Full Version: Rainforests...our world dissapearing

From: Peter [#1]
 15 Oct 2006
To: ALL

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

read it and weep..... :-( 

Peter

EDITED: 15 Oct 2006 by DGL

---

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#2]
 15 Oct 2006
To: Peter [#1] 16 Oct 2006

Peter,

From the article:

THE SOLUTION: PROFITS WITHOUT PLUNDER

Naahh; that would be too conscientious.

After all; there will always be soylent green. :-$ 

EDITED: 15 Oct 2006 by DGL

---

From: UncleSteve [#3]
 15 Oct 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#2] 15 Oct 2006

David,

You are showing your age! :S 

It may be YOUR turn to become.... >.< 

OH! Never mind!

---

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#4]
 15 Oct 2006
To: UncleSteve [#3] 16 Oct 2006

Peter,

They say cynicism is the last resort of the idealist.

I may be showing my age, but I don't expect to see world governments collectively show their intelligence.

No money in that tact.

---

From: UncleSteve [#5]
 16 Oct 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#4] 16 Oct 2006

David,

Your new glasses are ready at the optomitrist... ;-) 

As for , I do belive you are making a MAJOR assumption somewhere in this statement. :'-( 

EDITED: 16 Oct 2006 by UNCLESTEVE

---

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#6]
 16 Oct 2006
To: UncleSteve [#5] 16 Oct 2006

Steve,

Which assumption?

The one that sees governments getting together on a crucial issue, or the one that says they have measurable intelligence. :-) 

EDITED: 16 Oct 2006 by DGL

---

From: UncleSteve [#7]
 16 Oct 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#6] 16 Oct 2006

YES! :P 

---

From: lasergeek [#8]
 16 Oct 2006
To: Peter [#1] 16 Oct 2006

I, personally, exercise much caution when discussing this issue (as I often must do during the course of my daily duties) so as to not confuse the rape of South American Rainforests with the proper harvesting of managed forests here and abroad. All to often, issues that are wrought with emotion tend to polarize people and make further discussions difficult. Please, please, please include the good that has been done and the examples that exist that will (hopefully!!!) show those ignorant, irresponsible goverments that it's possible to profit from a well managed, renewable resource, such as wood. Growing up in the Pacific Nortwest, I'm constantly reminded of the power of managed forests. Recently, my wife and I drove through a beautiful stand of trees on the Olympic Peninsula that were just harvested some 25-30 years ago. When I was a kid, I remember going to the "big ocean" riding in the back of the station wagon (uh, what's a seat belt?), staring out at miles of stumps, thinking, why would they do this!!! What do they have against trees? It looked so savage. But now, according to the huge, green Weyerhaeuser sign along side of the road, it's being scheduled for harvesting... again. And will be replanted...again. Renewable Resources are a far cry from slash and burn. Please be sure to keep those two things completely separate in your mind and in your future discussions on the matter. Here's a "talking point" for everyone. Take the rubberwood species. Not too long ago, it was burned after reaching the end of it's prime (how's that for a wierd soylent green tie-in) because it had little value. Then, because of some outside economic factors, it got a toehold in the lumber market, and it stuck. We actually added some of it to our line last year after seeing how well it lasered ( Medium Heart Box ) , but personally, I really liked the story behind the wood. And, the "eco-friendly" aspect of it has been very appealing to some customers. However, not many ask to origin of the wood, so I guess we're not quite there yet as a society, but getting closer as issues such as this get passed around! So, now we have a former "burn it where it stands" crop turned into a "hey, wait a minute, we can actually sell this stuff!!!" lumber product. How cool is that?!?!? Here's something from a quick "Rubberwood" Google search Sean

---

From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#9]
 16 Oct 2006
To: lasergeek [#8] 16 Oct 2006

On the other hand, even with managed foresting, money can cause problems. Clearcutting is an example, where huge sections of forest are cleared of all trees, and in the process, all undergrowth and animals. Yes, the loggers then replant the treas, but the damage is done anyway. More responsible methods remove trees more selectively so that the rest of the forest is not affected. But large logging companies make higher profits with the brute force clearcutting since they get in there, get the logs, and move on.

So even in the US, and in managed forests, there are still methods used that are not so eco-friendly.

---

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#10]
 16 Oct 2006
To: lasergeek [#8] 16 Oct 2006

Good points Sean.

Thank you.

---

From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#11]
 16 Oct 2006
To: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#9] 16 Oct 2006

One advantage of clear cutting is reduction of scrub growth that reduces fire hazzards....Many of the forests in the US are so preserved that fires that would happen naturaly are stopped....leaving a real tinderbox of potential problems. These fires have been seen many times in the last few decades.

Clearcutting helps reduce this undergrowth, and acts more like the natural burn cycles that occur in nature..........helping reduce the risk while maintaining the forest.

---

From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#12]
 16 Oct 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#11] 16 Oct 2006

On the other hand, surface fires that burn the underbrush, without burning many of the trees, are important in many forests for germination of conifers and a number of other things.

Nothing is perfect. Especially when man gets involved. ;-) 

---

From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#13]
 16 Oct 2006
To: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#12] 16 Oct 2006

Good points.....




Also very true ;) 

---

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#14]
 17 Oct 2006
To: Peter [#1] 17 Oct 2006

The thing that really scares me is the pollution in the shallow waters over the continental shelf. I have seen figures that between 60% and 80% of the oxygen generated comes from the plant life in these waters. This then would be one of the most dangerous areas on the Earth to poison.

We need to attack these attacks on the environment in all places.

---

From: basehorawards [#15]
 17 Oct 2006
To: Peter [#1] 17 Oct 2006

From the website:



The last estimate I read in the book "1691" puts the number of natives in the americas at equal to or greater than the number of europeans at the same time. Accounts written by early Spanish explorers tell of seeing villages (really cities) going on for miles and miles along the banks of the rivers. Interesting how many people and the forests survived. Man has been manipulating his environment for as long as he has existed. We moderns just are not as good as the old timers were.

The soil in the rainforests of south america is extremely poor as most of the nutrients are in the plants. There are patches (some tens of acres in size) of very fertile soil that are used today to grow orchards. These patches were created by natives by a process that is lost to us. Excavations show pottery shards and other clear signs of alteration. Carbon dating of the shards puts the ages of the patches in the thousands of years. And they are still fertile today! Nobody has a clue how to make the soil. All of the people who did died when the europeans arrived. Unfortunately for the world the indigenous populations had immune systems adapted mainly to bacterial attacks rather than viral attacks so when the europeans arrived with small pox, measles and such millions died before the first battles even began. What a shame disease and then arrogance cost humanity so much.

It would be hijacking the thread to start talking about the perception of the natives being "savages" and that being justificaion for killing those who did not die of disease or convert - especially when comparing them to what was going on in europe at the same time so I won't start.

---

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#16]
 17 Oct 2006
To: basehorawards [#15] 17 Oct 2006

Anyone who did not have their religious beliefs were savages. Hmm, that is a pretty savage set of beliefs in itself. Liken it to what is happening today.

---

From: basehorawards [#17]
 17 Oct 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#16] 17 Oct 2006

One of the other reasons besides religion used to justify the killing was the human sacrifices. When these guys fought they fought to capture. when the war was over they killed the captured enemies as sacrifices to their gods. In europe they fought to kill and when they won the killed all the rest of the males including the young, old and infirm, and raped the women. So much more civilized.

---

From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#18]
 17 Oct 2006
To: basehorawards [#15] 17 Oct 2006

James,
What I find even more sad is that that same arrogance continues to cost us today. We ( humans ) are NOT owners of this planet, we are caretakers and not very good ones at that. :-( 

---

From: basehorawards [#19]
 17 Oct 2006
To: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#18] 17 Oct 2006

So true. A lot of the huge raging forest fires we have had over the past 20 or so years have been because of our "management" style of putting out every fire as soon as possible. An earlier post mentioned low burning fires clearing the underbrush and helping the conifer seeds to open. When we don't let the little fires clear out the "slash" then we end up with clogged tangled messes that turn into infernos that kill all the trees instead of just scorching the bark. We hiked in Yellowstone a few years back in areas that had burned. It was very sad and yet very comforting to see nature recovering from our "management."

Interestingly enough in that book "1691" (the year before Columbus discovered north america) they mention the journals of early european explores describing the skies as being full of smoke and that it seemed that the Indians were always burning the forest or the grassland. One account told of an Englishman being able to ride his horse at full gallop through the forests of New England. The indians burnt the underbrush if nature did not do it for them. Easier to hunt if there are fewer places for the animals to hide. It was only after most of the indians died or were relocated that the forests became as thick as they are today. the ones they like to call "old growth" and "pristine" are only like that because the caretakers got run off and killed.

---

From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#20]
 17 Oct 2006
To: basehorawards [#19] 17 Oct 2006

James,
I wonder what the forests did BEFORE people were here?

---

Show messages:  1-20  21-23

Back to thread list | Login

© 2024 Project Beehive Forum