War, poverty and genocide - best way to save our dying ecosystem?

[hellheaven1987]

It is an uncomfortable fact that decades of conflict and poverty in the Democratic Republic of Congo have helped to protect the world's second largest rainforest, and by extension to slow the process of global climate change.

"Yes," says Thierry Bodson, who runs the World Wildlife Fund's programmes in the east of the country from the town of Goma. "In some places the presence of rebels has protected some areas. A lack of development has somehow protected the Congo basin."

The vast, and almost pristine forest - which sweeps west from the Rift Valley to the Atlantic coast and covers an area roughly the size of Spain - acts as a huge capture and storage unit for carbon dioxide, one of the main contributors to global warming.

But there is a growing consensus that the Congo basin is now under imminent threat. As the region's conflicts appear to be ebbing, farming, mining and logging intensify, and China and other countries stand poised to build substantial roads through the jungle.

"A lack of roads… protects a major part of this forest so far," says Mr Bodson. "We can't say don't build roads, don't create economic activity. What we can do… is to direct this development in a sustainable manner. Otherwise this very important forest can disappear."

Source

Oh my, I finally find a justified reason to conduct genocide - it is afterall to save the very thing calls Humanity.

[Menelik_I]

Source

Oh my, I finally find a justified reason to conduct genocide - it is afterall to save the very thing calls Humanity.

The looting of my grand-father farm and the brutal rape of my aunt friends wasn't in vain after all ... it saved the planet.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Retard who wrote that article should shut the up

[hellheaven1987]

Nevertheless it is a hard fact that depopulation of region does help to preserve and recover the ecosystem of that region; another good (and irony) example would would Chernobyl itself. Overall, we probably can only conclude that human itself is the very evil that destroy this planet, and should be exterminated for the great good of other Earthling species.

[Menelik_I]

Nevertheless it is a hard fact that depopulation of region does help to preserve and recover the ecosystem of that region; another good (and irony) example would would Chernobyl itself. Overall, we probably can only conclude that human itself is the very evil that destroy this planet, and should be exterminated for the great good of other Earthling species.

Reservation and Zoos are enough, I value humans more than I value landscape.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Unlike other animals we humans have the ability to consciously modify the environment without actually dying in the process. Modifications include constructing a sustainable ecosystem, this article is bollocks... who wrote it Thomas Malthus??

[The Despondent Mind]

It's either we or nature . I chose us ( me )

[Claudius Gothicus]

It's either we or nature . I chose us ( me )

That's a false choice, we construct our own environment, we construct cities, we take down forests and we build parks, we destroy factories and inaugurate children's playgrounds.

That's how it works, it's not a choice it's a matter of actually structuring our environments in a way that might benefit us in the long, mid and short term on a scale of appropriate priorities.

[hellheaven1987]

That's a false choice, we construct our own environment, we construct cities, we take down forests and we build parks, we destroy factories and inaugurate children's playgrounds.

We construct our environment on the expend of whole ecosystem; factories and children's playgrounds are only beneficial to human beings, not the ecosystem.

[Hilarion]

We construct our environment on the expend of whole ecosystem; factories and children's playgrounds are only beneficial to human beings, not the ecosystem.

He's saying humans create their own ecosystem.

[hellheaven1987]

He's saying humans create their own ecosystem.

I thought global warming is kindly proved that human self-created ecosystem is just trash.

Reservation and Zoos are enough, I value humans more than I value landscape.

I bet Israel is thinking to make Palestine a natural reservation?

[Phier]

Well yes a complete collapse of human civilization would lesson the effects of civilization on the environment.

Or as we say where I went to school 'duh'.

[SLN445]

It can go both ways.
Even though conflicts may scare away loggers and farmers, without government funded preservation you can get a large increase in things like poaching, potentially wiping out animal species from an area.

[Copperknickers II]

If we simply shot anyone who dropped below a healthy body mass index then we'd solve world hunger pretty quickly. That would rather defeat the purpose of solving world hunger though. With the same deluded logic, encouraging the world's population to revert to the stone age would certainly thin out overpopulation and protect our environment, though there would be noone to appreciate once we were all lying delirious due to war wounds, disease and stress trauma.

[Alexander Barca]

I'm guessing you all have read Herman Daly?

Alexander Barca

[The Fishman]

Did any of you edgy, cool anti-environmentalist clowns even read the OP? Did you notice how the article is making a statement of fact (that conflict has prevented exploitation of the rainforest) rather than a judgement? Did you realise that the author of the piece isn't in favour of using brutal ethnic violence as a means of environmental protection?

Phier called it right this time.


P.S. All you "It's Us vs. Nature, and I know who's side I'm on!" people (who come up to post on every single environment thread on the forum), you aren't cool and fresh and independent, you are selfish little children who need to grow up. People like you are responsible for distrupting the ongoing public debate by presenting nothing but snide, catchy little soundbites whilst scientists try to actually fix things.

[Menelik_I]

Did any of you edgy, cool anti-environmentalist clowns even read the OP? Did you notice how the article is making a statement of fact (that conflict has prevented exploitation of the rainforest) rather than a judgement? Did you realise that the author of the piece isn't in favour of using brutal ethnic violence as a means of environmental protection?

[I]''I am not saying that this ing moronic, I am merely stating that it is ing moronic.'' : Merely stating is the way of the Coward.

The OP author is simply conveying the enduring myth that ''Man is bad for the planet'' and is insensible to the hundreds of ing thousands of lives destroyed during one of the most horrendous conflicts on earth.

Compassion for the planet but not for humans ?

P.S. All you "It's Us vs. Nature, and I know who's side I'm on!" people (who come up to post on every single environment thread on the forum), you aren't cool and fresh and independent, you are selfish little children who need to grow up. People like you are responsible for distrupting the ongoing public debate by presenting nothing but snide, catchy little soundbites whilst scientists try to actually fix things.

Somehow being an adult involve having a Romantic view of the idealist Scientist who want to save self-lessly save the world and isn't motivated by greed for money, recognition and glory.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I'm all for isolationism and letting people of other nations slaughter each instead of their rainforests. Except we need that precious coltan.

[hellheaven1987]

Hey, clam down, I all support Israel's attempt to turn Palestine into a natural reservation.

[cupoftea]

It's more about preserving a landscape. It's about preserving the future generations (if there are any to come though ) and make sure they still have a habitable earth to live on. I'd much rather have some lush green rainforest instead of the ever increasing dessert.

But instead of going through a genocide to save the birdies and the trees, it would be alot more effective if we could educate the people on correct use of what to cut and what not, erect reservates where cutting is forbidden and should be punishable (not by death). I really do think it's our generation that should make the decision wether we want our children to live on a healthy planet instead of on a Mars.

[Menelik_I]

It's more about preserving a landscape. It's about preserving the future generations (if there are any to come though ) and make sure they still have a habitable earth to live on. I'd much rather have some lush green rainforest instead of the ever increasing dessert.

But instead of going through a genocide to save the birdies and the trees, it would be alot more effective if we could educate the people on correct use of what to cut and what not, erect reservates where cutting is forbidden and should be punishable (not by death). I really do think it's our generation that should make the decision wether we want our children to live on a healthy planet instead of on a Mars.

Except lush green rainforest isn't very habitable, even though it looks beautiful on screen. Before the war there were farms, logging operations and swamp were drained, to make the area habitable to humans.

This is not even a case of ''destruction of nature'', has 25% of forest area was already natural reserve and the rest was under various agency monitoring.

Working the land and making it habitable is the only way to make justice to future generations, not preserving landscapes.