3 ms·

Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevan

by 9dev 4y ago

Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity. Specifically, I would like to question if Brazil can or even should be trusted to handle the Amazon forest in a responsible manner. Over the past decades, objectively, it has shown that the country, or maybe primarily its government, doesn't: The forest is continuously decimated, ever faster, with full and open support by the government itself. Considering that the Amazon is of broader concern than just Brazil's jurisdiction alone, would it -- and I'd include other, similar areas around the globe here too -- make sense to move administration to a more responsible body, the UN for example (not specifically the UN, but you get the idea)? This may sound offensive to you for all kinds of reasons, especially if you're Brazilian, and I sincerely apologise for that. But please consider that maybe the challenges ahead of humanity as a whole require new solutions, new ways to think about who "owns" land?

krainboltgreene 4y ago
Ah, the imperialist approach.
- 9dev 4y ago
  No, it's different. I'm not suggesting "the west" taking control of the Amazon, but humanity as a whole. The other option is hoping for the best or trusting a corrupt government to do the right thing for the rest of the globe. It hasn't worked well yet.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    What incorruptible body could take control of the amazon on behalf of humanity? How would we chose its leaders? Who decides what is protected and what isn’t?
    - 9dev 4y ago
      No body is incorruptible. But less corrupt would certainly be a step forward, no? I would suggest something like a global conservation fund responsible for guarding critical "infrastructure" of our planet. At some point, we will need to take action to prevent earth from becoming inhospitable, and this requires steering. Merely admitting defeat to greedy human nature doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        What troops do we send if Brazilians cut down trees after we tell them it’s protected? Do we have to back coups to put in place a government that respects the global conservation fund if one rejects it? You’re just describing imperialism one step removed. Saying we need structural change, but not more top down control, isn’t throwing my hands up and admitting defeat to greedy human nature.
kennywinker 4y ago
What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves. I’m no expert in what’s happening on the ground in the amazon, but the story used to be clearing amazon to raise cattle to sell to mcdonalds. Idk if that’s still the case, but i’d be willing to bet that the thing driving deforestation is resource extraction for global markets. It’s temping to try to police brazil’s extraction, but the far less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to police our own demand for what they’re cutting down the rainforest to provide.
- 9dev 4y ago
  > What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves. The difference here being that it's not about taking control of the developing world, but saving resources humanity as a whole requires to keep earth habitable for us - this affects everyone, poor or rich. It's just that Brazil, right now, has a very unfortunate combination of a corrupt government, very valuable resources, and responsibility for the integrity of the forest. > It’s temping to try to police brazil’s extraction, but the far less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to police our own demand for what they’re cutting down the rainforest to provide. That isn't mutually exclusive. At the very least, there should be sanctions put into place until Brazil starts actually trying to prevent extraction, not actively supporting it. But I could still see a global organization responsible for keeping core areas intact.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    > It's just that Brazil, right now, has a very unfortunate combination of a corrupt government, very valuable resources, and responsibility for the integrity of the forest. That’s not an accident. Not misfortune. That’s a result of western colonialism. I’m no expert in brazil, but its history includes colonial governments, CIA backed coups, and IMF influence. It doesn’t have a bad gov because whoops we elected a bad guy in 2019. It has a bad gov because throughout its entire history western govs and corporations have been exercising influence to be allowed to pilfer its resources.
Aerroon 4y ago
And how many millions of people are you willing to kill for this? Because you're essentially suggesting that the rest of the world should invade and occupy the sovereign territory of a nation with 200 million people. There is a snowball's chance in hell that anybody would willingly agree to this. Any kind of scheme you can come up with is guaranteed to cause more issues that will harm Brazilians. Other people telling you how to live your life is a recipe for disaster. One that we've seen over and over again.
ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity. The problem is that this logic extends to most very large countries in the world. Are you gonna also appropriate Russia, Canada, China and United States of America land? Who is gonna police all of that? Does the rest of humanity have the collective firepower to stop, say, "just China" and "just the United States of America" from ruining the environment? I don't think this is feasible.
Mobius01 4y ago
It is not the responsibility if the Brazilian people to give up their sovereignty in order to save the world, particularly after other nations have burned their way to the top of the development scale. You seem to be oblivious to reality.

by 9dev 4y ago

krainboltgreene 4y ago

Ah, the imperialist approach.

9dev 4y ago
No, it's different. I'm not suggesting "the west" taking control of the Amazon, but humanity as a whole. The other option is hoping for the best or trusting a corrupt government to do the right thing for the rest of the globe. It hasn't worked well yet.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  What incorruptible body could take control of the amazon on behalf of humanity? How would we chose its leaders? Who decides what is protected and what isn’t?
  - 9dev 4y ago
    No body is incorruptible. But less corrupt would certainly be a step forward, no? I would suggest something like a global conservation fund responsible for guarding critical "infrastructure" of our planet. At some point, we will need to take action to prevent earth from becoming inhospitable, and this requires steering. Merely admitting defeat to greedy human nature doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      What troops do we send if Brazilians cut down trees after we tell them it’s protected? Do we have to back coups to put in place a government that respects the global conservation fund if one rejects it? You’re just describing imperialism one step removed. Saying we need structural change, but not more top down control, isn’t throwing my hands up and admitting defeat to greedy human nature.

kennywinker 4y ago

What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves. I’m no expert in what’s happening on the ground in the amazon, but the story used to be clearing amazon to raise cattle to sell to mcdonalds. Idk if that’s still the case, but i’d be willing to bet that the thing driving deforestation is resource extraction for global markets. It’s temping to try to police brazil’s extraction, but the far less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to police our own demand for what they’re cutting down the rainforest to provide.

9dev 4y ago
> What that sounds a lot like to my ears is “white man’s burden”. I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control and parent the developing world because they can’t do it themselves. The difference here being that it's not about taking control of the developing world, but saving resources humanity as a whole requires to keep earth habitable for us - this affects everyone, poor or rich. It's just that Brazil, right now, has a very unfortunate combination of a corrupt government, very valuable resources, and responsibility for the integrity of the forest. > It’s temping to try to police brazil’s extraction, but the far less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to police our own demand for what they’re cutting down the rainforest to provide. That isn't mutually exclusive. At the very least, there should be sanctions put into place until Brazil starts actually trying to prevent extraction, not actively supporting it. But I could still see a global organization responsible for keeping core areas intact.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  > It's just that Brazil, right now, has a very unfortunate combination of a corrupt government, very valuable resources, and responsibility for the integrity of the forest. That’s not an accident. Not misfortune. That’s a result of western colonialism. I’m no expert in brazil, but its history includes colonial governments, CIA backed coups, and IMF influence. It doesn’t have a bad gov because whoops we elected a bad guy in 2019. It has a bad gov because throughout its entire history western govs and corporations have been exercising influence to be allowed to pilfer its resources.

Aerroon 4y ago

And how many millions of people are you willing to kill for this? Because you're essentially suggesting that the rest of the world should invade and occupy the sovereign territory of a nation with 200 million people. There is a snowball's chance in hell that anybody would willingly agree to this. Any kind of scheme you can come up with is guaranteed to cause more issues that will harm Brazilians. Other people telling you how to live your life is a recipe for disaster. One that we've seen over and over again.

ElectricalUnion 4y ago

> Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity. The problem is that this logic extends to most very large countries in the world. Are you gonna also appropriate Russia, Canada, China and United States of America land? Who is gonna police all of that? Does the rest of humanity have the collective firepower to stop, say, "just China" and "just the United States of America" from ruining the environment? I don't think this is feasible.

Mobius01 4y ago

It is not the responsibility if the Brazilian people to give up their sovereignty in order to save the world, particularly after other nations have burned their way to the top of the development scale. You seem to be oblivious to reality.