5 ms·

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 sto

by 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.
        mxkopy 3y ago
        The word "induction" frames a very specific viewpoint for a mathematician that's different from the specific viewpoint of an electrician. Your argument falls apart if you consider that people can have different viewpoints. Also, bad actor is usually used in cybersecurity contexts. It could be a scammer or your CTO testing you - shouldn't really matter.
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?

by schoen 3y ago

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.
        mxkopy 3y ago
        The word "induction" frames a very specific viewpoint for a mathematician that's different from the specific viewpoint of an electrician. Your argument falls apart if you consider that people can have different viewpoints. Also, bad actor is usually used in cybersecurity contexts. It could be a scammer or your CTO testing you - shouldn't really matter.

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?