4 ms·
While I agree that losing the Amazon, and all of its biological and human diversity is a catastrophe, I don't agree with this sort of finger pointing. The sam
by ggpsv 5y ago
While I agree that losing the Amazon, and all of its biological and human diversity is a catastrophe, I don't agree with this sort of finger pointing.
The same argument can be said of most, if not all, of the western countries whose primary ecosystems have gone extinct by mostly the same reasons. How come then that when the developing nations in the global south do so, they're short-sighted and ignorant?
Yes, Brazil has the sovereignty to protect the Amazon. But one also has to understand the political and economic pressures exerted both internally and externally.
Brazil was responsible for ~20% of the word's beef exports in 2018 [1]. Who is purchasing that beef? What trade arrangements are incentivizing this activity?
This is not to justify what's happening in the Amazon. This is to point out that the situation is more complex that being "short-sighted" and "ignorant".
[1]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/brazil-once-again-becomes-the-world-s-largest-beef-exporter/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/brazil-once-a...
- singularity2001 5y agoI often scold local loggers when I encounter them and got the reply: If you want forest, move to Brazil.
- jefurii 5y agoYou're both right.
- bigodbiel 5y agoThe same argument is true towards China. Everyone blames them for their carbon footprint, but in the end who is buying and who is profiting from it? The answer is clear. And let’s not even get started with “recycling”!
- culopatin 5y agoIt’s a different context. What was done in the western countries many years ago is not right, but the difference is that we now know what impacts that had. Doing that in 2021 when we know how bad it is deserves finger pointing. I will continue the finger pointing if that can raise awareness, I don’t care if some other short sighted group of people did it before, that wrong doesn’t make it right. In regards of the second half of your post, if Brazil cared about their environment and long term ecological stability, they would be smarter than this. Do you not finger point at the drug cartels because “someone is buying it”?
- ggpsv 5y agoI don't disagree with you. What I'm trying to say is that there are forcing functions which make it so Brazil continues to let this pass, many of which are entrenched in the history of Brazil. Calling them stupid or ignorant is to miss the forest for the trees, and ignores the fact that these activities were propelled by foreign institutions/corporations as well. To think this is Brazil's own doing is to disregard the effects of capitalism and globalization in the last couple of decades. Sure, Brazil could be "smarter" than this and act in its own interest but that hasn't bode well for most latinamerican countries in the last half century. For Brazil to "care" the dollar value of keeping the forest untouched needs to be greater _for everyone involved_ than that of using it to graze cattle or cultivate soy. The dollar value is certainly greater all things considered (past, present, and future) but that value is less tangible to land owners and ultimately the country itself. You have to understand the socioeconomic and political context leading to these conditions. Same goes for Indonesia and Borneo cutting down their forest for palm oil.