3 ms·
Lets be honest here: having a florest jsut for having a florest, does no good. The amazon needs to be exploited for its natural resources, otherwise may as well
by major505 7y ago
Lets be honest here: having a florest jsut for having a florest, does no good. The amazon needs to be exploited for its natural resources, otherwise may as well not exist, but if gonna do it, we need to do it rigth.
And burning the florest to plant soil or grazing land is a shit way to do it.
And in the end, if having a florest in place helps people make money, they will start working harder in preserving it.
Is like legal elephant hunting. My looks barbaric to some (i really dislike it), but is the only reason that there still elephants today, and people who used to hunt them for the preys, now help preserve because they make more money of rich tourist that pay big bucks to shoot an animal.
- aatharuv 7y agoJust by staying there, the Amazon is a natural resource. The lungs of the planet. "We just need to figure some way for the Brazilians to make money off of it." If Jair Bolsonaro is sufficiently Trump or Kim like, he could call it tribute.
- major505 7y agoThe whole lungs of the planet is kind of overated. The amazon florest by itself produces a lot of CO2. It whothever have important role regulating the local climate.