3 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoNo 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 agoWhat 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.