4 ms·

Problem here is that developed world has destroyed it's wilderness long time ago, used that land to produce food and resources, but now we demand that others do

Problem here is that developed world has destroyed it's wilderness long time ago, used that land to produce food and resources, but now we demand that others don't do the same. Why don't we instead create a wilderness by giving up on our local agriculture land? Nature takes back the land very quickly and if you limit hunting and repopulate the animals you'll quickly have a full-blown wilderness back. It doesn't have to be Amazon or some place in Africa, Europe once was covered in forests end-to-end too.

ndnxhs 8y ago
An absolutely massive amount of land could be saved by not eating beef. I don't see that ever happening in America though. And even if the land was saved from cow farming it would just be used to create more urban sprawl.
- zip1234 8y ago
  To be fair--a lot of the land in America used for beef is prairie. There wouldn't be massive rain forests there or anything anyways.
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    Other things could be put on that land instead of destroying nature to make more space.
pofjer 8y ago
This is literally what developed countries have been doing, at least in the last 6-7 decades. And besides, Europe still is ‘covered by forests end-to-end’. So not sure what your rant is about… Just speculating, but maybe in your opinion the rates should be increased?
gerbilly 8y ago
> Problem here is that developed world has destroyed it's wilderness long time ago, used that land to produce food and resources, but now we demand that others don't do the same. So why not pay those countries to leave their wilderness wild? It would be like saying: "You know, we really screwed up, and you guys are the only ones who have some of this precious wilderness left. We'd like to pay you to preserve it."
- stupidbird 8y ago
  It would be nice, but many countries struggle to even get funding approved to help other people who are starving. Nationalism is a huge barrier.

ndnxhs 8y ago

An absolutely massive amount of land could be saved by not eating beef. I don't see that ever happening in America though. And even if the land was saved from cow farming it would just be used to create more urban sprawl.

zip1234 8y ago
To be fair--a lot of the land in America used for beef is prairie. There wouldn't be massive rain forests there or anything anyways.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Other things could be put on that land instead of destroying nature to make more space.

pofjer 8y ago

This is literally what developed countries have been doing, at least in the last 6-7 decades. And besides, Europe still is ‘covered by forests end-to-end’. So not sure what your rant is about… Just speculating, but maybe in your opinion the rates should be increased?

gerbilly 8y ago

> Problem here is that developed world has destroyed it's wilderness long time ago, used that land to produce food and resources, but now we demand that others don't do the same. So why not pay those countries to leave their wilderness wild? It would be like saying: "You know, we really screwed up, and you guys are the only ones who have some of this precious wilderness left. We'd like to pay you to preserve it."

stupidbird 8y ago
It would be nice, but many countries struggle to even get funding approved to help other people who are starving. Nationalism is a huge barrier.