We should work with Brazil to teach them how to manage their forests properly. In the US there were once forests as vast as the Amazon but we've cut most of them down. We should help Brazil learn from our mistakes.

Because I firmly dis-agree with Imperialism, I feel that it would be just as unethical to intervine in a country's actions using military force for environmental reasons as our present quandry we find ourselves in (Iraq). I believe that the answer to environmental change is personal responsibility. More positive change can occur if more individuals are on board for the environmental concerns of the world. I agree with MoreheadEagle in that we should be working with other countries cooperatively for change rather than intervening militarily.

I feel that we (Americans), as the largest consumers in the world of... well everything, can do just as much good, if not more, for the environment as we have done bad. And we can do this by stopping the argument of whether global warming exists or not and accept that regardless of its existence or not, we should do what we can on an individual level to change the negative effects that are evident (visible pollution, over fishing/consumption of many animals, obvious wasting of our natural resources, and unhealthy water supplies in many parts of the world, for example).

We should work with Brazil to teach them how to manage their forests properly. In the US there were once forests as vast as the Amazon but we've cut most of them down. We should help Brazil learn from our mistakes.

 

If we cut them down and we are still here, where is the problem?

If there were 60,000,000 buffalo (depending on the source) 100 years ago and today there are only 100,000-150,000 today and we have survived, where is the problem?

We polluted rivers almost beyond belief, but we corrected our mistakes and we are still here.

We have been drilling for oil for 150 years and we are still here. We did a lot of bad things to nature, but we have corrected them. We still have accidents, but at least we clean them up today.

These are just 4 reasons why I believe today's environmentalists have overstated their case. We needed to make changes, we have, but some now want to go to extremes that are not needed.

If we cut them down and we are still here, where is the problem?

If there were 60,000,000 buffalo (depending on the source) 100 years ago and today there are only 100,000-150,000 today and we have survived, where is the problem?

We polluted rivers almost beyond belief, but we corrected our mistakes and we are still here.

We have been drilling for oil for 150 years and we are still here. We did a lot of bad things to nature, but we have corrected them. We still have accidents, but at least we clean them up today.

These are just 4 reasons why I believe today's environmentalists have overstated their case. We needed to make changes, we have, but some now want to go to extremes that are not needed.

 

There were millions of buffalo that the Native Americans relied on for food and their entire way of life and b/c of their near extinction countless Native Americans died. Thousands have died b/c of environmental damage and around the world millions are dying of things that are results of environmental damage. We overfish, over-cut, and over-consume. With each species of plant and animal that dies off we lose something that could cure disease or benefit the world. We need to work with our neighbors around the world to make the planet a better place. What we do here affects everyone else and vice versa.

If we cut them down and we are still here, where is the problem?

If there were 60,000,000 buffalo (depending on the source) 100 years ago and today there are only 100,000-150,000 today and we have survived, where is the problem?

Buffalo aren't critical to life on the planet. The rainforest is. The rainforest creates the oxygen that you breathe. And that is only a small part of the story of what the rainforest means to life on this planet.

If we cut them down and we are still here, where is the problem?

If there were 60,000,000 buffalo (depending on the source) 100 years ago and today there are only 100,000-150,000 today and we have survived, where is the problem?

We polluted rivers almost beyond belief, but we corrected our mistakes and we are still here.

We have been drilling for oil for 150 years and we are still here. We did a lot of bad things to nature, but we have corrected them. We still have accidents, but at least we clean them up today.

These are just 4 reasons why I believe today's environmentalists have overstated their case. We needed to make changes, we have, but some now want to go to extremes that are not needed.

 

Perhaps the bolded helps explain why "we are still here". Perhaps we can't assume that we have corrected enough mistakes, that we never need to do so again, and that everything will be just fine from now on.

 

I agree with the original premise of the thread. I was surprised and pleased to see the Sharpton/Robertson ad the other day.

If we cut them down and we are still here, where is the problem?

If there were 60,000,000 buffalo (depending on the source) 100 years ago and today there are only 100,000-150,000 today and we have survived, where is the problem?

We polluted rivers almost beyond belief, but we corrected our mistakes and we are still here.

We have been drilling for oil for 150 years and we are still here. We did a lot of bad things to nature, but we have corrected them. We still have accidents, but at least we clean them up today.

These are just 4 reasons why I believe today's environmentalists have overstated their case. We needed to make changes, we have, but some now want to go to extremes that are not needed.

 

Also to comment on your suggestion. Your ideas about buffalo are based on the thought that we are the only beings on this earth that matter. If you believe in Christian doctrine, God created all beings on this Earth to live together. One being wasnt designed to completely kill off another. You also have to understand that drilling for oil for 150 years, while it hasnt caused us to become extinct, it has depleted a natural resource that takes millions of years to replenish itself. We are only seemingly unaffected because we havent completely depleted our supply, but the point that needs to be understood is that, soon, that supply will be gone.

Also to comment on your suggestion. Your ideas about buffalo are based on the thought that we are the only beings on this earth that matter. If you believe in Christian doctrine, God created all beings on this Earth to live together. One being wasnt designed to completely kill off another. You also have to understand that drilling for oil for 150 years, while it hasnt caused us to become extinct, it has depleted a natural resource that takes millions of years to replenish itself. We are only seemingly unaffected because we havent completely depleted our supply, but the point that needs to be understood is that, soon, that supply will be gone.

 

What I am pointing out is that we have not destroyed the earth. The sky has not fallen in, it was wrong what was done to the buffalo.

As far as oil being a limited resouce they predicted in 1919 that in 10 years all the oil would be gone. Also Brazil has announced 2 huge oil finds off their

coast.

I have been hearing doom and gloom for the last 35 years and we are still here.

Let's make the problem even worse. Guess how they're getting rid of the trees they cut down? They don't want the trees for lumber; they want the land for cultivation and grazing.

 

Additionally, what many people don't know is that the soil in a rainforest is extremely thin. The nutrients in the soil get used up within a couple of years and the soil won't support food crops. So, they have to move on to a new area and cut down those trees to make more cultivatible (word?) land that will only work for a few years.

Additionally, what many people don't know is that the soil in a rainforest is extremely thin. The nutrients in the soil get used up within a couple of years and the soil won't support food crops. So, they have to move on to a new area and cut down those trees to make more cultivatible (word?) land that will only work for a few years.

 

:thumb:

Something that Brazilians can learn is responsible agriculture that the Native Americans practiced in the Amazon. Before Europeans came, the Amazon river was densely populated along the banks of the rivers. The Natives developed a method of farming called Black Earth that made the soil better. It is one of the reasons the forest is so lush today. If they could figure out how the natives were able to live in relative harmony with the forest then maybe they could do something about it.

:thumb:

Something that Brazilians can learn is responsible agriculture that the Native Americans practiced in the Amazon. Before Europeans came, the Amazon river was densely populated along the banks of the rivers. The Natives developed a method of farming called Black Earth that made the soil better. It is one of the reasons the forest is so lush today. If they could figure out how the natives were able to live in relative harmony with the forest then maybe they could do something about it.

If your population is minimal and your technology is Stone Age level, it is much easier to live in "harmony" with a forest.

 

The last thing that modern Brazillians need is Americans telling them what they should do with their rain forest.

If your population is minimal and your technology is Stone Age level, it is much easier to live in "harmony" with a forest.

 

The last thing that modern Brazillians need is Americans telling them what they should do with their rain forest.

 

Where did he say anthing about Americans telling Brazilians what to do? He said Native Americans along the Amazon basin.

This is going on in Central Africa too. They're cutting down and burning trees to sell as charcoal.

If your population is minimal and your technology is Stone Age level, it is much easier to live in "harmony" with a forest.

 

The last thing that modern Brazillians need is Americans telling them what they should do with their rain forest.

 

The population before Europeans was in the hundreds of thousands to a couple million along the river. A Spanish explorer wrote about villages along the Amazon running continuously for hundreds of miles. The point is that there are ways of farming and using the rain forest that doesn't need to be as harmful. Cutting down the African and Amazon rainforests are cutting down huge supplies of oxygen and huge carbon sinks.

Where did he say anthing about Americans telling Brazilians what to do? He said Native Americans along the Amazon basin.

We should work with Brazil to teach them how to manage their forests properly. In the US there were once forests as vast as the Amazon but we've cut most of them down. We should help Brazil learn from our mistakes.

Any more questions?