4 ms·

Assuming you're not a short-sighted person, how would a poor country like Brazil protect, without make any money out of it, an area bigger than Europe? It's in

Assuming you're not a short-sighted person, how would a poor country like Brazil protect, without make any money out of it, an area bigger than Europe? It's interesting how rich countries made their money by exploiting our (and other poor countries) natural resources, but now they realized it's bad. The solutions proposed by Macron and Biden is ridiculous, outrageous. But it's not surprising, considering Europe/US instinct of colonizers/exploiters.

solarengineer 5y ago
"Assuming you're not a short-sighted person, how would a poor country like Brazil protect, without make any money out of it, an area bigger than Europe?" Leaving it alone - like has been done for centuries - might be one way to protect it. We have also read in the media about Bolsonaro encouraging people to burn down the forests as a right, of shooting down the indigenous forest dwellers, and other such horrific things. Yes, the rich have become rich by removing their own forests, looting their own citizens, and committing genocide-level destruction and looting of other countries and kingdoms. What's "interesting" about them realising this? What about the rest of us who already know that looting nature is bad? What about the natives (not just the indigenous) who know (or should know) that it's bad? Why should we carry on the practice of looting nature _just_ _because_ the unapologetic rich nations have realised it's bad?
Proven 5y ago
> Assuming you're not a short-sighted person, how would a poor country like Brazil protect, without make any money out of it, an area bigger than Europe? Auction it off (sell it) to private individuals. No private owner would willingly destroy what they paid for. It doesn't take a genius to know how much wood can be cut every year without destroying the value of your property. But you don't need a lot of skill or smarts to destroy what's not yours, or accept a bribe to allow plunder of government property.

solarengineer 5y ago

"Assuming you're not a short-sighted person, how would a poor country like Brazil protect, without make any money out of it, an area bigger than Europe?" Leaving it alone - like has been done for centuries - might be one way to protect it. We have also read in the media about Bolsonaro encouraging people to burn down the forests as a right, of shooting down the indigenous forest dwellers, and other such horrific things. Yes, the rich have become rich by removing their own forests, looting their own citizens, and committing genocide-level destruction and looting of other countries and kingdoms. What's "interesting" about them realising this? What about the rest of us who already know that looting nature is bad? What about the natives (not just the indigenous) who know (or should know) that it's bad? Why should we carry on the practice of looting nature _just_ _because_ the unapologetic rich nations have realised it's bad?

Proven 5y ago

> Assuming you're not a short-sighted person, how would a poor country like Brazil protect, without make any money out of it, an area bigger than Europe? Auction it off (sell it) to private individuals. No private owner would willingly destroy what they paid for. It doesn't take a genius to know how much wood can be cut every year without destroying the value of your property. But you don't need a lot of skill or smarts to destroy what's not yours, or accept a bribe to allow plunder of government property.