Amazon deforestation: The dangers and the solutions

[Vrubel]

Ever since I was a little child I was fascinated and cared very much for the Amazon rainforest. The Amazon is vital for world-climate, mainly because it absorbs and stores carbon thus diminishing the greenhouse effect and literally purifying the air for us to breathe. Of course, the Amazon is also the most biodiverse environment on the planet. This is priceless and precious in its self. But from a practical point of view, the many plant species in the Amazon yet unkown to us can harbor medicinal properties for curing sickness and disease. For example, the plant 'Rosy periwinkle' increased the survival rate of childhood leukemia from 10% to 90%.

Deforestation is a huge problem in all the countries that contain the Amazon but in Brazil is the deforestation is extra vicious. This is because of the large scale soja and cattle meat industries and the relatively weaker social position of the Indians as opposed to Ecuador and Peru where the indigenous people have more of a voice. 

The deforestation of the Amazon is extra absurd when you consider that the Amazon isn't fertile at all. All of the nutrients it gets are from decomposing leaves and other organic material that the forest produces itself. So no forest means no nutrients either. Coincidently the forest produces also a good chunk of its own rain because of evaporation from the leaves. So if the deforestation continues there will eventually be a breaking point where the forest can no longer get enough rain. This is where a horror scenario can play out where the jungle will start to die back and will be replaced by a tropical savannah that holds way less biodiversity and stores way less carbon. 

The problem of deforestation is partly caused by the world's demand for soya and beef. So the Brazilian Amazon farmers are not solely to blame. It remains a complex issue, not the least because of the dire economic situation in Brazil. But at the same time, these large-scale farmers are not poor people so much of their expansion is from greed. I think it is necessary for western countries (and ideally all countries) to minimize their role in the economic chain that causes the deforestation. Also, they should be helping the Brazilians with new technologies that allow for a larger crop harvest on a smaller land size. There is this noticeable trend in the world of agriculture where countries that are absurdly big tend to be less creative and innovative in maximizing agriculture productivity, these are places like The US, Australia, and of course Brazil. The opposite is also true, tiny countries with a severe lack of land tend to be the most innovative and creative in maximizing productivity, these are countries like Holland and Israel. So a cross-pollination of knowledge and the development of new agriculture techniques that are more sustainable and do not require deforestation is crucial for the future of the Amazon and world climate.

(Excuse my badly photoshopped map, the red shows roughly the deforestation in Brazil's southern Amazon.)

Edited January 20, 2021 by Vrubel

[aurum]

@Vrubel

Yes it’s a huge problem. And the amazon is only one of many major ecosystems that’s being heavily damages. These are world events.

The economics that incentivizes this destruction has to be addressed. As you point out, you can’t just blame the farmers. The farmers are carrying out what our systems have been designed to do.

What is greed? Greed is perception of scarcity. Only when I feel there isn’t enough do I become greedy.

But our systems are designed to run on scarcity. Thus, greed becomes incentivized.

That has to end. The zero sum economic games we are playing will destroy the “natural world” if not addressed.

[Scholar]

Just to be clear, the soy mentioned here is grown to feed lifestock, so virtually all of these forests are burned for lifestock.

 

This problem would not exist if people would adopt a plant-based diet, but sadly even those who proclaim to be the most conscious of us have difficulty giving up on these kinds of habits. The only way this will change is if we radically change our behavior.

If meat consumption continues to rise, we will soon need multiple earths to feed all the lifestock.

 

Countries can do whatever they want, as long as people don't take responsibility and stop consuming meat, this will not change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

Edited January 20, 2021 by Scholar

[Vrubel]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

@Vrubel

Yes it’s a huge problem. And the amazon is only one of many major ecosystems that’s being heavily damages. These are world events.

 

Unfortunately, that's true and all nature is worth conserving. Though I would say the Amazon is special because of the crucial role it plays in the balance of world ecology. If you walk through a temperate forest in America or Europe, the biodiversity does not even come close to that of the Amazon. In the Jungle, plants grow on plants and each layer of vegetation is a habitat for an unimaginable amount of creatures.  

11 hours ago, aurum said:

What is greed? Greed is perception of scarcity. Only when I feel there isn’t enough do I become greedy.

But our systems are designed to run on scarcity. Thus, greed becomes incentivized.

That has to end. The zero sum economic games we are playing will destroy the “natural world” if not addressed.

You are right, "greed" was maybe too harsh and condeming of a word. In a sense, it is natural for a human to maximize the wealth of himself and his family. The problem occurs when it is at the expanse of the natural world and done in an unsustainable manner. I would argue that the problems of deforestation can significantly be reduced within the current capitalist system. As I said the Amazon isn't fertile at all and needs to be heavily fertilized for productivity, the only thing that the land has going for it is the humidity that makes the agriculture profitable. But with the forest diminishing so does the humidity. Ultimately everybody has an interest in sustainablility, it is just a question of whether you care to look further ahead into the future and realize it all connected with intricate systems. You can either work with and as the natural systems or disregard them and be all destructive. 

[Vrubel]

12 hours ago, Scholar said:

Just to be clear, the soy mentioned here is grown to feed lifestock, so virtually all of these forests are burned for lifestock.

 

This problem would not exist if people would adopt a plant-based diet, but sadly even those who proclaim to be the most conscious of us have difficulty giving up on these kinds of habits. The only way this will change is if we radically change our behavior.

If meat consumption continues to rise, we will soon need multiple earths to feed all the lifestock.

 

Countries can do whatever they want, as long as people don't take responsibility and stop consuming meat, this will not change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

The cultural norm of eating meat every day is not sustainable for the planet, agree. To change this will take some serious cultural change coming from both bottom-up and top-down.

The bottom needs to be aware of the importance of reduced meat consumption and the top needs to enforce higher taxes on meat and other measures to solidify the change.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Vrubel

[Vrubel]

@neutralempty What? I never blamed vegans. I agree livestock is the bulk of the issue.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

The cultural norm of eating meat every day is not sustainable for the planet, agree. To change this will take some serious cultural change coming from both bottom-up and top-down.

The bottom needs to be aware of the importance of reduced meat consumption and the top needs to enforce higher taxes on meat and other measures to solidify the change.

The reducitarian approach will not work because it has no practical way of being established. How much does someone need to reduce? Is it a moral obligation? As long as it is not a moral obligation, people will simply choose their own pleasure over any consequences in some future that they might not even get to live in. It is hard to make an argument that reducing consumption is somehow a moral obligation, when that entire type of consumption is unnecessary, and in and of itself causes ethical rights violation to individuals. How can you for example blame someone for consuming meat every day, if you consume meat once a week, which still enslaves and kills an individual.

Veganism is so powerful precisely because it is an ethical position. You don't have to contemplate how much you have to reduce, because all of this type of consumption is simply wrong. There is no wiggle room, there is a clear established base-line.

 

 

A cultural shift in how we view animals has therefore far more benefits than a reducitarian philosophy that will have little practical effect.

A) It is actually a meaningful progression in identity, by viewing animals like we view humans, we are growing closer to unity (it is a good catalyst for growing up the spiral) and developing more sensitivity towards all life. From this kind of increased sensitivity societies themselves will benefit greatly.

B) The vegan ethical stance can give meaning to people, in a time in which meaninglessness and an overfocus on the individual is causing tremendous suffering in society. The expansion of identity allows one to grow as an individual in relationship to the collective, and stop being paralyzed by the pursuit of individualistic happiness.

C) It is a firm position that can be established and upheld, rather than a flimsy direction of where we are supposed to go. The ethical nature of it gives it a self-motivating energy. It is hard to be motivated by some sort of vague reducitarian philosophy, while a stance motivated by the recognition of the suffering of others in relationship to personal responsibility can be extremely powerful.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Scholar

[Vrubel]

@Scholar

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

The reducitarian approach will not work because it has no practical way of being established. How much does someone need to reduce? Is it a moral obligation? As long as it is not a moral obligation, people will simply choose their own pleasure over any consequences in some future that they might not even get to live in. It is hard to make an argument that reducing consumption is somehow a moral obligation, when that entire type of consumption is unnecessary, and in and of itself causes ethical rights violation to individuals. How can you for example blame someone for consuming meat every day, if you consume meat once a week, which still enslaves and kills an individual.

Well, I was talking about an incentivize/Deincentivize system regarding the goal of reduced meat consumption. I don't think that eating meat is unethical or morally wrong, humanity has been eating meat for as long as they existed. There is this truth in nature that living organisms need to consume each other in order to survive. Also, I am sure that for all of your beautiful words that you have killed bugs with your car or by simply being a passenger on a train that crushes bugs as it goes along. Not to mention the plants you eat.

I think it is deluded to think that fully eliminating meat consumption is some kind of a noble cause that will take humanity to the next level, it's not even achievable by any stretch of the imagination. The goal of sustainability is one that's much more practical and realistic. Of course, providing production animals with a dignified life with minimal suffering is a huge part of this goal. This is called holistic agriculture. The problem is that it is hard to implement on a large scale. In order for that to happen demand needs to be reduced.

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Veganism is so powerful precisely because it is an ethical position. You don't have to contemplate how much you have to reduce, because all of this type of consumption is simply wrong. There is no wiggle room, there is a clear established base-line.

 

That's the thing: The is no clear established base-line nor will there ever be one. Just like animals, the plants you eat also have spirits and souls, and everything that lives wants to live, no matter the organism. Come down from your high horse of ethical superiority as a vegan.

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Vrubel

[Scholar]

21 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

 I don't think that eating meat is unethical or morally wrong, humanity has been eating meat for as long as they existed.

Humanity has also raped, murdered, enslaved and tortured each other for as long they existed. This is an appeal to tradtion/nature fallacy.

 

22 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

There is this truth in nature that living organisms need to consume each other in order to survive.

Living organisms need to consume each other in order to survive, but this does not justify moral agents to consume whatever they want to consume when there are alternatives that for example do not have their own minds, otherwise you would have to accept the killing of humans for food even if there are alternatives like plants.

 

23 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Also, I am sure that for all of your beautiful words that you have killed bugs with your car or by simply being a passenger on a train that crushes bugs as it goes along. Not to mention the plants you eat.

Of course, but just because people die in accidents does not mean lead us to conclude that indeed we can enslave, breed and murder humans. This is fallacious thinking. The plants I eat are not sentient, and even if they were, the animals that we consume do consume far more plants themselves. Less plants and animals die when you simply choose to eat the plants.

 

25 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

I think it is deluded to think that fully eliminating meat consumption is some kind of a noble cause that will take humanity to the next level, it's not even achievable by any stretch of the imagination.

I disagree, to think that the expansion of our identity to encompass animals and therefore eventually outlaw the enslavement and killing of animals for agricultural purposes is realistic and inevitable. I also think this kind of noble cause will take humanity to the next level, and it is achievable as much as the abolishment of human slavery was achievable.

There is nothing impractical about veganism, infact the consumption of meat is what is so impractical.

 

29 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Of course, providing production animals with a dignified life with minimal suffering is a huge part of this goal. This is called holistic agriculture. The problem is that it is hard to implement on a large scale. In order for that to happen demand needs to be reduced.

This will never happen, because as long don't see animals as individuals, we will not have sufficient motivation to change these systems. We are barely motivated to change literal torture, let alone create some sort of dignified life with minimal suffering.

And as soon as we do view animals as individuals, we will view it as absurd to kill them for food as we would to kill humans for food.

 

31 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

The is no clear established base-line nor will there ever be one.

This is wrong, we are currently witnessing the creation of a new, clear base-line, as we did in the past with human rights.

 

32 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Just like animals, the plants you eat also have spirits and souls, and everything that lives wants to live, no matter the organism.

Plants are spirit, they do not have souls. They require no individuated, seperate illusiory selfs. For deeper insight into this, read my post here:

Additionally, it is the best for both the plants and the animals to consume the plants directly.

 

34 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Come down from your high horse of ethical superiority as a vegan.

If by ethical superiority you mean that I am more ethical than you, then no, I will not get off my high horse of ethical superiority. I view animals as individuals, so this kind of conversation is essential to me so that I can aid my brothers and sisters in their suffering. You are resisting to moral progression precisely because you want to remain comfortable at where you are at. This does not stem from a universal concern for all life, this stems from pure egoic desires.

[Espaim]

@Scholar I read through your comment and it was worth it. Reconsidering my eating habits again...

[Vrubel]

@Scholar @neutralempty

I have made a post to educate, bring awareness and start a discussion about the Amazon deforestation and I didn't mention nor did I allude to veganism even once in my original post. If you want to be a vegan, fine! there are many valid reasons to be one.

What seems to me to be the most absurd is that we are talking about the issue of deforestation that caused the death of billions of wild animals and plants yet all you seem to care about is aggressively defending your vegan ideology, you have literally hijacked my post to peddle your vegan ideology. Universel concern for all life..? what you are doing is the epitome of ego. 

It is a Don Quixote style of crusading where instead of thinking systematically about the factors currently at play in reality, you are fighting windmills.
Can you imagine someone like you sitting down with a Brazilian official or farmer, feeling all superior to that disgusting meat-eater and peddling your ideology, how productive will your interaction be? Hom much impact will you have on the protection of the rainforest?

Edited January 21, 2021 by Vrubel

[Vrubel]

That's like saying never committing any crimes is a solution to get rid of prisons. True but not how reality works. You might not eat any meat but good luck convincing a critical mass of other people to do so as well. vegan missionary work is not a workable solution against the pressing issue of Amazon deforestation. 

9 minutes ago, neutralempty said:

Lol, you idiot. 

The projection is strong here.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Vrubel

[Scholar]

15 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

@Scholar @neutralempty

I have made a post to educate, bring awareness and start a discussion about the Amazon deforestation and I didn't mention nor did I allude to veganism even once in my original post. If you want to be a vegan, fine! there are many valid reasons to be one.

What seems to me to be the most absurd is that we are talking about the issue of deforestation that caused the death of billions of wild animals and plants yet all you seem to care about is aggressively defending your vegan ideology, you have literally hijacked my post to peddle your vegan ideology. Universel concern for all life..? what you are doing is the epitome of ego. 

It is a Don Quixote style of crusading where instead of thinking systematically about the factors currently at play in reality, you are fighting windmills.
Can you imagine someone like you sitting down with a Brazilian official or farmer, feeling all superior to that disgusting meat-eater and peddling your ideology, how productive will your interaction be? Hom much impact will you have on the protection of the rainforest?

I do think you are being defensive here, you are closed hearted. You are projecting onto me something that simply is not the case.

I have brought up veganism because it is relevant to this, I gave detailed reasoning for why I think it was so relevant. Whenever I will get the opportunity to speak out for my brothers and sisters, I will do so. Consider that this does not stem from ideology, but simply from compassion and love. This deforestation is directly linked to this ideology of carnism that you are a victim of. It is you who feels the need to defend himself, because it is obvious that it is your position that requires justification. I do not need valid reasons to stop funding the death and enslavement of our brothers and sisters. No, it is you who needs to find valid reason to continue to do this. This is why again and again, this topic garners so much attention, and why people get so offended by it when we point out that it is quite obviously immoral, from a reasoned and consistent understanding of individual rights, to continue to fund this kind of industry.

I think what you are doing is the epitome of ego my brother, you are attempting to justify the killing and enslavement of your brothers, not me. I have no unversal concern for all life, but I have concern for more life than you do. I do not justify my actions with spiritual dogma.

 

I am not fighting windmills. I am using reason to show you how you are inconsistent, how your own mind is fooling itself. I understand that this is frustrating my brother, but this is the process many of us had to go through in the past.

 

Can  you imagine someone sitting down with a american slave owner, feeling all superior to that disgusting slave-keeper and peddling your ideology, how productive will your interaction be? How much impact will you have on the protection of the slaves?

 

See, I am not talking to the brazilian farmers, I am talking to you, the consumer. And as you can see in this thread, clearly I have an impact. I have been convincing people of this for years now, and I have had great success in the past. This is how the world will change. Open your heart my brother.

 

 

I can see you have ignored the points I brought up in my previous post, so I am not sure if you are even reading them. I will not continue to respond to you as I have no time for this at the moment, but if you want to learn more you could read up on past conversation I had on this topic, for example here with Michael:

 

[Vrubel]

 

23 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think what you are doing is the epitome of ego my brother, you are attempting to justify the killing and enslavement of your brothers, not me. I have no unversal concern for all life, but I have concern for more life than you do. I do not justify my actions with spiritual dogma.

If you were honest you would have admitted to you yourself that you know nothing about me. You don't know how compassionate and wise I am. All I did was post about the Amazon deforestation and provided some down to earth solutions. I just didn't agree with your absolutist stances and now I am being demonized, projected upon and looked down upon. Very respectless. 

 

10 minutes ago, neutralempty said:

Stop romantazising the problem and get to the actuallity of solving them. 

What!? romantazising the problem? You have no idea what the Amazon means to me and what I have done for it. 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Vrubel

[Vrubel]

50 minutes ago, datamonster said:

I think you're making some solid points overall and we're all on the same side, I believe.

But when talking about these issues we can't disregard our food choices as the biggest contributor to the problem. Hence, veganism for sure is one very powerful way we can help solve these issues at an individual level.

Ofc veganism is radical and agree with you that half the world won't go vegan any time soon.

But if everyone just halved their meat consumption on average, the positive effect for the planet, the Amazon and ofc the animals would be exactly the same.

I do believe this is achievable! So, we should appreciate everyone who makes an effort to be part of the solution!

Sure, some people are more ideological than others. Ultimately this is irrelevant to the Amazon.

Reducing the demand for meat is a big part of the solution and the Amazon doesn't care if you're doing it ideologically or not.

So, let's just fuckin do it!

@datamonster Thank you for taking up the tone of a decent and respectful human being. Apparently, it's a rarity these days. 

Never in my life did I have any problems with veganism, I also made the point that reducing meat consumption is necessary for sustainable farming. If you don't agree with me on this point and think I don't go far enough, that's fully your right and I respect that, and let's keep this discussion respectful. We will go further if we are constructive, build dialogue and appreciate that everyone comes from his own perspective. 

I for example have extensively studied agriculture and sustainablility, not formally but as a hobby, and I do practice in my garden on a very small scale. So mine proposed solutions partly stem from an agrarian point of view. And yes (in my original post) I do take the Brazilian farmer inconsideration. Because they are there and they are not going anywhere anytime soon. I don't like the slave-holder analogy when referring to Amazon farmers because they are not all the same. At least a part of the farmers and officials in the amazon are reasonable and receptive to more sustainable agriculture practices if given the right incentives. In my opinion is being absolutist, demonizing, and looking down on people a bad strategy for real environmental change.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Vrubel