/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14558478]

Is there any way to stop deforestation? Will the entire planet become desert some day?

[Anonymous No.14558482]

>>14558478
>Is there any way to stop deforestation?
The only way is to kill the rich who monopolize nature. Are you going to do it?

[Anonymous No.14558483]

>>14558482
>Are you going to do it?

They'd just get replaced with someone else. Killing never accomplishes anything.

[Anonymous No.14558492]

>>14558483
>They'd just get replaced with someone else.
You kill them, too.

>Killing never accomplishes anything.
That's what impotent cattle is indocrtinated with. Meanwhile your handlers know killing is the only way anything ever gets done, which is why they made a huge industry out of perpetual killing.

[Anonymous No.14558493]

>>14558478
just plant trees nigger lmao

[Anonymous No.14558513]

>>14558492
America rebelled against the British Empire and ended up being even worse. The Soviet Union was worse than the Russian Empire, Zimbabwe is far worse than Rhodesia ever was, Robespierre was a worse ruler than Louis XVI. Revolutions rarely end well for anyone.

[Anonymous No.14558530]

>>14558482
the rich control the government, so you'd have to take them all on, not just a few.

[Anonymous No.14558532]

>>14558513
All your retarded attempt at cherrypicking does is to confirm my point and then slap your subjective opinions onto it.

[Anonymous No.14558536]

>>14558530
>you'd have to take them all on
Yes. You gotta kill every single one. All their relatives, too. I think if everyone got together and decided that they've had enough, it could be done in one day. Too bad human cattle likes being owned and abused.

[Anonymous No.14558552]

>how to stop deforestation

Global warming.

[Anonymous No.14558571]

>>14558532
>cherrypicking
How is bringing up the US and the Soviet Union cherrypicking? They're the two most powerful countries of the last century.

[Anonymous No.14558575]

>>14558571
I don't know. Does it still count as cherrypicking when the mouth-breathing retard doing it isn't conscious enough to reflect on its thought process?

[Anonymous No.14558590]

>>14558575
>Have your opinions questioned
>Resort to insults

Every time.

[Anonymous No.14558592]

>>14558590
>have a low IQ
>immediately lose an argument with a self-goal
>too dumb to see it even after having your nose rubbed in it
>continue to "argue"
Yawn.

[Anonymous No.14558609]

>>14558592
See >>14558590.

[Anonymous No.14558626]

>>14558609
You lost.

[Anonymous No.14558638]

>>14558483
Wrong. This is the only based type of killing other humans.

[Anonymous No.14558639]

>>14558478
Plant trees. Slaughter lumberjacks.

[Anonymous No.14558673]

>>14558552
I keep driving my SUV but the forests keep dying. I'm I doing something wrong?

[Anonymous No.14558685]

>>14558478
yes.. desertification can be reversed through animal husbandry.. basically it's a combination of footprints, dung, and urine..

[Anonymous No.14558693]

>>14558478
Anyone using wood to build homes has a flammable dwelling.

[Anonymous No.14558694]

>>14558478
Yes, ban the importation of third world lumber to Europe, China, Korea and Japan and give every nigger a Coleman stove

[Anonymous No.14558708]

>>14558478
Once it is barren the repitillians who rule will emerge from their skinsuits and take over....keep consuming in the mean time hsshsss

[Anonymous No.14558710]

>>14558513
Revolutions are still needed to keep the elites in check. The fear of revolution can be a good thing.

[Anonymous No.14558715]

>>14558513
except britain literally cut all their trees down...even after hundreds of years of replanting its still 90% grass wherethere used to be forest

[Anonymous No.14558722]

>>14558715
I dont think they have been replanting for centuries. Probably a modern fad since the 90s. Until not so long ago the western ethos saw nature as a foe to defeat, many acts of destruction would have been lauded by progs two generations ago like turning forests into grain farms or drying swamps (mosquito infected they would say)

[Anonymous No.14558739]

>>14558483
>Killing never accomplishes anything.
Absolutely wrong, i recommend you to read baghavada gita

[Anonymous No.14558758]

>>14558715
A tall native tree like an oak can take a century to grow and nobody was reforesting England in 1920

[Anonymous No.14558867]

>>14558673
Jesus Fucking Christ, how can you not be racist after watching that pic....man wtf

[Anonymous No.14558884]

>>14558867
If only you knew how bad things really are

[Anonymous No.14558897]

>>14558884
Now do 2020, more trees now than there were 500 years ago, since most grasslands were plowed or ruined by human expansion, and now have trees in them.

Trees are a crop. The more valuable they become, the more trees there are.

[Anonymous No.14558902]

>>14558897
Cope harder

[Anonymous No.14558907]

>>14558902
>Cope harder
Facts are now "cope" to nitwits kek

[Anonymous No.14558918]

>>14558897
>Now do 2020, more trees now than there were 500 years ago,
Idiot. I can open a satellite image and literally see that there's less tree cover than 1850 on that anon's image.

[Anonymous No.14558922]

>>14558918
>can open a satellite image and literally see that there's less tree cover than 1850 on that anon's image.
>satellite images
>satellite photos
>1850s
KEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.14558931]

>>14558922
What part of:
>1850 on that anon's image.
Did you not understand? You're an idiot an you can't read?

[Anonymous No.14558936]

>>14558907
Can you back up your claim? No? Cope harder

[Anonymous No.14558943]

>>14558931
>What part of:
>>1850 on that anon's image.
>Did you not understand? You're an idiot an you can't read?
JFC you are stupid. You don't even realize what the joke was about how dumb you are. You must be a zoomer or a senile boomer.

[Anonymous No.14558946]

>>14558931
satellite images in 1850s huh?

[Anonymous No.14558950]

Here is a more recent map; not the anon who mentioned that the US having more forest cover than 500 years ago, but it should be pointed out that the US had more significant forest cover in 1620 than 1520; native americans had burned down a bunch of trees, and after they got btfo by old world diseases a lot of the forest cover had returned to north american by the time Europeans started to heavily settle in the 1600s.

[Anonymous No.14558955]

>>14558478
>Is there any way to stop deforestation?
The world will never run out of trees, since humans need wood to build shit.

Same as wheat, the world will never run out of it since it is valuable.

Make a renewable resource valuable economically, to ensure it's survival.

[Anonymous No.14558957]

Forgot pic like a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14558960]

>>14558943
>>14558946
>Imagine being this illiterate

[Anonymous No.14558974]

European forests are also recovering.

[Anonymous No.14558982]

>>14558955
The world needs clean water yet we are running out of that.

[Anonymous No.14559004]

>>14558982
>The world needs clean water yet we are running out of that.
Running out of water......... now I've heard it all. LMAO!

[Anonymous No.14559006]

>>14558960
>>"doubles down on stupid cause got BTFO'd"

There really needs to be more abortions, even post-birth abortions of adults, to reduce low IQ idiots like you.

[Anonymous No.14559036]

>>14558897
That's actually a bad thing. For the most part old growth forests are the most important forms of ecosystem. All the forests now are new growth which gets chopped down and replanted every decade, animals hate the planted forests because there's nowhere to hide among other things. Old growth forests are more important than the total forest area.

[Anonymous No.14559046]

>>14559006
>Imagine being this illiterate

[Anonymous No.14559085]

>>14558907
nobody under 50 would save or post that image

[Anonymous No.14559137]

>>14558478
Plant trees nigga

[Anonymous No.14559141]

>>14558478
Desalination tank in ocean + water pipeline to desert. Solves rising ocean levels too.

[Anonymous No.14559150]

>>14559085
Absolute UNIT

[Anonymous No.14559359]

>>14558758
It's like they salted the earth too...nothing happened to grow back naturally in all that time either?

[Anonymous No.14559386]

>>14559036
This is correct, which is why you should cut patches on a rotation.

[Anonymous No.14559417]

>>14559386
No, that's why you should just replant trees and not cut them down, ever. Keeping new growth forests constantly is arguably worse for the environment than just not having a forest at all.

[Anonymous No.14559429]

>>14559417
No you moron, you have to keep forests in check to promote biodiversity. Yes, you let some trees fall and decay but if you have a forest of homogeneous age then you will end up only catering to ecological niches.

t. worked in forestry and forest conservation in UK

[Anonymous No.14559447]

>>14559429
The way forests are mass harvested they're not just simply "kept in check" are they? They're leveled practically every decade and regrown, that's how almost all forests are managed on Earth, save for some old growth in north America.

[Anonymous No.14559450]

>>14558478
not cutting down trees is not an option. complete deforestation is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.14559478]

fallout 3 vibes

[Anonymous No.14559479]

>>14558897
Tree plantations arent the same as primeval forrests you mong.

You're the reason Britain is about to lose the last of them, thinking that planting another sapling somewhere else is going to replace the forest you felled to build your motorway

[Anonymous No.14559560]

Brainlet here, couldn't we just turn the whole world into like a greenhouse? Like if we could find some sort of fluid that creates a 'greenhouse effect' if you will. Melt Siberia and reforest the Sahara with higher temperatures, more rainfall and a higher concentration of C02 for the flora to flourish, at the same time as drowning out some of the fauna that's in perpetual unsustainable growth and that likes to cut down trees? What if we were to actually let 'nature' correct itself as it always does rather than continuously sabotaging it?
Or is that too science-fictiony?

[Anonymous No.14559580]

>>14558478
>stop deforestation
The green new deal uses “biomass” for energy. Now that goal and nuclear are being restricted, you need more trees chopped to provide energy (10BTU).
Do you understand? Animals, birds, bees, all are dying because you want power and you don’t want coal (75BTU) or nuclear (35,000BTU) to boil the water to turn the turbine.

[Anonymous No.14559851]

>>14558493
You can't just plant them, you have to protect them or people will chop them all down.

[Anonymous No.14559856]

>>14559046
>illiterate

[Anonymous No.14559858]

>>14559359
Are you stupid? I literally wrote it takes a century for oak trees to grow.

[Anonymous No.14559905]

>>14558478
not really, but you should stop giving money to the animal agriculture industry because they're a leading cause of deforestation, try and find a local farm that feeds their animals local food

[Anonymous No.14560044]

>>14558482
Kek, yeah it's the rich people who completely deforestated Hati Lmao.
You moron

[Anonymous No.14560082]

>>14559905
>Only support local deforestation

[Anonymous No.14560175]

>>14559560
Earth is already a greenhouse. So far >>14559141 this is best answer.

[Anonymous No.14560216]

>>14558918
>Idiot. I can open a satellite image and literally see that there's less tree cover than 1850 on that anon's image.
post the 1850s satellite pics ur making the comparison with

[Anonymous No.14560219]

Find a substitute for wood and all its various applications

[Anonymous No.14560227]

>>14560219
Steel

[Anonymous No.14560239]

>>14560227
Not just being a cheap building material but everything else. Wood for furniture, woodchips, paper, etc

[Anonymous No.14560267]

>>14560239
Write on steel, sit on steel

[Anonymous No.14560321]

>>14560219
That's fucking horrific. Planted pine is one of the best ways we have to pull carbon out of the air. There's nothing wrong with agriforestry so long as you manage it well.

[Anonymous No.14560555]

>>14560219
>>14560227
Even so, deserts continue to overtake without deforestation.

[Anonymous No.14560567]

>>14559851
if global deforestation is a problem, then which groups are responsible for the problem and which groups are already contributing to the solution?
lets go to the science data to answer this one…
…and a quick review of the data shows that regions with strong bantu influence have substantial deforestation, the rest of the planet is only increasing it's stocks of available lumber.

[Anonymous No.14560655]

>>14558673
This is why I already in childhood went like "apart from understandable bleeding-heart moral reasons (which however, cannot, dictate everything, else you'd give away your kidney and everything to live like a monk), why is saving the Africans from starvation and death per se a good thing?" at all the lower than myself IQ adults (among them decision-makers) around me.

In teenagehood the insight also manifested that this is just fostering the downfall of the West. No, this is not some rock-bottom /pol/ view, just factual population dynamics.

[Anonymous No.14560762]

>>14560567
Its easy to not deforest in europe when they already cut down all their forests so they ran out of trees to cut.
Funny also how they dont have any wild animals that aren't pseudo-cattle like deer and boars.

[Anonymous No.14560777]

>>14560762
Did you even read the chart? Europe has the most forest cover in the world.

[Anonymous No.14560787]

>>14560777
thats europe including russia & finland. western europe has destroyed virtually all of it's native forests

[Anonymous No.14560801]

Primary cause of deforestation is demand for cropland.
I imagine that some forests will be brought back when energy becomes cheap enough that agriculture can be concentrated vertically.

[Anonymous No.14560827]

>>14558974
yeah with foreign garbage monoculture shit that starves the soil like eucalyptus

[Anonymous No.14560913]

>>14560777
Thats ridiculous. That graph is just absurd, it has a forested area for Europe as big as Europe.
Is europe nothing but forest?

[Anonymous No.14560927]

>>14560827
Lmao they are reforesting with eucaliptus?

[Anonymous No.14560943]

>>14560787
>thats europe including russia & finland.
Yeah that would be part of europe.

>western europe has destroyed virtually all of it's native forests
The island? The other island? The last bastion of rome or the formerly stinky cheese now just sticky city?

>>14560913
>What is Taiga

>>14559851
>Just go plant trees in the tundra

>>14560219
We tried and it's called "plastic". Environmental weenies whined over that too, all because the plastic companies paid to induce a psychosis into them to get them to recycle a virtually indestructible product.

[Anonymous No.14560947]

>>14558974
thats map is total bs, there was never any grassland in northern sweden lol