Rain Forest

By Daniel Miessler on January 20th, 2007: Tagged as Environment | Nature | Politics

The light part is where the trees have been completely cut down. To me this presents an interesting moral dilemma: are people allowed to rape the land that they inhabit, to the detriment of the world? In other words, are they allowed to keep the rest of the world from benefitting from something unique to the planet? And if not, what should be done?

I think Bush would advocate a bombing strategy. I think public scorn is a better idea — something along the lines of international pressure to presserve the resource.

Viewing 6 Comments

Rick 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

To better put the question in two forms:
1. Does someone have the right to destroy their own land? Even if it is unique to the planet, it is still a question of ownership and if the country has such a thing as our imminent domain then the country can then make a governmental choice of action.
That leads to the second question:
2. Does a country have the right to go insane within its own borders. Even beyond that of the simply destroying one of the most beautiful parts of creation (not trying to pick at you, it is the only way I can think to state it the way I see it)?

I am not a globalist and unless our intervention is necessary for the protection of the citizenry of the United States (or the rights thereof) I say yes, they can do as they wish it is their property. That is why I do not believe in involving us in moral wars. To save any speculation, I do support the war in Iraq as its premise was our safety (which almost everyone believed going in - everyone has heard the quotes of almost every high up on both sides of the isles). I do not support us playing politically correct about their internal religious sect issues and their sectarian violence. I also don't think we should leave the region in a mess. That is not what America has stood for, we have helped the citizens of every nation we have had conflict with. Is their a perfect answer no, but I think we are starting to get there.

So, remember the question is do we have a right to 'pressure' them on how we feel they should use their property? I think not.

reply edit reblog flag

http://rick.thedunnams.com

Lucas 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Instead of giving just the link, i will copy and paste, because its a good reading and even the lazy ones should read. But before that, i should state that i am a Brazilian, and those talks about amazonia really hits a nerve, but ok.

"During a recent discussion, in the United States, someone asked my [Cistrovam Buarque, ex-governor and ex-teacher of a unniversity at Brazil] opinion regarding the internationalization of the Amazon Region. The youngster asserted that he expected a response of a humanist and not of a Brazilian.

This was the first time anyone had established the humanist viewpoint as the starting point for my response. In fact, as a Brazilian I would have responded simply against internationalization of the Amazon Region. Even if our governments have not given the attention that this treasure deserves, it is ours. I responded that, as a humanist, realizing the risk of environmental destruction that threatens the Amazon Region, I could imagine its internationalization, just as for everything else that is important to humanity.

If the Amazon Region, from a humanist΄s point of view, has to be internationalized, then we should internationalize the oil reserves of the entire the world as well. Oil is just as important to the well being of humanity as the Amazon Region for our future. Nevertheless, the owners of oil reserves feel it is in their right to increase or decrease oil production and to raise or lower the price. The rich of the world, feel they have the right to burn this valuable possession of humanity. Similarly, the financial capital of the wealthy nations should be internationalized. If the Amazon Region is a natural reserve for every human being, then it could not be burned down by the decision of a landowner or a country. To burn down the Amazon Region is so tragic, as the unemployment provoked by the arbitrary decisions of world wide speculators. We cannot permit that the world΄s financial reserves serve to burn down entire nations according to the whims of speculacion.

Before the (internationalization of the) Amazon Region, I would like to see the internationalization of all the world΄s great museums. The Lourve cannot belong only to France. Each museum in the world is a guardian for the most beautiful works produced by the human genius. It cannot be permitted that these cultural possessions, as the natural posession of the Amazon Region, can be manipulated or be destroyed according to the whims of an owner or a country. Recently, a Japanese millionaire decided to have a painting of a grand master burried with him in the grave. This painting should have been internationalized.

At the time of the meeting, in which this question came up, the United Nations convened the Forum of the Millennium and the presidents of several countries had difficulties in attending due to barriers (they faced) at the border. Therefore, I contend that New York, as the base of the United Nations, should be internationalized. At least Manhattan should belong to all of humanity. Similarly Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brazilia, Recife, every city with its own beauty, its own history should belong to the whole world.

If the United States wants to internationalize the Amazon Region, due to the risk of leaving it in Brazilian hands, then we should internationalize all the nuclear stockpiles of the United States. Particularly since they have already shown that they are capable of using these weapons, causing a destruction thousands of times greater than the sad fires taken place in the Brazilian forests.

During their debates, the current U.S. presidential candidates have defended the idea of internationalizing the world forest reserves in exchange for the debt. We could begin to use this debt to guarantee the right of every child in the world to attend school. We could internationalize the children treating all of them, regardless of their birthplace, as a posession which deserves the care and attention of the entire world. Even more so than the Amazon Region. When the world leaders attend to the world΄s poor children as possessions of Humanity, they will no longer permit that these children work when they should be studying, that they die when they should be living.

As a humanist I accept to defend the internationalization of the world. So long as the world treats me as a Brazilian, I will fight so that our Amazon Region will be ours. Only ours."

http://www.diaplous.org/amazo.htm

reply edit reblog flag

Daniel Miessler 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Lucas,

I think you have some valid points; thanks for posting.

I agree with both you and Rick that the prospect of trying to influence what someone does with their own land is *very* serious. And I agree that once you do it once it should be done with other similar resources belonging to other countries (such as the U.S).

I disagree, however, with your comparisons. You mentioned oil, nuclear weapons, and museums. While these are surely important, I don't think they compare to the rain forests. Here are the qualities that the rain forests have that I think makes them special:

1. Irreplaceable.
2. Being destroyed.
3. Hold numerous, untold benefits to humanity.

Notice that nuclear weapons are replaceable, not really going anywhere, and are pretty bad for humanity. Oil serves a purpose, but an energy source that works as well would replace it quite easily. And the museums are not being destroyed.

That's the issue -- the rain forests likely hold countless keys to medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, as well as being a nearly limitless source of wonder for the world as a whole. The keys to a number of cures for major diseases likely lie in the plantlife in the Amazon, and to destroy this in order to make money is simply unacceptable.

So while I don't think that hostility of any kind should be used as a tool to fix this problem, I do feel that international pressure should be. And I don't think it should come in the form of telling the Brazilians that the forest belongs to the world; I don't think the world is quite ready for that yet. If that were the case then we should tell the U.S. that the Grand Canyon belongs to the world too.

I think everyone should still acknowledge that the Amazon is Brazilian, but should work as a unit to remove the financial incentives to destroying these beautiful forests. I'd gladly pay a tax to finance those who make money by destroying this beautiful resource. I think many in the world would do the same. The idea is simply to make it more lucrative to let the forest live than to take it down. I think there's probably a way to make this happen...

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/danielrm26/ /people/danielrm26/following/ http://dmiessler.com/ danielrm26

Daniel Miessler 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Rick,

So your answer doesn't change when you realize that the planet could be losing the chance to cure the cold or cancer when they destroy this untapped scientific resource? Many scientists believe that studying nature (such as in the Amazon) is the best way to find such cures. We'll never be given the opportunity to do so if it's destroyed for a little bit of currency.

Of course it's wrong to influence others regarding their own land. We all know that. The question is simply, "When are the consequences so severe that something must be done outside of the normal rules of interaction?"

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/danielrm26/ /people/danielrm26/following/ http://dmiessler.com/ danielrm26

Lucas 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Museums holds irreplaceable masterpieces. No one is ever going to see other picassos, etc…

The nuclear weapons were quoted to answer the "we shouldn't let the rain forest on the brazilians hands, because they are destroying it", so Buarque argued that we shouldn't let the nuclear weapons to be on hands of americans, because they already used to destroy parts of world.

The museums aren't being destroyed, but as quoted by him, there are collectors that holds some paintings and others for themselves, prohibiting us from the use/appreciate of it — also other problem that is faced at Amazon is the illegal contraband of animals, that is one of "financial incentives to destroying amazon" that comes Europe, USA and everywhere.

But if USA feels so worried about the planet, maybe they should sign the Kyoto convention first.

reply edit reblog flag

Thomas 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Daniel,
Your example with the Grand Canyon doesn't follow suit as the US is not destroying the Grand Canyon. The argument was to internationalize to preserve the Amazon. While the treasure the Grand Canyon is would belong to the world, the fact that it is not being destroyed negates your argument concerning internationalizing it just as it does with museums.

Other than that and the mention of the Kyoto conventions, I feel good points have been made in this discussion.

reply edit reblog flag