7 ms·

This sounds amazing, but at the same time, I am concerned about the rain forest. Obviously more economically useful crops would accelerate repurposing the rain

This sounds amazing, but at the same time, I am concerned about the rain forest. Obviously more economically useful crops would accelerate repurposing the rain forest. Maybe the world would need to subsidize Brazil more to keep the rain forest? And could Brazil be expecting more subsidy with this development?

schoen 3y ago
I'm sure some actual Brazilians will comment since many are active on HN. I remember being asked in elementary school to help "buy a piece of the Amazon to stop it from being cut down". I mentioned this years later to some Brazilian friends, and they found it amazing, saying first that it almost certainly wasn't a specific plot of land, and second that enforcement of property rights and anti-poaching laws in spread-out rural areas has been spotty, and also hindered by violence and corruption. So I guess it's a thorny question, if someone in Brazil accepts such a subsidy, how that ultimately translates into physically stopping people from making illicit uses of Amazon lands. Edit: In theory, stopping an illicit farm (which takes time to grow and has to be tended and harvested) would be easier than stopping someone with a pickup truck and chainsaw from just grabbing a bunch of trees for lumber. On the other hand, the U.S. has spent tons of money trying to eradicate poor people's coca farms in the Andes and it doesn't seem to have had the level of success the government hoped for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication). Meanwhile, some people are apparently still maintaining wildcat marijuana farms on U.S. Federal lands. Wheat farms aren't as profitable as coca or marijuana, but even suppressing certain kinds of farms in remote enough areas seems like it can be non-trivial!
- mxkopy 3y ago
  At the level of randoms with chainsaws, my first thought is to treat it as a drug production problem. Treat chainsaws like methamphetamine precursors.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    How well has that worked with meth? A better analogy with the drug war would be to copy a country that manages meth by managing addiction. Offer better alternative and employment to the farmers and loggers. Obviously this isn’t easy.
    - mxkopy 3y ago
      I don't think it's mutually exclusive. You can deny chainsaws to bad actors while also trying to reduce the number of bad actors compassionately and nonviolently. In the drug war analogy, maybe decriminalize possession but heavily regulate production/sales.
      - doctor_eval 3y ago
        Terms like “bad actors” are part of the problem. Most people with chainsaws are trying to feed their family. They may be “bad actors” at one scale, but they are “good actors” to the people whose opinion matters to them. It is this kind of language, and indeed this kind of problem, that makes resolving it so complicated.
        mxkopy 3y ago
        I think it depends. To me bad actor seems more like a technical term than a moral one. I can see how it's easy to pass judgment on people described literally as "bad" in some way, but only if I'm unprofessionally intertwining my morals with my ethics. If you don't believe in punishment in the first place then such terms lose their deontological charge.
        doctor_eval 3y ago
        If a technical term has the effect of framing a specific viewpoint, then it's perhaps not a very good technical term. I'm not actually convinced that it is a technical term, but even if it is, that's ultimately just an argument from authority.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - piva00 3y ago
    > to literal corrupt communists This kind of stupid hyperbole is not really conducive to any civil discussion. Calling Lula a communist in 2023 is akin to calling Tony Blair a communist in 1997: misguided red-scare tactics against someone who basically embraced neoliberalism in favour of any socialist tendencies to achieve power. Don't be that kind of person, it just make you look dumb.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      You're saying I can't call Lula, the guy who called himself a "refined socialist" not even a year ago, a communist. Really now. Guess I'm gonna insist on looking dumb then. It's shocking to me that the fact he's a communist is news to people. If you really believe this guy... Go ahead and give him your Amazon subsidies. Watch him spend it on absolutely critical matters like massive raises for the supreme court judges who are persecuting his political enemies.
      - piva00 3y ago
        Him calling himself that for political points is extremely different than being one. Lula is not a communist, he hasn't been since his first 2 terms between 2002-2010. He embraced completely the "Third Way" of social-democracy, which means it is completely enveloped by the frame of neoliberalism. Banks made a killing during 2002-2010, how would a communist be supportive of the finance industry? It's shocking to me you are Brazilian and don't know this, it's shocking you parrot red-scare tactics as if Lula is about to start a Communist Revolution in Brazil. He isn't, he is not a communist. And socialism is not communism.
        matheusmoreira 3y ago
        If he doesn't look like a communist to you, it's only because brazilian society applied some brakes on him. It's not for a lack of trying. 2010 you say? Let's remember: https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2010/05/presidente-altera-trechos-polemicos-do-plano-de-direitos-humanos.html https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2010/05/presidente-alt... Let's see... Relativization of private property, media censorship, taxes on accumulated capital, religious persecution. Wow, literally the same talking points that surfaced in last year's elections. Yeah, you're seriously mistaken if you think this guy isn't a communist. And that article is from 2010, the media wasn't so friendly to him back then. Now that same media backs him and he also has supreme court judges backing his every move... Let's just say I'm glad you were able to leave this place. I'm genuinely happy for you. I would have left too but my family refused to come with me and I didn't have the heart to leave them behind. > And socialism is not communism. Who cares?
h2odragon 3y ago
> concerned about the rain forest. then go buy some rain forest, and pay at least as much property tax on it as someone converting it to farmland would.
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  and pay guards to protect the area 24/7
sdfhfjhdfhfsyh 3y ago
I wouldn't worry about the rain forest since. Not only it's likely too wet and hot for the new wheat cultivars, but AFAIK deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is driven mostly by cattle-ranching and land speculation.
- kawera 3y ago
  And logging, mostly to supply rich countries with some exotic timber.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
I'd burn that entire jungle down if it brought us industry, development and prosperity in exchange. Why is it that only developed countries got to exploit their natural resources?
- was_a_dev 3y ago
  To be fair, it wasn't even their natural resources
- piva00 3y ago
  It happened 100-200 years ago in developed countries, we know better now that it isn't something to be replicated. Or are you also willing to have child labour working 12-16 hours/day to achieve industrialisation? Burning that entire jungle down to achieve short-term economical development will doom future generations, you achieve development and prosperity for 20 years while leaving a bleak future for the next 50-200 years. For what? Making some cars? Mining some ore? It's the second moronic take I came across from you in this comment chain, you're parroting Bolsonaro's demagogy, it feels like you haven't thought yourself about the consequences of "burn that entire jungle down". I don't believe you are that stupid so please, give it a deeper thought than this knee-jerk angry reactionary take. It sounds extremely moronic.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > For what? Making some cars? Mining some ore? Defense industry? Semiconductor fabs? Pretty much anything? You name it dude. I'm just sick of my country being the world's barn. Producing soy and shit. I wish Brazil had balls to do what China did. > you're parroting Bolsonaro's demagogy Please. I don't care at all about Bolsonaro. He's irrelevant. I had this opinion before he even took office. It's not that I "haven't thought of the consequences", it's that I really don't give a shit. I literally couldn't care less that there's going to be a price -- I'd pay it gladly, if it brought prosperity and power to my nation.
    - piva00 3y ago
      > It's not that I "haven't thought of the consequences", it's that I really don't give a shit. I literally couldn't care less that there's going to be a price -- I'd pay it gladly, if it brought prosperity and power to my nation. That's the whole issue: you aren't the one who is going to pay for it. I'm originally from the same nation as you, that's exactly why I'm calling you moronic. Semiconductor fabs don't depend on the Amazon being burnt down. Defence industry does not depend on the Amazon being burnt down. These depend on political stability, well-educate population, State investment in R&D for the future, economical policies that foster national industries through the whole chain, fiscal policies (and stability of those) that don't overburden small R&D companies. Custo-Brasil encompasses all of that: political instability, fiscal policies that are burdensome to abide to, a poorly educated population, bureaucratic inefficiencies, so on and so forth. That's what need to change in Brazil, not fucking burning the Amazon down, that won't bring any prosperity as the elites would be unchanged, they would still pillage and loot you and the rest of the population, as it's been done since the 1500s.

schoen 3y ago

I'm sure some actual Brazilians will comment since many are active on HN. I remember being asked in elementary school to help "buy a piece of the Amazon to stop it from being cut down". I mentioned this years later to some Brazilian friends, and they found it amazing, saying first that it almost certainly wasn't a specific plot of land, and second that enforcement of property rights and anti-poaching laws in spread-out rural areas has been spotty, and also hindered by violence and corruption. So I guess it's a thorny question, if someone in Brazil accepts such a subsidy, how that ultimately translates into physically stopping people from making illicit uses of Amazon lands. Edit: In theory, stopping an illicit farm (which takes time to grow and has to be tended and harvested) would be easier than stopping someone with a pickup truck and chainsaw from just grabbing a bunch of trees for lumber. On the other hand, the U.S. has spent tons of money trying to eradicate poor people's coca farms in the Andes and it doesn't seem to have had the level of success the government hoped for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication). Meanwhile, some people are apparently still maintaining wildcat marijuana farms on U.S. Federal lands. Wheat farms aren't as profitable as coca or marijuana, but even suppressing certain kinds of farms in remote enough areas seems like it can be non-trivial!

mxkopy 3y ago
At the level of randoms with chainsaws, my first thought is to treat it as a drug production problem. Treat chainsaws like methamphetamine precursors.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  How well has that worked with meth? A better analogy with the drug war would be to copy a country that manages meth by managing addiction. Offer better alternative and employment to the farmers and loggers. Obviously this isn’t easy.
  - mxkopy 3y ago
    I don't think it's mutually exclusive. You can deny chainsaws to bad actors while also trying to reduce the number of bad actors compassionately and nonviolently. In the drug war analogy, maybe decriminalize possession but heavily regulate production/sales.
    - doctor_eval 3y ago
      Terms like “bad actors” are part of the problem. Most people with chainsaws are trying to feed their family. They may be “bad actors” at one scale, but they are “good actors” to the people whose opinion matters to them. It is this kind of language, and indeed this kind of problem, that makes resolving it so complicated.
      - mxkopy 3y ago
        I think it depends. To me bad actor seems more like a technical term than a moral one. I can see how it's easy to pass judgment on people described literally as "bad" in some way, but only if I'm unprofessionally intertwining my morals with my ethics. If you don't believe in punishment in the first place then such terms lose their deontological charge.
        doctor_eval 3y ago
        If a technical term has the effect of framing a specific viewpoint, then it's perhaps not a very good technical term. I'm not actually convinced that it is a technical term, but even if it is, that's ultimately just an argument from authority.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
[flagged]
- piva00 3y ago
  > to literal corrupt communists This kind of stupid hyperbole is not really conducive to any civil discussion. Calling Lula a communist in 2023 is akin to calling Tony Blair a communist in 1997: misguided red-scare tactics against someone who basically embraced neoliberalism in favour of any socialist tendencies to achieve power. Don't be that kind of person, it just make you look dumb.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    You're saying I can't call Lula, the guy who called himself a "refined socialist" not even a year ago, a communist. Really now. Guess I'm gonna insist on looking dumb then. It's shocking to me that the fact he's a communist is news to people. If you really believe this guy... Go ahead and give him your Amazon subsidies. Watch him spend it on absolutely critical matters like massive raises for the supreme court judges who are persecuting his political enemies.
    - piva00 3y ago
      Him calling himself that for political points is extremely different than being one. Lula is not a communist, he hasn't been since his first 2 terms between 2002-2010. He embraced completely the "Third Way" of social-democracy, which means it is completely enveloped by the frame of neoliberalism. Banks made a killing during 2002-2010, how would a communist be supportive of the finance industry? It's shocking to me you are Brazilian and don't know this, it's shocking you parrot red-scare tactics as if Lula is about to start a Communist Revolution in Brazil. He isn't, he is not a communist. And socialism is not communism.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        If he doesn't look like a communist to you, it's only because brazilian society applied some brakes on him. It's not for a lack of trying. 2010 you say? Let's remember: https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2010/05/presidente-altera-trechos-polemicos-do-plano-de-direitos-humanos.html https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2010/05/presidente-alt... Let's see... Relativization of private property, media censorship, taxes on accumulated capital, religious persecution. Wow, literally the same talking points that surfaced in last year's elections. Yeah, you're seriously mistaken if you think this guy isn't a communist. And that article is from 2010, the media wasn't so friendly to him back then. Now that same media backs him and he also has supreme court judges backing his every move... Let's just say I'm glad you were able to leave this place. I'm genuinely happy for you. I would have left too but my family refused to come with me and I didn't have the heart to leave them behind. > And socialism is not communism. Who cares?

h2odragon 3y ago

> concerned about the rain forest. then go buy some rain forest, and pay at least as much property tax on it as someone converting it to farmland would.

11235813213455 3y ago
and pay guards to protect the area 24/7

sdfhfjhdfhfsyh 3y ago

I wouldn't worry about the rain forest since. Not only it's likely too wet and hot for the new wheat cultivars, but AFAIK deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is driven mostly by cattle-ranching and land speculation.

kawera 3y ago
And logging, mostly to supply rich countries with some exotic timber.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

I'd burn that entire jungle down if it brought us industry, development and prosperity in exchange. Why is it that only developed countries got to exploit their natural resources?

was_a_dev 3y ago
To be fair, it wasn't even their natural resources
piva00 3y ago
It happened 100-200 years ago in developed countries, we know better now that it isn't something to be replicated. Or are you also willing to have child labour working 12-16 hours/day to achieve industrialisation? Burning that entire jungle down to achieve short-term economical development will doom future generations, you achieve development and prosperity for 20 years while leaving a bleak future for the next 50-200 years. For what? Making some cars? Mining some ore? It's the second moronic take I came across from you in this comment chain, you're parroting Bolsonaro's demagogy, it feels like you haven't thought yourself about the consequences of "burn that entire jungle down". I don't believe you are that stupid so please, give it a deeper thought than this knee-jerk angry reactionary take. It sounds extremely moronic.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > For what? Making some cars? Mining some ore? Defense industry? Semiconductor fabs? Pretty much anything? You name it dude. I'm just sick of my country being the world's barn. Producing soy and shit. I wish Brazil had balls to do what China did. > you're parroting Bolsonaro's demagogy Please. I don't care at all about Bolsonaro. He's irrelevant. I had this opinion before he even took office. It's not that I "haven't thought of the consequences", it's that I really don't give a shit. I literally couldn't care less that there's going to be a price -- I'd pay it gladly, if it brought prosperity and power to my nation.
  - piva00 3y ago
    > It's not that I "haven't thought of the consequences", it's that I really don't give a shit. I literally couldn't care less that there's going to be a price -- I'd pay it gladly, if it brought prosperity and power to my nation. That's the whole issue: you aren't the one who is going to pay for it. I'm originally from the same nation as you, that's exactly why I'm calling you moronic. Semiconductor fabs don't depend on the Amazon being burnt down. Defence industry does not depend on the Amazon being burnt down. These depend on political stability, well-educate population, State investment in R&D for the future, economical policies that foster national industries through the whole chain, fiscal policies (and stability of those) that don't overburden small R&D companies. Custo-Brasil encompasses all of that: political instability, fiscal policies that are burdensome to abide to, a poorly educated population, bureaucratic inefficiencies, so on and so forth. That's what need to change in Brazil, not fucking burning the Amazon down, that won't bring any prosperity as the elites would be unchanged, they would still pillage and loot you and the rest of the population, as it's been done since the 1500s.