazon by the time I have grandchildren. Kind of sad really. I'll probably never get to see it in person either...


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

There are more trees on Earth today than there were at the start of the 20th century.

Also, I would add that it's easy to bitch and whine about capitalism and the profit motive, and to moan and wail about corporate greed, etc., but very few of the people doing the belly aching would want to live without the many, many things that the 'evil' corporations give us.

I find it highly ironic that people decry capitalism while using a computer, not to mention all the other ways that people gladly take and use the fruits of capitalism when it suits them.

That being said I'm all for reasonable, sensible Governmental regulation of corporations to protect the environment. Signing idiotic treaties like the Kyoto accord would not be reasonable or sensible in the least.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

Faruk Gençöz said:


> The impact is obviously in the negative direction and there seems to be no hope that it will be in the opposite direction. This is at least how it looks from the Middle East. UN seems to have no function of control anymore. The only obvious things left are the dark profits and values. But I still think that it is an episode of the cycle. I am not sure humankind can survive in this episode.


The United Nations is an embarrasing joke. They are the most inept and ineffective governmental body on the planet.

Kofi Annan is a corrupt scum bag, and U.N. peace keepers rarely keep peace and usually just cause more people to get killed wherever they go.

The U.N. is also deeply anti-semitic and anti-Israel.


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

banderbe said:


> There are more trees on Earth today than there were at the start of the 20th century.


True, but thats a one sided way of looking at things. That's like saying, well, we only dump a few hundred million gallons of raw sewage (per most states) into out waterways now, compared to 100 years ago when virtually 100% went straight into the river. Or saying the hole in the ozone is not really growing anymore, so its no big deal. Tell that to the people who live in Northern Australia and New Zealand.



> Also, I would add that it's easy to bitch and whine about capitalism and the profit motive, and to moan and wail about corporate greed, etc., but very few of the people doing the belly aching would want to live without the many, many things that the 'evil' corporations give us.
> 
> I find it highly ironic that people decry capitalism while using a computer, not to mention all the other ways that people gladly take and use the fruits of capitalism when it suits them.


I find a big difference between capitalism and greed. I know many would argue that the two go hand in hand, but because I complain about the destruction caused by greed (sure it may be inherent to capitalism) doesn't bean that capitalism itself is bad. This is a huge and sticky subject for another topic, but realize I said human greed, soemthign you'll find in virtually every economic society, whether it be hunter-gatherer or full fledged capitalism. Advances in technology, like computers, etc, while they may be speed up by the capitalist mindset, are not necessarily the cause for the destruction of our enviroment. Funny that cars in the early 80's averaged 20.5mpg while today the average is 21mpg, while we have made advances in other technologies that exceed that standard by 1mil%



> That being said I'm all for reasonable, sensible Governmental regulation of corporations to protect the environment. Signing idiotic treaties like the Kyoto accord would not be reasonable or sensible in the least.


I absolutely agree that regulation needs to exist but what is so wrong about the Kyoto Protocol? Its a voluntary agreement designed to limit CO2 emissions by 5% over the next 5-10 years. 5%! If anything is idiotic its aiming for number so low it would be like peeing in the ocean.


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

banderbe said:


> ...
> 
> ... also deeply anti-semitic and anti-Israel.


Are you implying that any statement or opinion that criticizes Israel is anti-semitic? What in the world does one have to do with the other? 

From a purely objective point of view, I consider Israel a nation state like any other nation state and therefore can be criticized or praised for its policies without having anything to do with the religion/race/ethnicity of its people.

The US is majority Christian. Does that mean that if one criticizes the US one is anti-Christian? India is majority Hindu; therefore criticizing India is anti-Hindu? Criticizing Zimbabwe is racist against the black population (though this is what Mugabe would have you believe! sounds familiar?)? 

Equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism is geared towards shutting people up because they don't want to be labeled anti-semitic...

And for information, the definition of a Semite:

"A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians."


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

Laith said:


> Are you implying that any statement or opinion that criticizes Israel is anti-semitic? What in the world does one have to do with the other?


I thought saying "anti-semitic and anti-Israel" made it clear that the latter doesn't imply the former, thus the need for me to state both.

That Europe has a long and embarassing history of anti-semitism should go without saying and to suggest that it isn't influencing U.N. policy today is I think just not realistic. I'm certain googling "united nations anti-semitism" will turn up gobs of information.

This link should get you started learning about the U.N.'s history of anti-semitism.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

dennis said:


> ...what is so wrong about the Kyoto Protocol?


Simply put, it would do virtually nothing to curb "global warming" while causing global economic collapse.

It's why the Senate rejected it 99-0 and Clinton promised to veto it and why no first world nations signed on.

Here is a great editoral by Robert Samuelson called "The Real Inconvenient Truth" that I think underscores the truth about global warming, namely that it is a technological challenge as opposed to one that can be resolved with treaties and economic strangulations.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

By the way for folks who want to visit the Amazon you can join an expedition at Oliver Lucanus's website here. I plan to join an expedition within the next five years or so.


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

banderbe said:


> I thought saying "anti-semitic and anti-Israel" made it clear that the latter doesn't imply the former, thus the need for me to state both.
> ...


Rereading the phrase (along with your comment above) does make it clearer. Apologies for jumping on that but I have heard many many people trying to link the two and it always gets to me!  I actually once had someone tell me I was anti-semitic because I criticized how Israel was not paying enough attention to the negative effects of the port of Eilat on the ecosystem of that part of the Red Sea  ... (And yes, they were very serious and got pissed because I naturally thought they were joking!)

My comment had nothing to do with the efficiency/productivity/fairness etc (or lack thereof) of the UN. My opinion on the UN is that it is full of shortcomings of all kinds, specifically on the world political front. However, I'd rather have a "forum" such as the UN where various countries can rant and rave instead of blowing each other up (we have enough of that  ).

The UN specialized agencies (and affiliates) though I think do a pretty good job and I, and I'm sure many people who benefit from their work (though I'm sure it can be done more efficiently), am glad that they're around. Here I'm talking about UNHCR, WHO, UNICEF, WFP, UNESCO, UNDP etc... basically all the units that deal with humanitarian/cultural issues rather than politics and borders.


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Barry, I agree with you and the article you sited, now that I understand your view-point. I do have to say though, that I feel it will take all of us to make a difference. Why would politicians try to do anything (unless it is based on their morals, rare though it happens) if everyday people like you and I don't "make" them? I do agree that the end solution will require better technology but I don't forsee it happening if everyone sits around on their laurels. True, the little things that the average person can do will have little impact, but if most people do them, and understand why they need to be done, it might create a contageous semtiment and it may buy us a little more time to find the solution.

Quite honestly I believe the US economy at least can take a little stress without collapsing. I would be all for a higher tax on gas, as one example, if the money went straight to alternative research. Gee, wonder who woldn't want that? Maybe we should stop spending millions of dollars a year arguing over totally usless (read idiotic) issues like the gay marriage and "intelligent" design BS. (not that the issues are not "important" but they shoudl not be issues at all, savy)


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

The problem with gay marriage, as I see it, isn't whether one is for it or against it, but the anti-democratic courts trying to circumvent the will of the people on the issue in state after state. Anyway, that's a whole other debate


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Yup, another debate; although the people once thought it was fine to beat your wife, own slaves, that only men should vote and that the blacks, then the Irish, then the Polish, etc were lower people and should be treated like dirt. Ironically, popular opinion and the view of the people is often based entirely one where and who you poll, or closed minded people fearful of any kind of change.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

I try to avoid the temptation to write others off as 'closed minded' simply because they don't see the world the way I do. Besides, we can look to Scandanavia where countries like Norway and Sweden have had gay "marriage" for over 10 years for an idea of where this sort of social policy can lead.


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

> popular opinion and the view of the people is often based entirely one where and who you poll, or closed minded people fearful of any kind of change.


I do not feel people are closed minded. On many issues people have no opinion that they have formed themselves. People belong to groups. People will adopt the view of the group with which they have aligned. We all belong to groups. These groups could be conservative or maybe liberal, employee and perhaps a citizen. We belong to groups because of the benefits and acceptance they provide. Each group has a set of values. People will choose their groups for many reasons. If you go against the values of the group then you are potentially ostracized and risk loosing the benefits the group provide. Ask Joe Lieberman about the downside of going against the group.

Are people fearful of change? No, they are fearful of going against group opinion. If the group says to change, they change. It is the rare and possibly nonexistent person that has considered the origin of all the values and beliefs that they hold. Young people adopt values of older people that they respect as they form an identity and may not carefully consider these values for many years. People who initiate change try to sway the opinion of the group and not necessarily to encourage people to think for themselves.

Insanity in the individual is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is rule.- Nietzsche.

Here is an example. There are hungry people in the world. We have enough food to feed everyone. Still, there are hungry people. Why do we not feed them? An acceptable reason that people adopt is that it is not economically feasible. The economy is the Skittles rainbow. There is no gold standard. It is all just a tool to motivate and control the individual to be a good member of the group. How about we allow hungry people to buy food on credit if they are hungry?


----------

