I'm not even fully certain of my position, but I felt the antithesis to the usual environmentalist thesis needs to be stated.
This environmentalist site has a lot of statistics:https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/deforestation_calculations.html
A fifth of what forest cover existed in 1970 has been cut down, but there's a declining trend in deforestation. This is largely because of policy and commodity economics but may also be a late result of another fact: the North is the fastest-growing region and managed to triple its population in thirty years, but its rates of population growth are declining.
Some claimed effects of deforestation are bogus. It's said to be the "world's lungs" because photosynthesis releases oxygen to the atmosphere. Trees also breathe so their net oxygen contribution is minimal. It's also said that soil poverty (a reality) will cause a deforested Amazon to become a desert. Climatologically an actual desert right at the Equator only happens under specific circumstances like Somalia, no amount of deforestationw will stop moisture from the Atlantic. What can happen is a transition to a savannah state.
More realistic concerns are carbon emissions from burning wood and cattle, decreased rainfall elsewhere in the country and the social costs of settlement as it currently proceeds, with Wild West lawlessness and violent land disputes.>>24685>When is enough enough?
More than what has already been cleared. I, for one, would cut down the border and river margins (exporting food and ores to global markets directly by ship; you can navigate all the way into Peru) and leave large blocks of preserved land inbetween, with a total deforestation lower than Europe. This is not how it currently moves -deforestation mostly expands south-north from the savannah and through highways. But it can be steered and planned like it was in the past.
Preserving the status quo and telling millions to stay put where they are is unrealistic, and getting those millions to emigrate is out of the question. What's needed instead is a guided and conscious process.
100% deforestation will never happen. A saturation point will be reached and further conquest will be inconvenient. Industrialization and development will then lead to an increase in forested area, as Europe has already witnessed. Policies set in Brasília can set this saturation point higher and make it a better situation.>I dont think there is any original old forrest left in europe for example, everything is replanted and there is no biodiversity. When they cut trees here, they plant new ones. Sure. But there is just one type of tree that is being planted. ...and it was worth it!
The positive legacy Europe has left for all of humanity far outweighs the value of its primeval forests.>Once we realize that we are not separate from the earth but merely guests we can start living again.
Guests have a host. A host has a conscience and can expel the guest. Nature is non sapient matter and, aside from events that happen once in ten thousand years or happen in geologic time, can only overpower us if we're foolish. Because of our overwhelming skill in occupying all biomes, sustaining large populations and molding the environment to our will the steward is a better metaphor. We can be good stewards and cultivate what's under our control cautiously and humanely, or bad stewards who misadminister our resources and cause our own destruction. But we are the stewards and wield power.>they think they are superior than universe
One way to look at it is >>24703
, we're just a species fighting for survival like any other.
Another thought is that some outputs of human societies like art and science have value and it is worth displacing nonhuman life so civilizations capable of producing them can thrive.