The Indian chief Raoni, of the tribe of Kayapos, cries by learning that Brazil has just authorized on Wednesday the construction of the huge dam of Belo Monte, in the heart of the Amazonia. Why are we so stupid ?

File: 42 KB, 386x470, bresil_barrage_inside.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:40:21 2011 No.3171098 [Reply] [Original]

The Indian chief Raoni, of the tribe of Kayapos, cries by learning that Brazil has just authorized on Wednesday the construction of the huge dam of Belo Monte, in the heart of the Amazonia.

Why are we so stupid ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:42:21 2011 No.3171108 >implying we are Brazilians >/int/ on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:47:21 2011 No.3171120 File: 13 KB, 251x251, 1283098063154.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3171108 The Amazonia belongs to the Humanity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:48:21 2011 No.3171122 >>3171098 Sucks. The only thing that can influence government these days are corporations and interest groups. Hopefully the construction does not cause significant damage to the ecosystem in the Amazon, but it probably will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:49:21 2011 No.3171126 Dilma Rousseff Fights as a communist helping poor and oppressed people Ends up fucking them up >whyamInotesurprised.jpeg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:52:21 2011 No.3171133 >>3171098 I'm not the 'omg we need technology' class >looks at /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:52:21 2011 No.3171135 >>3171098 ITT: /sci/ pretends they have amnesia about progress and technology

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:55:21 2011 No.3171142

Sorry, we need to advance and get off this fucking planet. We can't all keep killing shit with wooden spears pretending it holds some form of magic mystic bullshit.

Couldn't care less, give them a fucking Ipod and tell them to fuck off. We had no problems forcing the future onto the racists, the slavers, the cousin fuckers and everyone else.

Fucking hypocrisy is unbelievable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:55:21 2011 No.3171143 >>3171122 this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:58:21 2011 No.3171149 File: 20 KB, 400x388, feelsbadman.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3171142 >Humanism is a dying sentiment among the up and coming scholars of our time

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:00:21 2011 No.3171152

>>3171142
Are you serious. Someone tell me, is this guy serious?

>>3171135
>Progress.
>Using dams to generate electricity
>in 2011.
Its funny how you advocate progress then turn around and use the most retarded technology when better more efficient alternatives are available.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:00:21 2011 No.3171154 >>3171149 >forgets he's posting on /sci/ >will likely blabber on for hours in a transhumanism thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:01:21 2011 No.3171158 >>3171154 >humanism =/= transhumanism read a goddamn encyclopedia

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat Jun 4 03:01:21 2011 No.3171159
File: 149 KB, 717x692, 1287517771864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3171149
I partially support him, but for the purpose of getting off this planet so we spread onto most of the other planets and moons so that hippy shit like living your life in a forest is far more sustainable without removing opportunities for others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:02:21 2011 No.3171162 File: 263 KB, 413x577, godel.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3171098 isnt anyone going to laugh at his religion holding forest sacred? Or is this thread only in the furtherance of cognitive dissonance?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:02:21 2011 No.3171163 >>3171152 hydroelectric is a pretty good source of energy. hippies dont like it though. I bet you are thinking they should be building nuclear instead?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:02:21 2011 No.3171164 >>3171152 but dams are renewable energy sources

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:04:21 2011 No.3171168 not sure how to categorize this thread bleeding heart... moronic... /new/... ur mum is a whore...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:05:21 2011 No.3171173 File: 31 KB, 650x450, 1270400935303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3171164 >renewable energy sources By destroying the nature around.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:07:21 2011 No.3171180

>>3171149
>>3171159

Returning
>>3171142
>>3171142

I honestly don't give a shit about the fucking native bullshit. Where do you live? Fucking United States? Do you wish that we never wiped out the fucking non-conforming natives? Enjoy not being born. Enjoy remapping the world and history to be less technologically advanced. This is fucking history repeating itself, and every time it's happened before it's ended up being beneficial in the long term.

Think of it as mass-grade natural selection. The less advanced and the weakest get wiped out.

The future is a fucking choochoo train and you either get out of the fucking way or you get splattered.

I want my fucking perfect virtual reality.

I want nigh-immortality

And you fucking do too, you fucking liars.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:09:21 2011 No.3171185

>>3171164
>>3171163
>Focusing only on the advantages.
There a lot of disadvantages to this that I'm too tired to list. Lets not be myopic here, the long term effects are worse than the short term gains.

Also, people still use the term hippie without feeling like a flamming retard?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:09:21 2011 No.3171187 >>3171135 Having them conserve the Amazon for botanical and medicinal purposes would have given us greater progress than building a dam for power. And >implying nuclear power plants aren't a better alternative

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat Jun 4 03:09:21 2011 No.3171189 File: 25 KB, 750x1000, inurdaessupermega.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3171180 I just have a preference for not infringing on other people's shit, I'm likely more of a futurist than you. No need to get pissy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:09:21 2011 No.3171190 >>3171180 Imagine we destroy your home, your school, your city, your life center to build a dam.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:09:21 2011 No.3171192

>>3171152
>you haven't been to brazil have you
>you haven't figured out where to store nuclear material have you?
>you haven't figured out the safety of thorium reactors have you?
>you haven't figured out how to leave oil and coal based energy have you?
>you haven't done much have you?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:11:21 2011 No.3171197

>>3171152
better? that's an opinion. fucking stupid science faggot say something that actually contributes something asshole. more efficient? as current technology goes giant damns are about as good as it gets for making power, considering how afraid of nukes the public is after fukushima. sucks to be human but fuck trees

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:11:21 2011 No.3171198 >>3171180 Oh god. I refuse to believe you're not trolling. I refuse to believe you're really this buttfucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:12:21 2011 No.3171201 >>3171187 This. We destroy a huge library of knowledge and resources

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:12:21 2011 No.3171202 >>3171190 >implying chief small dick lives in a boat where the damn will be built

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:13:21 2011 No.3171206

>>3171190

I relocate? Or I don't live on top of a place in which I would be forced to move to make way for a dam.

Or not, because my angloid ancestors had the foresight to fucking do that already.

You say that as if though we want to put shit everywhere and relocate everyone, not at all, there are places to live.

You have a bed, don't sleep on top of the stove, because that's pretty fucking inconvenient to your roommates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:14:21 2011 No.3171208 >>3171192 You know what? I'm done. I'm not going to interrupt my masturbation time to list out why razing part of the amazon is a bad idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:14:21 2011 No.3171209 >Nuclear power is bad because OMG NUKES R EVUL >Oil and coal are bad because of pollution >Hydroelectric is bad because it ruins environments Fuck you, guys.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:15:21 2011 No.3171210

>>3171201
more like destroy a small section of a library and a handful of books that there are millions of other copies of in the rest of the library. if the plants there mattered that much to you guys why aren't they being cataloged more carefully and quickly?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:15:21 2011 No.3171214 >>3171209 nukes are scary to the public which is what matters

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:16:21 2011 No.3171216 >>3171208 >secretly, i'm waiting for a transhumanism thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:17:21 2011 No.3171218 >>3171206 chief limp dick has lived on the stove for generations, long before it was even a stove. wat do?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:19:21 2011 No.3171224 >>3171210 This is EXACTLY what we are doing ! Do you think it's an easy job ? Do you imagine the number of species, molecules, etc, that there are here ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:19:21 2011 No.3171225 >>3171218 Make him move, the collective group of roommates need the stove more then he does. Especially when he's using it as a table because he's too fucking retarded to understand DA EVIL WHITE MAN TECHNOLOGY.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:19:21 2011 No.3171227 >>3171098 Maybe this wouldn't happen if /sci/ didn't have such a hard on for mocking religious tradition?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:19:21 2011 No.3171228

>>3171206
>>Or not, because my angloid ancestors had the foresight to fucking do that already.

bullshit
none of your "angloid ancestors" fucking said "OH MAN I BET SOMEDAY THEY'LL DISCOVER HYDROELECTRICITY AND THEY'LL WANT TO BUILD DAMNS EVERYWHERE AND FLOOD VALLEYS SO WE BETTER PICK SOMEWHERE SMART WHERE THAT WON'T HAPPEN WHAT REMARKABLE FORESIGHT WE HAVE"

there are so many other reasons why this is wrong on top of that
you're just dicking here

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:21:21 2011 No.3171236

>>3171210

You do realize that a ton of pharmaceutical products were originated from plants in the Amazon and that it takes a extremely long time to extract, develop, and refine these drugs. It could very will be that the cure to every biological disease is in the amazon (because of biodiversity, evolution, etc, etc).

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:21:21 2011 No.3171243

>>3171228

More like my ancestors were intelligent enough to embrace the advancement of technology and fucking civilization and didn't strap their entire fucking people to one plot of land.

Understanding that they have no real need for that specific plot of land in the entire fucking planet, because it holds no fucking bullshit sacred magical powers or whatever the fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:22:21 2011 No.3171244 >>3171224 must be hard to covet logically something others covet spiritually, but continually mock one reason to be inferior to the next. >sure is cognitive dissonance

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:22:21 2011 No.3171248 >>3171224 >why aren't we cataloging it faster >that's what we're doing >we're cataloging it faster >implying two reference points for cataloging speed >smooth move on the board for smart people

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:23:21 2011 No.3171254 >>3171228 >waiting for anti-religion or transhumanism thread >certified cognitive dissonance

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:24:21 2011 No.3171259

>>3171228

I honestly can't understand how you can argue that it's functionally viable for us to be worrying about fucking COLONIZING OTHER FUCKING PLANETS and Chief Rao nu kinte moho still hasn't discovered how to work bronze.

Even when billions of other people offer to teach him how.

Because the spirits say its bad. Also he better drink poison, it'll make him get better boners.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:24:21 2011 No.3171264 Someone should tell the chief that he shouldn't worry, that Technology and Jesus have his back.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:25:21 2011 No.3171265 >>3171248 >lol stupid scientists why can't they just do everything faster?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:25:21 2011 No.3171268 >>3171243 >has broken through cognitive dissonance, embraced technological destruction

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:25:21 2011 No.3171269

>>3171098
>Why are we so stupid ?

Does OP have a better idea or is OP a whiny indianfag?

Brazil is a booming economy with a rapidly growing middle-class that is demanding electric energy, to satisfy the demand they will have to build ALOT of new stuff.

>Europeans and Americans sit at the computers and whine about the Amazon when we have done more then worse to our own natural environments but everything turned out fine and no one would switch it back. (hippefags not included)

So, they need energy & they are building a dam, would you rather have a coal-plant or a Nukestation?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:27:21 2011 No.3171274

>>3171265
more scientists does in fact equal faster progress when it comes to writing shit down that they find in the forest until it's all written down. not saying i don't think it's important but if it was really important to the people with the power to make it go faster, we'd be hearing about cool shit in the jungle all the time as apposed to never hearing about it like currently

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:28:21 2011 No.3171278 File: 25 KB, 338x277, 1282787264477.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3171265

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:28:21 2011 No.3171280

>>3171269

This.

This shit happens for every advancing country.

It's Brazil's turn, problem is, they're a bit later to the party. See if this shit happened at the same time it was happening in western Europe and the United States no one would bat a fucking eyelash.

Instead, it's 2011 and 120 lb faggots typing on the macbook their mom bought them can pretend there's actually any fucking reason for Chief faggot to inconvenience an entire country so that he can keep letting ants sting him because it makes him turn into an adult or some retarded bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:30:21 2011 No.3171290 >>3171269 i vote for nukestation but if chief half dick thinks hydroelectric is bad for the jungle wait til brazil fuckin nukes it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:30:21 2011 No.3171293 White man covet earth for his greed. White man not see the forest for the trees. White man come with blankets filled with diesease, say, accept, it is rational. I accept white man's diesease, for I know, white man's diesease is white man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:31:21 2011 No.3171296 >>3171274 Give us means, give us mens, encourage student in this way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:32:21 2011 No.3171297 >>3171293 >>3171293 >>3171293 Also iPhones, lots and lots of iPhones. Not bad for whiteman to bring.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:33:21 2011 No.3171303 >>3171269 >I used the word nukestation to imply that nuclear power plants are dangerous

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:34:21 2011 No.3171306 File: 21 KB, 411x334, 1261416611943.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How can you be a scientist or sciences lovers and enjoy the destruction of the Amazonia ? This is incredible.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:34:21 2011 No.3171307

>>3171293

White man make design Apple computer you use to bitch on about the white man. White man make water system that you use. White man make it so you don't die from polio. White man make it so you don't have to hunt and kill your own food. White man make care your mom uses to take you to middle school.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:35:21 2011 No.3171311 >>3171306 Anything involving living things can hardly be called science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:35:21 2011 No.3171312 >>3171297 White man says 5 bars in amazon. White man lies, bars are a trick, a graphical device to make tribe believe it gets reception.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:36:21 2011 No.3171314 >>3171297 >>3171293 >>3171307 >>3171312 I like where this thread is going.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:37:21 2011 No.3171315 >>3171306 How can you argue against religion when this man believes his forest is sacred?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:38:21 2011 No.3171318 >>3171307 >>3171307 White man make poe's law, white man not understand. Trees do not, I say white man, satirize. White man no believe.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:39:21 2011 No.3171321

>>3171303
No, that was to imply they are dangerous when handled by anyone else then Americans and (western) Europeans.

No, I like nuclear power, but I Hate when retards use it, fuck everything up (hint: japan) so that the population in other countries turn against the idea.

But I think you agree that if you are super-upset over a dam a nuclear-power-plant (happy?) would not be more soothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:43:21 2011 No.3171329 >>3171098 ITT: /sci/ offers no fungible commodity to replace a hydrodam that is as efficient and environmentally friendly

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:48:21 2011 No.3171348

>>3171321

If it was built in the same place and would require loss of vegetation, I would be still be in the same position.

Maybe we're underestimating the damage that would be caused by a dam. Not only it is construction but it changes the environment by flooding the area around the dam. It's nothing compare to a nuclear meltdown, but it's not preventable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:09:21 2011 No.3171417 >>3171329 Population control. Solution to every environmental problem actually. Also why these native societies have been able to remain unchanged for so long without having a significant affect on their environment.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:11:21 2011 No.3171420

>>3171417
>Also why these native societies have been able to remain unchanged for so long without having a significant affect on their environment.

They are technologically backwards and culturally inferior, I don't think it worked out very well for them.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:47:21 2011 No.3171506

>>3171420
No 'civilized' culture has been able to exist anywhere near as long without destroying and reforming itself to some extent. Indeed in this sense one might suggest they are culturally superior.

Either way you obviously believe that your life is somehow more meaningful or you derive greater happiness as a direct result of technological innovation. Personally I don't think this is the case; I guarantee you they are more happy than most (including you), especially compared to those that are up to their arse with debt and/or work ridiculous hours with little free time, in order to support technological advancement.

However if you're foolish enough to believe the existence of greater technological force or strength justifies the use of it to deprive others of their life, liberty and livelihood, then by extension the technological development of nuclear weaponry should justify its widespread use in modern warfare. This is obviously an untenable position given the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust in such circumstances.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:49:21 2011 No.3171510 >>3171506 What the fuck is a luddite like you doing on /sci/?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:07:21 2011 No.3171535

>>3171311

If this isn't /sci/ in a nutshell I don't know what is.

To >>3171306 , here on /sci/ we don't have science lovers. We only have lazy, lonely, angry nerds, that put their faith in scientific progress to solve all their problems, not the world's problems, mind you, their OWN problems. They don't love science, but the idea of a quick, effortless fix.
I mean, we're on 4chan, what did you expect?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:09:21 2011 No.3171542 >>3171506 This... makes more sense than I expected...

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:15:21 2011 No.3171562

>>3171510
Haha I'm not a Luddite- I believe in technological advancement, however I don't believe in it to the extent where it is absolute, unlike the person who I was quoting.

In the case of a smaller number of people and the larger environment that they inhabit being adversely affected in order to meet power needs of the ridiculously overpopulated metropolitan Brazil (the more technologically advanced society of the two), I believe this is an example of where non-technological considerations should prevail. To reduce population is not a big ask compared to what is being destroyed.

As for your belief that having an interest in science is incompatible with humanitarian issues, of course I think this is incorrect given that the Nobel Prizes were formed in light of similar considerations.

>>3171535
Ha I'm starting to figure that life sciences are considered science around here.

>>3171542
Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:16:21 2011 No.3171565 >>3171562 >*aren't considered science

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 06:13:21 2011 No.3171698

Is it the inevitable fate of humanity to deplete every resource available to them in order to extend their power and dominance over as much of the universe as possible?

Do you do it out of curiosity for what's our there and what you can discover, or do you do it because you feel it is your duty - that you must conquer and spread among the stars. Does it make a difference what the motive is?

If you had to wipe out or take over another (less advanced/intelligent)civilisation on another planet in order to prolong the survival of the human race, would you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 06:16:21 2011 No.3171705 >brazil potentially holding largest reserve of natural pharmaceuticals in the world >build dam >kill all plants >wasting electricity on "HUEHUEHUE GIB MONEY I REPORT YOU" >I brazil smert.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 06:18:21 2011 No.3171708 >>3171698 >If you had to wipe out or take over another (less advanced/intelligent)civilisation on another planet in order to prolong the survival of the human race, would you? Obviously.

>>	fiendkracken !Po0.MGG/Ys Sat Jun 4 08:22:21 2011 No.3171968 This is probably due to them hosting the Olympics is 2016. It is still unethical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:36:21 2011 No.3171997 Who cares about several kilometres of destroyed nature, if the life of millions of people will be improved? The nature keeps destroying and killing itself anyway, so it's not like we're doing something unnatural.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:37:21 2011 No.3172001 Why is it stupid? It's selfish but not stupid.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:39:21 2011 No.3172002

The native population, of a few tens of thousands of people, has about 12% of the entire territory of Brazil reserved for them. That is an absolutely gigantic area, compared with which the area of the artificial lake caused by building a hydro dam is negligible.

Now, do you keep a million other people in poverty, so this tribe can stay in their traditional area, or are you better off relocating this tribe and helping those million others?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:40:21 2011 No.3172006
File: 7 KB, 250x250, 1305492017665.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Brazil owe trillions of dollars to developed countries such as USA
>USA refuse to give up debts
>Brazil forced to find money where they can, destroying their own rainforest
>USA blames them for it, assumes righteous indignation despite being the sole cause of it
>/sci/ sides with USA
>mfw

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:44:21 2011 No.3172008
File: 2 KB, 213x165, huehue.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Sentimentalism is for double digit IQs.

The dam will provide renewable energy for millions at the expense of non-sapient animals and a few barely sapient people who will probably get recompensed due to the media attention and their whining, their kids will get a decent education and learn more about the world instead of being indoctrinated to think being a hunter gatherer is the only thing that matters.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:45:21 2011 No.3172010

So, where are the estimates for how much this will affect the environment around the dam?
Are we not fucking scientists? Lets look at the numbers. All the vague talk here makes it sound like it'll eliminate all the amazons, which is of course idiotic.

Hydroelectric power is a great energy source with huge advantages. I highly doubt they would build a dam without doing some number crunching.

These 600k people who sign the papers most likely have not looked at a single number, heck, i bet alot of them just voted like their retarded tribe leader. And now the papers publish a sobstory without the facts. Nothing new here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:48:21 2011 No.3172016 Rainforest is useless. It's fucking unethical to let people live there in 2011. This is good news.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:50:21 2011 No.3172017 Destroying the nature sure is a renewable source of energy. This is not a technological advancement. This is raping the helpless man's kids and asking him if he can fap to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:52:21 2011 No.3172027 >>3172017 >hurr How is creating a lake destroying nature? There are tons of lakes in nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:53:21 2011 No.3172031 >>3172027 Go look up what a dam does to the environment and come again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:55:21 2011 No.3172037 >>3172031 It gives the fish a place to live?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:58:21 2011 No.3172040 >>3172031 The environmental consequences are no different from naturally occurring lakes, why don't you propose we destroy naturally occurring lakes to compensate?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:00:21 2011 No.3172042 Who the fuck cares if he cries? It's a good way to produce energy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:00:21 2011 No.3172043 Well, let's see. Killing millions of plant and animal species so that one or two fish species can thrive (many fish species will die too). Yeah, seems like the sensible thing to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:02:21 2011 No.3172047 >>3172043 millions? More like some specialized frogs, fruit flies and fish that would have probably gone extinct during the next ice age anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:06:21 2011 No.3172057 >>3172047 What we need is LESS biodiversity! YAY!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:10:21 2011 No.3172064 >>3172043 > Killing millions of plant and animal species nobody cares about FTFY

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:11:21 2011 No.3172065 I built the dam

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:12:21 2011 No.3172067 >>3172057 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinctions Extinction increases biodiversity in the long term and the lake will create a new environment for new species to evolve. Why do you hate biodiversity so much?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:12:21 2011 No.3172068

>WWF-Brazil released a report in 2007 stating that Brazil could cut its expected demand for electricity by 40% by 2020 by investing in energy efficiency. The power saved would be equivalent to 14 Belo Monte hydroelectric plants and would result in national electricity savings of up to R$33 billion (US$19 billion).[46]

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:18:21 2011 No.3172074

Actually, humans increased the diversity of animals and plants all over the planet extensively. We brought horses and other european cattle to the americas, potatoes, corn and endless other fruits and plants to eurpe. Rice, which is today the most important food in north and south america, was brought there by humans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:21:21 2011 No.3172080 >>3172074 Continuing: Without humans, polar bears would have probably extinct already, if the humans wouldn't have anticipated it. There number started decreasing around 1800, because the gulf stream became more active.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:22:21 2011 No.3172082 >>3172074 >Rice, which is today the most important food in north and south america, was brought there by humans. I'm not sure what America you live in, but it sure as fuck isn't North.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:27:21 2011 No.3172089 >>3172074 >>3172080 http://www.cbd.int/gbo/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:43:21 2011 No.3172110 >>3172082 America is the greates rice producer in the world

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:50:21 2011 No.3172115 File: 7 KB, 249x250, 1304645122783s[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3172074 >Implying these animals didn't suppressed other local species.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:51:21 2011 No.3172116 >>3172068 We could both build the dam and follow the WWF guidelines and save 43%!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:52:21 2011 No.3172119 >>3172115 >implying the other species were improving biodiversity by not being subject to evolutionary forces

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:52:21 2011 No.3172120 /sci/ - appeals to emotion Seriously, have any of you even TRIED to weigh the pros and cons to humanity?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:55:21 2011 No.3172125
File: 56 KB, 470x331, 1306591747792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3171180
Thats a fallacy to assume that progress can only be made at the expense of others...a dangerous fallacy that has catalyzed a majority of the worlds atrocities and catastrophes, people like you make me sick. Cultures alternative to our own are essential to our survival, if we all adapt the same fucking technology and one day we fuck up, the ENTIRE RACE WILL DIE. There have been multiple occassions where entire civilizations have died our because of one commonality they share, under a our inevitable world government the possibility of an entire collapse is always there. Why would you want no others left under the event of a collapse?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:58:21 2011 No.3172131 >>3172006 >UMERICA FUCKE YA !

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:58:21 2011 No.3172133 >>3172120 Nobody has presented any cons so I assume there's none

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:59:21 2011 No.3172136

>First world builds whatever they need to be comfortable
>shit all over the third world when they want to stop living in mud huts

Good job, /sci/. I mean, there's biodiversity loss and displaced people to be considered, like with any dam, but I can't believe any of you even considered that this dam might reduce a lot of human suffering. Are you opposed to the dams that exist in your country too?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:02:21 2011 No.3172145 >>3172125 >Cultures alternative to our own are essential to our survival Bullshit. Weak cultures are assimilated and annihilation while strong grow and oppress. If western culture dies out it will have been natural selection.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:03:21 2011 No.3172147

>>3171321
> they are dangerous when handled by anyone else then Americans and (western) Europeans.
Sure is amurecan here, no one can be that stupid

>ask for a 8 yo girl to write about 'Why is america the greatest country in the world'
>implying she knows anything about other countries
>implying that everything that she learned about these said countries aren't just manipulated lies.

North America, you dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:05:21 2011 No.3172149 >>3172136 >yfw 97% of Brazil's electrical energy comes from dams >implying this isn't lotsaandlotsas plants and animals and area killed

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:05:21 2011 No.3172153 >>3172149 You seem to imply that Brazil has enough electricity to life everyone out of squalor. This is false.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:06:21 2011 No.3172156 >>3172153 >to lift everyone out of squalor fixed

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:07:21 2011 No.3172161 >>3172147 >someone is mad because he's country isn't part of the masterrace

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:08:21 2011 No.3172165

I bet there aren't even 5 faggots in this entire thread who actually know how large the new lake will be. You just assume that the cons outweigh the pros.

If you think an impact assessment hasn't been done and considered, that's just delusional. And assuming you know better when you haven't seen the assessment is even more ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam#Impact_assessment

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:09:21 2011 No.3172167
File: 142 KB, 500x505, 1306771880674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3172145
Hey dumbass, Im insinuating that if the entire world is westernized, as you propose is a supreme culture, then when it dies out, WE die out. Whereas if we have multiple competing cultures, then when the westernized one dies out, there will be others to thrive on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:11:21 2011 No.3172175 I just learned that Bazil isn't a herb.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:12:21 2011 No.3172179

>>3172167
>>3172145
Both stupid, cultures are not sacred inviolable entities, they are just a collection of ideas.

I see this a lot in humanity, people supporting one side of a false dichotomy when the real answer is so fucking simple and obvious but no one sees it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:13:21 2011 No.3172180 >>3172167 And why the fuck would I care if western culture dies out. I know enough and have the skills and knowhow to remain self sufficient if society collapses.

>>	COD3 !xIppLOA2Y2 Sat Jun 4 10:13:21 2011 No.3172184 I always though that brazil was a neighbor of india of vietnam, when they show brazil`s jungle they seems much like vietnam of the vietnam war

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:16:21 2011 No.3172196 >>3172167 That is the dumbest idea I've ever seen posted on /sci/. >ZOMG diversity = robustness >therefore, a group of 100 people is more robust if 99 of them are being dumbasses

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:18:21 2011 No.3172207

>>3172167
Holy shit son. I know you were drawing an analogy to biodiversity, but you took that shit WAY beyond the limits of the analogy.

Read that shit you just posted again.
> then when it (the global culture) dies out, WE die out.
What the shit? It's incoherent. Just TRY to justify this, it'll be hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:19:21 2011 No.3172209 >>3172167 >as you propose is a supreme culture I did not say supreme, I said strong. There is no such thing as a perfect organism (culture) only organisms which are adapted to their environment.

Axel the Possum Sat Jun 4 10:23:21 2011 No.3172221

Option 1: Destroy the Amazon and wreck the biodiversity, but profit through it.
Option 2: Build large-scale thorium plants, become a world-leader in nuclear technology, lead energy revolution. Profit even more through it because you can also revolutionize the medical and biology fields.

I'm not going to be the one to deny the Brazilians their choice here. They have every right to develop their nation as necessary to get their people out of poverty. Our forefathers made that decision long ago for us and we reaped the benefits.

However, there are better options. Putting a dam up here is a very clearly poorly thought out move, and lots of signs point towards it being someone's pet project. It's been pushed through over and over despite countless people stating that insufficient surveys have been done and that, unless a step is taken that seriously harms the environment, it'll be massively inefficient anyway.

Honestly, they've been given a choice here, and it's not one that they seem to be making effectively.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:25:21 2011 No.3172226 >>3172184 >can`t tell if trolling of just american >COD3 as his name >Implying bullshits beyond the usual bullshit Option 1 my friend.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:26:21 2011 No.3172230

>>3172221
You seem reasonable.

However, I'd also want to see feasibility studies on thorium reactors from the Brazilian perspective (can THEY build them with their resources). Probably can, but they DO already have 2 nuclear power plants with a third on the way. It's currently only 3% of their energy.

I look at it this way: We chose to dam the Mississippi river, so I can't jump to condemnation when Brazil chooses to dam the Amazon.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:31:21 2011 No.3172241

For those who don't understand: Dams cut off rivers and therefore cut off the habitats for many animals. Many animals go extinct because of this, or are at least pushed to the brink of extinction. I believe Japans giant salamanders are highly threatened because of this - they need the large expanse of rivers to flourish. Many big fish species suffer as well: the giant Mekong catfish could be wiped out for the same reason, the Yangtze river dolphin is now gone, salmon, Chinese alligator, Chinese sturgeon, frogs and toads (which are already declining severely worldwide WITHOUT dams, but even moreso with them), salamanders, etc. as well as all the animals that depend on these species.

Don't think dams aren't without their flaws. They're green power, but they are the direct cause of extinctions worldwide.

That said, I don't think we should get rid of hydroelectric power. I think we need to come up with new dams that allow the passage of wildlife and don't fully obstruct the river. It won't be as efficient, likely, as our current dams, but it's a sacrifice I think we should make for the biodiversity of our planet. This planet has thrived off the coexistence of species and beautiful for everything it has, a lot of which we haven't discovered. Let's not kill it all off just to leave the damn planet later. That's just ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:32:21 2011 No.3172244 >>3172230 The Mississippi is a major river but it doesn't support the magnitude of biodiversity of the Amazon River.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:33:21 2011 No.3172245

>>3172241
>Don't think dams aren't without their flaws. They're green power, but they are the direct cause of extinctions worldwide.
You're actually arguing the wrong direction. Everyone ITT is knee-jerking OMG DAMS ARE EVIL. Still, a more reasonable assessment might still come to conclusion that the threat to Amazon biodiversity is worth leaving a lot of people in squalor for longer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:33:21 2011 No.3172248 >>3172241 Not to mention dam lakes produce methane when eutrophisation occurs, in hot and humid environments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:34:21 2011 No.3172252 >>3172244 That's true. The problem is that I think most of the cries of "save the rainforest" are incredibly selfish and hypocritical. "I'll build whatever I need to be comfortable, but YOU need to make all the sacrifices for the good of humanity."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:34:21 2011 No.3172253 >>3172221 The options are not mutually exclusive

Axel the Possum Sat Jun 4 10:34:21 2011 No.3172254

>>3172230

The computer I'm using now has power at least in part coming to it from the dam on Niagra Falls. Delightfully, though, more than 50% of the power in my home province is derived from nuclear energy.

I can't condemn Brazil for the choices they make here either. I got off easy; I was born into a developed nation, where even the poorest of working class people can still find a home, eat untainted food, and enjoy running water and heating. Someone else made the decisions for me when it came to paving the land and cutting down the forests.

However, I'd still like to see them looking into thorium power. They're at the point where they can justify spending money on infrastructure projects and especially on energy spending.

I'd like to see a compromise, where the people of Brazil can enjoy the same benefits the rest of us do, without having to gut the natural beauty of their country.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:39:21 2011 No.3172261 >>3172244 Because man already destroyed it hundreds of years ago

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:40:21 2011 No.3172268 >>3172252 Citing hypocrisy is not a logical movie: Tu Quoque Fallacy.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:42:21 2011 No.3172273

>>3171098
One corporation says "hey guys i want to rape this landscape that i don't even own."

President immediately signs on.

10,000 people send president letters asking her not to do this, SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND people sign a petition saying they are against this corporation's agenda, and don't want the hydroelectric dam.

President ignores and continues sucking that corporation's dick.

The result of "democracy" (LMAO) and the "voice of the people! (LMAO).

Oddly this story sounds like it came from the USA where I'd expect to hear some shit like this, sad that it's the same way everywhere. :(

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:44:21 2011 No.3172277
File: 363 KB, 440x342, deal with it.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

-The average number of species of trees by hectare of forest is close to 300.

- 250.000 species of plants which live in the planet, about 90.000 are met exclusively in the tropics South American.

- About 3.000 species of fishes, were met in Amazonia what represents approximately 85 % of the species of South America. Only 35 of them are commercially run.

- In 5 years of sampling realized in 10.000 há of the Reserve Forestier Adolfo Ducke, situated near the city of Manaus, was met more than 5.000 botanical species, among which 1.000 are new for the science.

- It was estimated that the wet rain forests of the world can shelter up to 30 million species of insects.

- In a single collection, on a type of tree, were collected 80 species of ants in Central Amazonia.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:45:21 2011 No.3172280

>>3172252
>>3172268
It's not a fallacy in this case since we are discussing ethics. No one is perfectly ethical, therefore there is no point imposing impossible ethical standards on someone else if it is impossible for you to achieve those standards also.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:45:21 2011 No.3172282 >>3172268 It doesn't mean they're wrong in their proposed course of action. It means they are dishonest, or at least expect a double standard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:45:21 2011 No.3172283 >>3172261 No. That's like saying a random patch of Minnesota grassland harbors less endemic species than the Galapagos islands because of human ecological damage: it's just wrong and stupid.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:46:21 2011 No.3172284

>>3172254
The population is clearly against this move, a single corporation is for it. The population gathered 600,000 signatures to fight against this shit, that's an extremely difficult number of signatures to gather and implies a much more widespread outcry against this move the president is making.

10,000 letters were sent to the president saying that the people of Brazil did not want this.

A corporation is like "LOLOLO OLOLOL LO hey pres SUP! Let's get coffee tomorrrow yo! Anyway chica we need you to sign off on this hydro dam, trust us this shit is hot shit!"

President's like, "LOLOLO OLOL unzip your pants Corporation, sup! Get over here so I can blow you, don't worry bout that shit! LOL my citizens are all mad and shit LOL, they begging me not to do this, but we both know who's interests I care about, I already signed that shit before you even showed up!"

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:46:21 2011 No.3172286

>>3172245

I don't think I'm arguing in the wrong direction. There are people in here who are saying that dams just build up a larger body of water, and they don't understand the effect on the environment of cutting off a flowing water supply in a natural area.

>>3172252
I agree with you. That's why I think a compromise should be made. You support a huge population, but you support the most diverse habitat on the planet, and it's already highly threatened from illegal logging and overfishing in some areas. You need power, but doing what everyone else does will severely impact the environment. You don't have to pick just one.

I think people don't understand that we do have a responsibility to take care of the environment as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:46:21 2011 No.3172287 >>3172273 Capitalism Deal with it?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:47:21 2011 No.3172291

>>3172286
>I think people don't understand that we do have a responsibility to take care of the environment as well.
The "responsibility" angle isn't really going to work IMO. But arguing that it's good for humanity? Absolutely. We need to protect the basic integrity of the biosphere because it is good for humans, and for no other reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:48:21 2011 No.3172293 >>3172277 And how does the utility of these species compare to the utility of the dam? None of them have unique chemical properties, they are just slight variations on other fish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:48:21 2011 No.3172296 >>3172261 I know it's been altered, but it'd be pretty obvious if America has its own "Amazon Rainforest" a few hundred years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:50:21 2011 No.3172300 >>3172286 Because building a dam is not taking care of the environment, it's such an unorganized and vain act

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:50:21 2011 No.3172302 File: 75 KB, 347x364, 1307119268524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3172293 Oh god so much LOSE

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:51:21 2011 No.3172306

>>3172293
Brazil is a highly developed nation, it doesn't "need" this hydroelectric dam, its power grid is already functioning sufficiently.

Instead, this is a corporate lobby trying to get new profits against the will of the people of Brazil itself, and a situation where the vast majority of the Brazilian people are being ignored in favor of one single energy lobby in Brazil, despite the fact that the Brazilian people's government is supposed to represent their interests rather than just that corporation's.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:51:21 2011 No.3172308

>>3172291

I know the "responsibility" bit won't change people's mindsets. I wouldn't ever expect it to, and that saddens me a bit. Humankind has problems everywhere and it's a damn shame. From illegal logging, to dumping toxins, to poaching. No one cares unless it affects them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:51:21 2011 No.3172309 >>3172300 >Because building a dam is not taking care of the environment, it's such an unorganized and vain act What the fuck are you yammering about? "unorganized"? "vain"? Those are some of the most irrelevant adjectives you could pick.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:53:21 2011 No.3172317 >>3172300 I know. I basically stated that in >>3172241

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:53:21 2011 No.3172321

>>3172306
>Brazil is a highly developed nation, it doesn't "need" this hydroelectric dam, its power grid is already functioning sufficiently.
In rural areas, In rural areas, only 61 percent of dwellings have water and sewerage access, and only 55 percent have electricity.
http://www.mongabay.com/history/brazil/brazil-society.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:55:21 2011 No.3172326 >>3172241 > I think we need to come up with new dams that allow the passage of wildlife and don't fully obstruct the river LOL, they exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:56:21 2011 No.3172331 >>3172306 Cheap electricity leads to cheap industry leads prosperity leads to progress. Come back when there are no more ghettos built out of cardboard in Brazil.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:57:21 2011 No.3172333

>>3172277

You realize your numbers don't add up, right?

In 10,000 hectares they found 5,000 species, but according to your first line, every hectare has 300 species.

Could it be that all the species living where the dam will be built, also live in other places in the area, and no species at all (or very few) will be lost to the dam?

A set of obviously misleading numbers won't convince anyone on /sci/.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:00:21 2011 No.3172349

>>3172326

Thanks. Was looking for something like this. Though that still seems small scale. I know in Japan, they have some similar steps for the giant salamanders. But there are much large fish, especially in the Amazon. What I'm wanting is a large void in dams whereby any animal of any size could pass. I know dams work by blowing the flow of water, but surely something can be done.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:04:21 2011 No.3172358

>>3172006
>developed countries give billions upon billions to developed countries so they can do the right thing
>they have there own debt crisis
>brazil insteads wastes all the money, destroys rainforests and natives, supports extreme income equality
>/sci/ actually can see a pro-brazilian side for this.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:04:21 2011 No.3172360

>>3172349

A dam acts a lot like a waterfall. Different parts of a river can be biologically isolated from one another, and a dam can "move the waterfall", placing the barrier elsewhere, or even creating a new one.

A dam can only be built in an area with plenty of vertical difference, which excludes most of the Amazon basin (too flat). The hilly/mountainous areas where dams can be built likely already have natural barriers that fish cannot cross (at least not going upstream).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:05:21 2011 No.3172364 >>3172349 >any animal of any size could pass. lolwhat You just assess what species are at-risk and accomodate them, and no more. If you make a system that accomodates anything, you just sacrifice the power of the dam for nothing.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:05:21 2011 No.3172367
File: 45 KB, 458x319, 1281902346628.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3172333

Never say that in each hectare, 300 UNIQUE species.

In each hectare, there are 300 species but in 2 different hectare, you can find some identical species.

Learn to read and understand sentence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:06:21 2011 No.3172370 >>3172333 This, the REAL question is what species are put at risk by the dam, not just populations of species that have sufficient habitat elsewhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:11:21 2011 No.3172384 To date, an estimated 438 000 species of plants of economic and social interest have been registered in the region with many more remaining to be discovered or cataloged. And what we do ? BURN IT !

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:14:21 2011 No.3172389 >>3172384 In this case "we" are poor subsistence farmers who just want to have food. If you want to change their minds about slash-and-burn farming, make it worth their while. They have one of the shittiest situations in human experience today.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:16:21 2011 No.3172399

>>3172010
> Make assumptions about 600,000 people without talking to even one of them.

> Fail to recognize hypocrisy about assuming they made assumptions.

> Act like the will of the people shouldn't be a significant determining factor (600,000 signatures means a lot more than 600,000 people are against it), pretend that the only reasons people might be against this are displaced animals.

lol? You don't know shit about this, all you know is that a single corporation supports it, and the people of Brazil are against it.

It's so sad to see people so easily convinced that the determination of the people of a nation, who have to live in and exist in that nation, should not have a say in the directions that nation takes. Might as well live in a dictatorship (and yes I am well aware that many on /sci/ dream of living under a dictator).

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:18:21 2011 No.3172403
File: 176 KB, 520x534, 1296641730576.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3172333

I suggest you to read some book of ecology (not green washing shit).

An ecosystem is something very delicate.

Specieslive in very precise conditions (temperature, salinity, light, interaction with the other species, etc.).

You cannot take species and put them somewhere else as if by magic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:18:21 2011 No.3172406 >>3172399 > and the people of Brazil are against it. This is not substantiated. There are nearly 200 million people in Brazil.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:18:21 2011 No.3172409 Oh, man. I hate tricky shit like this. It's hard to have an opinion without being properly involved.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:20:21 2011 No.3172416

>>3172331
You've very clearly never traveled the United States to any significant degree, because if you had you would have seen the widespread poverty and third world status communities.

Your request is therefore retarded, because any large first world nation has the same problem you just cited.

You clearly just go to the nice parts of the city, see the nice pictures on tv and watch that 70s show and then believe "That's America!", lol, get out more bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:21:21 2011 No.3172418 File: 83 KB, 899x715, well played.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3172367

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:21:21 2011 No.3172421 OMG DA ENTIRE RAIN FOREST IS BEING DESTROYED BY A HYDOELECTRIC DAM! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:23:21 2011 No.3172426 >>3172416 > third world status communities. LOLno. Running water, plumbing, and electricity is not "third world".

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:24:21 2011 No.3172429

>>3172409
I'm against the hydro dam but this is the most intelligent post in this thread.

I'm not involved and don't know all the details, but it appears that the Brazilian people themselves are against this, while a corporation is for it, and so my default is to support the people living in that nation, and not the corporate lobby.

Without actually living in Brazil and without actually talking about the issue with locals and seeing first hand what the affects of this "progression" would be, it's hard to form a truly educated opinion.

I believe that self determination of the people of Brazil is more important than blind western belief in "progress," especially since Brazil is already first world and especially because in the USA we are constantly bitching about our corporate lobbies, but we see one in Brazil trying to go against the will of its population and succeeding and we suck that corporation's dick.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:24:21 2011 No.3172433 >>3172403 What does the US have to do with Brazil?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:25:21 2011 No.3172437 >>3172421 I am going to extract from you a piece of your lungs. You are going to say to me if you feel good with this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:26:21 2011 No.3172438 >>3172429 > 600k signatures on an internet address out of a nation of 200,000k > will of the people

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:26:21 2011 No.3172439

>>3172426
Again, you very obviously have no actually been around the United States. We have tent cities, we have communities of people living inside of forests without running water or plumbing.

Again, you clearly just watch TV and think "that's America!" without ever actually having seen it for yourself, the worst part is you actually believe you know what you are talking about (lmao).

You seriously believed that every community in the United States has running water and plumbing? Then you have clearly never looked around bro.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:27:21 2011 No.3172441

Are you people really so fucking stupid and short sighted that you think because our ancestors did it then its okay for Brazil to do it now? Far too much of this planets surface has already been destroyed by humans, even if you are so stupid and amoral you do not care about preserving biodiversity the Amazon has plenty of medicines still to discover that need to be preserved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:28:21 2011 No.3172443 >>3172439 That's just because you Americans are racist scum

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:29:21 2011 No.3172448 >>3172441 So tell us, what new medicines have been discovered form the rain forest in the last decade?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:29:21 2011 No.3172449 >>3172437 Can you not think unless it's a strawman? I hate people like you.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:30:21 2011 No.3172450

>>3172438
Brazil's population is 200 million.
600k signed a petition saying they were against this.

In the USA we have 314 million people, when we do polling on an issue a large enough sample size is considered only to be like 1,000 or so people.

So yes, collecting 600k signatures is a demonstration of the will of the people, and you will rarely ever see any movement of any kind including in the United States with 100 million higher population receiving that number of signatures.

The recall election that's going on only got several thousand signatures, that's considered enough to show that it's the "will of the people" of that state to have a recall ELECTION.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:32:21 2011 No.3172460 >>3172450 AN OPINION OF THE MINORITY IS NOT THE WILL OF THE WHOLE COLLECTIVE YOU MASSIVE GAYLORD

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:32:21 2011 No.3172464 >>3172439 Can you name any of these tent cities? Can you prove that this isn't only like 0.0000001% of the population? Can you prove some of these people aren't doing this with their own free will? Because until you can, what you said is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:33:21 2011 No.3172466 >>3172441 Listen to this man, he is not a myopic and anthropocentric scumbag like most of you seem to be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:34:21 2011 No.3172471 Why do so many people not care about the planet? Its disturbing that so many people are so mentally flawed.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:34:21 2011 No.3172475

>>3172429
It's almost wrong for anyone to have a strong opinion about something like this without living there or being part of the whole event. Some might say that we're all in this together as a human race, and it's a humanitarian issue, etc, but at the end of the day, I assume that everone here is middle class and unaffected by something even similar to this.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:35:21 2011 No.3172481

>>3172460
If you can collect 600k signatures then it means that it's not the opinion of the minority, you are too stupid to understand this but yes I am a fag. Deal with it.

You can't get 600k signatures for something unless a much, MUCH higher number of people than 600k support your cause. You can't get 600k signatures for something unless there is massive popular support for what you are trying to get signatures for. You are too retarded to understand that "600k signatures" means that a shit ton more than 600k people are against this hydroelectric dam, and that it's very clear that the will of the people is against it.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:36:21 2011 No.3172482

>>3172426
If you honestly think every part of every first world country looks either like a suburb or a city, you have a fuckload to learn about reality.
Being western and 'first world' doesn't mean you did everything right or that everyone is alright.
I implore you, get out of that fucking basement and see what reality is.

Actual capitalist. Sat Jun 4 11:36:21 2011 No.3172484
File: 119 KB, 800x364, economicfreedom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The state should have to buy these people's land at a price the people set before constructing the dam, or even better hand over the construction to a private company with equal legal rights to the free individuals of this tribe thereby forcing the company to buy the land from them.

Why do people think a flagrant denial of property rights is capitalist? This only goes to show how deluded society is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:37:21 2011 No.3172487 >>3172475 I never understood this assumption that everyone here is middle class. And besides even if your house is not going to be a lake you can still be pissed off it happened to someone else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:38:21 2011 No.3172488 >>3172481 If I replace 600k with 0 in that post how is it any different? Enjoy being semi-retarded

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:39:21 2011 No.3172490

>>3172471
It's not that they don't care about the planet, it's that they value human advancment and the welfare of the brazilian people more than the patch of rainforest being destroyed, and think that it is a better idea to destroy that area of rainforest, however many important aspects it holds, than to allow thousands of people to live in poverty.

It's a valid argument, why can't we discuss like gentlemen?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:39:21 2011 No.3172491 >>3172484 People often confuse capitalism with its evil bigger brother corporatism.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:39:21 2011 No.3172496
File: 6 KB, 226x166, 1261761236441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3172448

The pinkish periwinkle (a plant in amazonia, google it) , allowed for example to create medicines which revolutionized the treatment of the leukaemia at the child.
According to the national institute of the American cancer, 70 % of plants used to fight the cancer were found in rain forest.
The quarter of medicines prescribed in the United States is with Amazonian plants and nevertheless our laboratories studied until now the medicinal properties of hardly 1 % of the botanical species of these forests.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:42:21 2011 No.3172497

The crazy thing is, this dam is such a poor investment that they had to dig into state pension funds to pay for it.

While I'm no softie about ecology or aboriginal populations in principle, this looks less like "making the hard decisions" and more like the kind of senseless policy that arises when shameless profiteering meets corrupt government: they're most likely doing it as a way to funnel tax money to private interests in return for bribes, campaign funding, and kickbacks.

Brazil runs on these shenanigans.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:42:21 2011 No.3172500

>>3172450
Petition=/=poll
They didn't ask people do you want this or not and presented the results. They only listed those who wanted it.

These results could be interpreted (with retard logic) that the vast supermajority would be for this.

In reality there probably is loads of people in addition to these who wouldn't want this but then there are people who want this too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:45:21 2011 No.3172509 >>3172491 This.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:45:21 2011 No.3172510 >>3172497 I doubt it. There are more popular ways to embezzle money.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:46:21 2011 No.3172516 >>3172491 I know right, the answer is so simple yet getting enough people to understand the simplest things to enact change can be extremely difficult.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:49:21 2011 No.3172529

>>3172471
This is /sci/.
The majority of people here have lives so unfulfilling that the only way they can cope is by holding on to this grandiose ideal of becoming a space faring civilisation.
They live their lives and develop their morals based on one day reaching this goal.

Making the fundamental mistake of walking through a garden and not stopping to smell the flowers along the way.
Call me a hippy liberalfag all you want, but honestly guys, but nature is pretty fucking awesome. You'll be sorry when it's gone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:50:21 2011 No.3172532 >>3172496 Was that even a good return on investment? Searching through flowers to find a cure for cancer sounds like a waste of money if the goal is to save lives.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:51:21 2011 No.3172537 >>3172529 > has never been to a rainforest just go to a garden then

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:51:21 2011 No.3172538 My bestfriend was killed by nature. I want fucking revenge.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:52:21 2011 No.3172539

>>3172491
"Capitalism" itself is an evil-by-definition Marxist strawman of free enterprise. It implies the domination of society by the wealthy, who operate it for their own sole benefit.

The bland, "means of production are privately owned and operated" definition was hammered out by decades of Marxist domination of academia, during which any system which allowed means of production to be privately owned was called "capitalism" in propagandistic fashion, until they wore the teeth off it by associating it with the successful and pleasant societies they were trying to denigrate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:57:21 2011 No.3172554 File: 6 KB, 379x311, 1267763247701.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3172532 Are you a troll or just stupid ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:57:21 2011 No.3172557 File: 397 KB, 1271x1600, 1307194757900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the amount of inconsiderate and ignorant underage fags in this thread is staggering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:58:21 2011 No.3172558 >>3172529 >when it's gone Nature isn't going anywhere, nature has utility, we do stop and smell the flowers, we just don't pathologically smell every flower like a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:00:21 2011 No.3172563 >>3172554 lolitrolu In reality I'm sure the next flower is the key that will really save those kids from cancer

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:00:21 2011 No.3172564 >>3172539 I'm adding this to my copypasta file, it's funny.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:00:21 2011 No.3172565 File: 430 KB, 1920x1080, avatar-original.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Ladies and gentlemen... Welcome to the real version of Avatar. Coming to a planet near you.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:01:21 2011 No.3172567

>>3172532

>The quarter of medicines prescribed in the United States is with Amazonian plants and nevertheless our laboratories studied until now the medicinal properties of hardly 1 % of the botanical species of these forests.

What do you not understand ?

>>	ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ Sat Jun 4 12:03:21 2011 No.3172579 I'm not usually an environmentalist, but building dams destroys so much beauty and function. I agree that it's stupid.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:03:21 2011 No.3172581

>>3172537
I've been to the Amazon actually.
It's sticky, unbearably humid and infested with the most terrifying insects you could ever imagine. But i wouldn't trade that experience for anything.
It's a terrible place to live, but it makes me feel good just knowing that a place like that exists, a place so disconnected from anything remotely western - where the nights are a symphony of mysterious insects humming and buzzing and the sky is the pitchest black you could imagine, filled with an unbelievable amount of stars.
It makes me feel good about the world, every time i remember it. Of course, then i remember everything else i've seen and my hope quickly fades

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:04:21 2011 No.3172582

>>3172554
It's a perfectly reasonable quesion: how cost-effective can it be to try random plant extracts out and see if they turn out to be medicinal, as opposed to studying the mechanisms of disease and attempting to design treatments? Even if you DO find something useful from a rare and exotic plant, it is likely to be prohibitively expensive to cultivate and extract (after all, if a plant is only found in one valley on the planet, it's probably not very robust or fecund).

I understand that this was the dominant medical paradigm for millennia, but then we learned chemistry and stuff.

The mere fact that throwing gigabucks at this kind of research occasionally turns up a useful compound does not make the cost-benefit automatically good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:04:21 2011 No.3172583 >>3172529 Well first wanting to go to space does not mean you have an unfulfilling life and second wanting to go to space does not stop me valuing what we already have.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:04:21 2011 No.3172585 >>3172567 The part where you implied "natural remedies" are anything but placebos

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:06:21 2011 No.3172592 >>3172581 I would trade the spiders for a touch on the penis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:07:21 2011 No.3172597 summer /sci/: Reddit, one week later.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:08:21 2011 No.3172601

>>3172582
>(after all, if a plant is only found in one valley on the planet, it's probably not very robust or fecund).

You understand absolutely nothing about ecology. ALL species have smaller ranges as you approach the equator, there is more opportunity for niche differentiation so there are more species occupying smaller ranges. The Amazon has many times more species per hectare than Europe, does not mean these species are somehow less good at surviving.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:08:21 2011 No.3172602
File: 15 KB, 273x300, 1267762644761.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3172582

>The quarter of medicines prescribed in the United States is with Amazonian plants and nevertheless our laboratories studied until now the medicinal properties of hardly 1 % of the botanical species of these forests.

>The quarter of medicines prescribed in the United States is with Amazonian plants and nevertheless our laboratories studied until now the medicinal properties of hardly 1 % of the botanical species of these forests.

>The quarter of medicines prescribed in the United States is with Amazonian plants and nevertheless our laboratories studied until now the medicinal properties of hardly 1 % of the botanical species of these forests.

IS IT ENOUGHT COST-EFFECTIVE ?

You, your mom, your neightbor, your friend, your teacher, your boss used, use or will use medicine extract from plants of Amazonia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:08:21 2011 No.3172604 Boy, all those unique and useful organic structures and compounds, lost forever. This would be one time that I would support American imperialism. America, please go kick Brazilian ass and set up a "no build zone."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:09:21 2011 No.3172608 >>3172602 My bullshit detector is pinging like crazy. I'm going to need a citation on that claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:10:21 2011 No.3172613 >>3172604 We'd love too, but I don't think enough of them are brown enough, some of them almost look white even! It would be a tough sell.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:10:21 2011 No.3172614

>>3172582
>>3172585
Yes because the scientifically created remedies are always great. look at malaria. Quinine still works but the synthetic replacement chloroquine is now almost useless due to widespread resistance. Our best current Malaria drug is also from a plant, scientists are trying to synthesise better forms but at the end of the day global malaria control depends on plants.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:11:21 2011 No.3172616

>>3172582

Some things we value more than money; that includes saving lives. The U.S. spends more than twice as much money each year on methods to preserve food from disasters, including invasive species and diseases. If I remember correctly, we spend $40,000,000,000 to preserve $16,000,000,000 in crops. Why? Because we place a high value on the food, and it's a necessity. Just like medicine.

There are many compounds in nature that we simply can't just pull out of our asses. Do you have a treatment for cancer? I don't think so, but nature might. Do you have a cure for HIV? No? But nature might. That's why we're interested in studying nature; to find cures, for one. And when we find it, we can replicate it through our organic and inorganic chemists.

Don't be dense. We don't have all the answers, and nature probably doesn't either. But you don't neglect a vast depository of information just because it takes time to look for it or because it costs money. Many medicines have natural derivatives.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:11:21 2011 No.3172618 >>3172602 1/4 of medicines prescribed in the US are homeopathy. Coincidence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:11:21 2011 No.3172619 >>3172614 Our best malaria drug is DDT. We are responsible for the deaths of millions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:13:21 2011 No.3172621 >>3172616 But what about the anuses of people that are not sick and migtht therefore be immune? Surely it s much more likely the cure is there. You have no business in the rainforest until you have probed every anus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:13:21 2011 No.3172624 >>3172608 You are stupid or underage. It's impossible that in 2011 some people don't know about medecine and the huge resources of the plants. Please, leave 4chan and open books

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:14:21 2011 No.3172626

>>3172616
>Some things we value more than money; that includes saving lives.

>Therefore, we will spend any amount of money on anything that saves lives, regardless of whether that money could have been spent on something else that would have saved more lives.

Arguments against doing cost-benefit analysis always sound this stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:16:21 2011 No.3172637 File: 26 KB, 400x400, 1268138457061.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3172618 > national institute of the American cancer >homeopathy ho god, what am i doing here ?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:17:21 2011 No.3172643

>>3172624
>medecine and the huge resources of the plants.
You know, when you express yourself this badly while making excuses for not backing up extraordinary claims with so much as a web link, it's hard not to conclude that you are an ignorant, uneducated person of low intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:18:21 2011 No.3172645 >>3172621 Csll the engineering faculty, probing anuses is not my department.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:20:21 2011 No.3172650 ITT: tyops

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:20:21 2011 No.3172652

>>3172626

We've been trying to come up with cures for cancer and HIV for years, and have spent some untold billions of dollars. We have no cure yet, only things that can suppress and alleviate the symptoms. Some millions of people have died as well from both cancer and AIDS. I think searching for plants and analyzing them is a small price to pay if it can rid the world of diseases.

As far as pure cost-benefit goes... If the cost is too high, then you don't bother doing it. But enjoy your cancer. When there is no alternative that is promising, then yes, you DO sink lots of money into a project. i.e. preserving food and searching for cures.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:20:21 2011 No.3172653 >>3172621 Actually they do this already. A vast amount of research is done these days on people who have a natural immunity to AIDS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:23:21 2011 No.3172666 >>3172643 1st : what is wrong with my sentence ? 2nd : look ten seconds on Web or better, opens a book and you will understand that what I said is good.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:23:21 2011 No.3172667

>>3172626

>>regardless of whether that money could have been spent on something else that would have saved more lives

How many lives are we saving from both HIV and cancer? We're prolonging lives and removing some operable tumors, but many people still die from these. You make it sound as if we have cures. We don't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:24:21 2011 No.3172670 >>3172619 DDT is an insecticide not a medicine. And in case you did not realise it has catastrophic effects on food chains when it is used.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:25:21 2011 No.3172677

>>3172652
>Our most efficient methods of medical research are making good progress, but have not produced perfect cures yet.

>Therefore, we must take money away from them and throw it at less efficient methods of medical research which are exceedingly unlikely to ever produce perfect cures.

Still arguing against doing cost-benefit analysis. Still sounding dumber than a box of hammers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:27:21 2011 No.3172687 I can't believe people are seriously arguing we should just ignore the thousands of potential cures in the rainforest. A huge amount of modern medicine is based on compounds first found in plants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:30:21 2011 No.3172693 >>3172652 Actually AIDS is essentially cured to the same level as diabetes

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:30:21 2011 No.3172694 Let's just kill people with cancer and AIDS. It's the most cost efficient path to take.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:32:21 2011 No.3172708 Feels good that Europeans are naturally more resistant to HIV than any other group.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:33:21 2011 No.3172711 >>3172694 That's wasteful. We should have them build the dam.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:34:21 2011 No.3172715 >>3172670 The effects on the food chain are dwarfed by the effects of malaria on humans. We could have wiped out malaria as a disease.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:36:21 2011 No.3172725

>>3172677

Your idea of neglecting an entire area of study is the only thing dumber than a box of hammers. Answers aren't obvious, so you search for them using a variety of approaches. We're far from replicating what nature can do, so why not learn from nature?

You have no idea whether the research will produce a perfect cure. And the idea isn't to find a perfect cure from a plant. It's getting the foundation and seeing what's effective to improve upon it. Certainly our manmade cures aren't solving the problem, and we've sunk how many billions of dollars into it? Sounds like a terrible cost for no benefit (considering that there is no CURE).

It also doesn't have to be for solely HIV of cancer. You do realize what penicillin is, right? Despite the fact that discovering its abilities was an accident, it's still a natural and effective way of combating disease.

As stated, to tackle a problem in one way is ridiculous. To believe that we have all the answers and that nature has none is even moreso.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:36:21 2011 No.3172726 Wouldn't it be best to build the dam and then have it collapse, killing all the people saving all the rainforest herbal medicine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:36:21 2011 No.3172728 >>3171098 >Mfw they're going to destroy the fuck out of unique plants Stay classy brazil, the world obviously has no use for your uberplants. Dipshits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:37:21 2011 No.3172733 Rocks can't have cancer either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:38:21 2011 No.3172737 >>3172725 I thought we were a part of the nature

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:39:21 2011 No.3172739 That should read "HIV or cancer".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:40:21 2011 No.3172744 >>3172737 We're a small part with great influence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:40:21 2011 No.3172745 File: 114 KB, 237x291, huwha.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw this debate hinges on whether we should forcibly probe every human anus on the planet like gray aliens

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:40:21 2011 No.3172747 > yfw seeing what happens when a large area of rainforest gets permanently flooded is much more relevant scientifically than at most a few flowers that might be unique to the area

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:41:21 2011 No.3172749

>>3172484
A good point here, why is everyone talking about the animals and shit?

Capitalist != the government owns your property not you.

Any system where the government owns your property instead of you (any system with imminent domain, which is probably every system unfortunately) is not a free market and is a system without actual property rights.

If the government can go "lol we 'need' your land so we can give it to X corporation so they can make money off of it without you being able to sell it for the price you want, but instead just being compensated for what we determine the value is for you" then you do not and did never own that property. The government was just letting you be a custodian over it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:43:21 2011 No.3172753 Science, I want to have nasty anal play with you

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:43:21 2011 No.3172756 >>3172725 ...still just making excuses for not attempting cost-benefit analysis, and instead just throwing money indiscriminately at anything that sounds vaguely plausible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:45:21 2011 No.3172760 >>3172749 You must be the densest motherfucker on the planet to not understand why people are talking about "animals and shit" in a topic about a dam in the Amazon rainforest.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:45:21 2011 No.3172763

>>3172687
Actually a large number of the most common medicines are mostly just the active ingredients extracted from the plant with minor changes/additives that don't really improve on its medicinal quality for what its intended to treat, but allow the corporation to patent it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:46:21 2011 No.3172766 >>3172756 throwing money at anything that sounds vaguely plausible is a damn good way to advance the human race.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:48:21 2011 No.3172771 >>3172753 Math, you are a nice guy. Let's be friends.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:48:21 2011 No.3172777

>>3172760
I'm sorry for worrying more about the property rights of the individuals pictured in at the start of the thread, where the chief of their tribe is crying because some corporation took away his land and is going to destroy it even though this tribe has undoubtedly served as a conservationist front for as long as its existed (the tribe wants to preserve that land, and has preserved it for a long time).

I apologize if it's "dense" to want the property rights of that tribe which conserves the rainforest of that area protected and respected.

You're too dense to realize that we're both on the same side of this debate, I'm just pushing it from a property rights perspective because people in the thread don't seem to give a flying fuck about the ecological consequences because a hydro electric dam against the will of the people of Brazil and the specific property owners of this region of land would be 'cool'.

When it's your house being taken away against your will you'll have a different view.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:51:21 2011 No.3172793 >>3171098 In this picture, this is not a man who cries but the humanity.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:52:21 2011 No.3172797

>>3172749
This is less a matter of eminent domain, and more a matter of people living on and off of land that is not their property to begin with.

Let's just nevermind the inherent contradiction in starting with:
"We didn't believe in land ownership. We just set up our shelters where we liked and wandered around and gathered food, fuel, and materials whereever they were lying around."
...and ending with:
"WHY DID YOU TAKE OUR LAND?!"

When you've got a big range of wilderness, and some thousands of people want to live in it and hunt and gather, and some millions of people want to set up farms and mines and factories and cities, sometimes you've just got to tell the inefficiency-lovers to fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:53:21 2011 No.3172802 >>3172766 By that logic capitalism is bad for the advancement of human race, you dirty commie

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:54:21 2011 No.3172812 >>3172766 Some examples of things that sound vaguely plausible: - homeopathy - astrology - acupuncture - colloidal silver - the theory that immunizations cause autism - creationism

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:54:21 2011 No.3172813 >>3172793 >hurdurr appeal to emotion Even if your ultimate proposed course of action is defensible, your current argument is disgustingly irrational. He's one man.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:55:21 2011 No.3172815

>>3172756

Finding an effective compound in plants, fungi or bacteria can be just as cost-effective, if not moreso, than scientists trying to create their own from scratch. Many manmade remedies seemed plausible and proved completely ineffective. Money was effectively thrown away there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:55:21 2011 No.3172816 For the sake of potentially undisturbed habitable planets outside of earth, i almost hope that humanity doesn't spread... we dun goofed on much thus far, and the goofing is hardly even near it's apex...

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:57:21 2011 No.3172824

>>3172797
How do you know this tribe did not believe in property? Seems to me like you've been watching too many Disney movies to get a dose of reality.

"I'll just make shit up about this tribe to support my view so I can feel good about myself!"

Wow dude, pathetic.

Land ownership was initially determined by where you are and what land you lived on / improved. This tribe lived on and improved (built a society) this land in this forest, and there is no question that it is/was their property. The government even acknowledges this and is going to use imminent domain on them, paying them what it values the property at and then kicking them out against their will.

You know nothing about the community being kicked off the land, you don't even know if they are "hunter gatherers" or not. From the picture, it is extremely clear that they are not hunter gatherer primitive tribals, since he's sitting on an industrialized world era chair, in community center.

You are full of shit to pretend these are hunter gatherer tribals "loving inefficiency." This is a community of Brazilians being kicked off their land because a corporation wants it, bro.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:58:21 2011 No.3172832

>>3172777

It's one thing to worry more about something. It's another thing when you state "Why are people talking about this and that" as if you're completely ignorant of another side of the matter at hand. You should be able to understand why people are talking about "animals and shit".

Yes, you sounded ignorant as hell. And no, I never neglected property rights. Good day, sir.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:00:21 2011 No.3172839 The 21st century is the defeatist century. Anything man can do that is not hippie faggotry or pipe dreams is seen as corrupt. Deal with it /sci/.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:00:21 2011 No.3172841

>>3172815
>Okay, I was wrong. We SHOULD do cost-benefit analysis.
There we go. This is progress.

>...but it will probably go the way I was assuming anyway. Let's just make up some excuses to assume that.
One step forward, two steps back.

Keep in mind that I was, from the start, only defending the validity of questioning the value of the "Try random plants." approach to discovering new drugs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:00:21 2011 No.3172842 >>3172813 You are too young.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:01:21 2011 No.3172844

>>3172797

Also, if you look at the picture, the man behind him is wearing a fucking watch, and they are mostly dressed in first world clothing.

The chief is obviously dressed in a traditional ceremonial garb, like how people in Los Angeles do dress ups for their traditions.

You're such an idiot for assuming these guys are "hunter gatherers" because it means you can't even analyze a fucking picture.

They are property owners who owned property in the rainforest (nice land to own, I wish I could have some rainforest, would be badass), which is being taken away from them by a corporation despite mass solidarity against it by the Brazilian people.

Try again you idiot, "her der they are hunter gatherers and don't believe in property even though it's obvious neither of these statements are true from the op's photo alone her der!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:02:21 2011 No.3172846 >>3172824 Actually, land ownership was determined by the ability to defend the land against othera.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:04:21 2011 No.3172856 >>3172842 27 years old here. 1983. And your emotional delusions of one man actually representing humanity are pitiful.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:04:21 2011 No.3172860

>>3172824
>This tribe lived on and improved (built a society) this land in this forest, and there is no question that it is/was their property.
Oh lordy lordy me.

Throw up a couple of mud huts and wear a few footpaths into the ground walking around to pick up fruit and twigs, and that justifies owning everything for miles around.

I'm going to build a couch cushion fort, walk down to the riverside to get some rocks and a bucket of dirty water, and then inform my landlord and local government that I now own the city.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:04:21 2011 No.3172861

>>3172815
Many compounds in nature cannot be reproduced by humans in a lab.

We cannot synthesize anything we find in nature at this stage in our development. People assuming that anything found in plants can be made artificially in a lab at this stage in our technological prowess is ignorant.

So it's not just about "efficiency" it's about "ability." We may eradicate a naturally occurring cure that we CAN'T synthesize at this stage in our development as an intelligent species.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:04:21 2011 No.3172862 >>3172844 they are tourists attractions or abusing social security then. i sure hope they can continue to block any infrastructural advancement so as to further their glorious cause

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:05:21 2011 No.3172867 >>3172861 > can't build a plant in a lab hurr durr

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:07:21 2011 No.3172871

>>3172860
Where do you see mud huts?

I think it's interesting that when a corporation comes for the land of some property owners who have a chief (mayor) who engages in traditional ceremonies, and puts on ceremonial garb for traditional purposes, you automatically assume that the corporation must be targeting "primitive" people because their skin is brown.

Look at the fucking picture dumbass, they are not a primitive group, they are industrialized property owners who follow traditional ceremonies, just like property owners in major US cities.

Believe it or not the big corporations don't only try to fuck over "primitives" when trying to acquire high quality land through the use of the government.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:07:21 2011 No.3172873

>>3172861
>We may eradicate a naturally occurring cure that we CAN'T synthesize at this stage in our development as an intelligent species.
Sounds like a very short-term issue.

"These plants will be gone FOREVER! And they might be potentially relevant to our medical science for entire DECADES to come!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:07:21 2011 No.3172874 >>3172856 Too young in your mind, my friend.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:08:21 2011 No.3172883 >>3172871 Nice consistency there, Mr. "They Built A Society Therefore They Own The Forest".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:09:21 2011 No.3172885 >>3172874 creepy milk guy

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:10:21 2011 No.3172890

>>3172867
I'm not speaking of the plant itself (though that's correct, we can't), I'm speaking of chemical processes which synthesize various chemical compounds that we do not currently have the ability to synthesize ourselves.

You are clearly ignorant of chemical synthesis, and do not realize that nature currently is ahead of us in ability in that regard.

We cannot synthesize chemicals as well as nature can at this point in our development as a species, and as a result there are chemical compounds that human beings cannot yet artificially create ourselves.

I'm not sure what your point even is, you intentionally prefer us to eliminate sources of compounds that we as a species are UNABLE to create ourselves?

I'm not talking about the plant itself, there are individual chemicals/compounds/elements that we cannot produce that plants and forces of nature can.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:11:21 2011 No.3172897 >>3172885 So young so primitive

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:11:21 2011 No.3172902

>>3172841

Right. Nothing is cost-effective from the start, and it takes a long time for it to be effective. And I didn't say it was cost-effective. I said it's just as cost effective as the research for our current cures for cancer and HIV. Don't twist my words. As I stated from the start as well, cost-effectiveness is a little importance when there's no proven alternative.

We have no alternative for food, thus we sink money into preserving it. We have no cures for many diseases, thus we sink money into it. We have no cures yet, and people still die. So it's been pretty much nothing but cost and practically no benefit (save EXTENDING lives).

And yes, random plants are tested. They do similarly with specimens from everywhere. It's exploratory. And if nothing comes from it, then it'll be in the same boat as most research.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:12:21 2011 No.3172904

>>3172883
Again, you are the only one disputing their property ownership in this case. That's exactly right, they acquired this land in the rainforest legally, built a society and engage in industrial trade/work, similar to a mountain town in the USA.

How is this hard for you to understand? They don't own the entire rainforest, but they own the specific property that the brazilian government is declaring imminent domain against on behalf of the corporation which wants to build the hydro electric dam.

Are you really so dense that you can't understand this? At least attempt to argue from a standpoint in reality, instead of your fictional world.

Pretty soon you're going to go "I'm not stupid I swear I was just trolling!!!!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:13:21 2011 No.3172907 >>3172902 I don't think we're going to reach an understanding here. I think we're just going to have to agree to think that you're stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:13:21 2011 No.3172915 The human beings invent NOTHING, they copy everything of the nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:14:21 2011 No.3172916 File: 1.08 MB, 1010x458, aquabuddha.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You people don't do enough drugs

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:15:21 2011 No.3172918 Ownership is a fucking concept. A horrible one that needs to die. Copyright with it. It just shouting "MINE". Breeds stagnation, and all the wrong varieties of competition, rather than creating collaborative efforts based on mutual interest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:16:21 2011 No.3172925 The preservation of the rainforest is not just for our sole benefit of medicine. It's to preserve nature as it is and coexist, showing respect for other living things as well.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:16:21 2011 No.3172928

>>3172904
It's not the minor (and duly compensated) eminent domain seizures that are the main issue here: it's the effect on hunting and gathering, particularly the river fishery.

Nobody's claiming to own the river, yet people are claiming that the government shouldn't be allowed to dam its river because it will affect their ability to exploit the river in their preferred fashion.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:19:21 2011 No.3172937

>>3172925
> It's to preserve nature as it is and coexist, showing respect for other living things as well.
The only value of the Amazon is its value to humanity. All values are human values. We minimize suffering in test animals because it's good for humans (cruelty does undesirable things to us).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:28:21 2011 No.3172970 >>3172907 It's okay. I understand you have no good backup for your arguments aside from petty insults. Under your leadership, the world would explore nothing and would do things in ways that only it already knew how to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:29:21 2011 No.3172977 >>3172925 can't respect the metaphorical. out of my /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:30:21 2011 No.3172986 >>3172937 Translation: >The only value of the Amazon is its value to me. All values are my values. We minimize suffering in test animals because it's good for me (cruelty does undesirable things to me).

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:37:21 2011 No.3173020

The preservation of the rain forest is just as good as the preservation of the world's temperature to avoid global warming.
But still we dont see americans trying to use less energy in order to reduce a little bit of of the shitload of CO2 that is released in the atmosphere.
Also brazillian people are just as much tools as american people to big corporations, it's not like we can do anything about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:38:21 2011 No.3173025 >>3172937 You exemplify everything that is wrong with humanity today. I hope one day you realise how wrong you really are.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:14:21 2011 No.3173164

I should have known that as soon as a thread like this is posted on /sci/ the armchair warriors start a contest over who can say the most cynical and selfish thing in order to make bad news seem palatable.

Nobody's impressed at your "progress at all costs" rhetoric considering you've never invented or been involved in anything that actually helped the human race. Building a dam for power has nothing to do with the progress of humanity, its just providing electricity in a way that fucks up a rainforest already in peril. This is a harbinger of doom not only to all the species in the river and surrounding area, but also to the tribes that lived in harmony with their environment; something the advanced white man has failed to do.

Serving Big Macs isn't thought of as a stepping stone to the future but it's why hundreds of acres of rainforest vanish every day for cheap farmland.

You might argue that the whole Earth is for our use, but it's not going to be a good place to live if there isn't enough oxygen and biodiversity to breathe and eat. Not to mention any plants to research medicine with. I'm just thankful I'm going to die before the end of biodiversity happens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:20:21 2011 No.3173655 >>3172437 I am going to cut out your heart while you are still living.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 16:25:21 2011 No.3173685 If the species have no benefit to humanity then there is no reason to preserve them.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 18:06:21 2011 No.3174281

>>3172167
Deal with it-guy here, You guys seemed to have grossly misunderstood my post. When I say converging to one (superior or not) common culture, I mean every aspect of living. If the culture has an aspect that is fatal to the human race (lets say for this analogy nanobots that malfunction), then the entire society dies from said nanobots that were a product of said civilization. Without other, restistant, and alternative civilizations that'd be the end of the human race. We are all at the beginning of the long string of technological leaps to be made, to assume that we're on the right string is just hubris. To assume that this string doesn't lead to a dead end biologically is also hubris. Get your head out of your asses and realize cultural diversity is as essential as biodiversity because cultures catalyze technological growth, and technological sameness will be the death of us.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math