4 ms·
That doesn't change the fact that we have to be able to offer them a better solution other than "you're forever stuck in poverty because we don't want you to us
by stanmancan 5y ago
That doesn't change the fact that we have to be able to offer them a better solution other than "you're forever stuck in poverty because we don't want you to use your natural resources while we live a lavish life after destroying all of ours".
Don't get me wrong; I do not under any circumstance support what's going on there. But it's also not fair for whole countries to be stuck in poverty because they're slow to the game.
Why not have first world countries adopt portions of the rain forest? Pay the Brazilian government annual fee's for them to protect the rain forest from being clear cut. The government can use the money collected to pay people who would normally be farming the land to do something else. There's a lot of trust that the Brazilian government spends the resources as intended; but that's another problem.
TLDR; telling them they can't do it from our ivory tower is not going to work so if that's the plan then we better be offering them alternative income sources that don't require clear cutting.
- bamboozled 5y agoI'm not saying they need to be stuck in poverty, I'm saying the Government of Brazil, the UN etc, should stop this from happening because we know of the dire consequences of it. If Brazil requires financial assistance, so be it. They shouldn't be allowed to destroy the Amazon rain forest because stupid people did it back in the gold rush.
- stanmancan 5y agoAt least we’re on the same page because I never said they should be able to.