Political Crossfire Forums

[The Impeacher]

John Galt wrote: The Impeacher wrote: John Galt wrote:
You would deny the future children of this world the parking lots over rainforests they deseerve. WHO ARE YOU to say what they want or deserve?

could you give me a price quote on turning a parking lot into a tropical rain forest?


thx!

What use is a tropical rainforest? before you tell me about the wonders of converting CO2 to O2, look up how much an acre of grass compared to an acre of forest converts. Mmmmk. So golf courses it is!

what?

no, rainforests, at the risk of stating the obvious, replenish water tables. water is pretty useful.

as for co2, i dont what you are smoking, but its not that they "absorb" co2, but that they naturally filter air and co2 by removing more harmful elements to us like nitrogen. and yes, they actually produce a lot of co2, but that is part of the natural decaying processes that gives us things like...

petroleum, natural gas, and other "fosssil fuels." perhaps you have heard of those? do those have any industrial uses?

:lol:

so its more like an air filter, not a magical "producer" of air.

the "rainforest as lungs" argument is about being a part of refreshing the air that we need, not about consuming our co2 output. there has never been co2 output like there is now, and that is why things are getting worse. they can only absorb so much, and not nearly as much as the oceans can, iirc.

you act as if the rainforests job was to clean up the crap from industrial revolution? that's silly.

btw, dont forget the rainforest is essentially a living chemlab... that'd suit your industrial interests, i suspect. both for industrial and medicinal purposes. i suspect that for nearly any disease that does or will exist, there is to be found a natural chemical or synthesized process that can lead to a cure or some other useful innovation.

and hey, lets not forget ECO TOURISM. that's a huge plus. personally, i'd rather take a mtn bike ride or bang a hottie under a rainforest canopy - as opposed to in a parking lot. but maybe that's just me?!

plus, i think they have intrinsic value, and that, frankly, alone is enough for me.

i guess you think we have a shortage of cities, parking lots, and people? i sure don't.

"nature" and our natural bounty is going from a precious resource to a scarce commodity anymore, and i think it just s*cks.

[mathurin]

AD and galt
i agree with galt that we cannot make an accurate guess as to how any species went extinct, the numbers game would be a joke, you might as well look at the coast of australia and tell me how many grains of sand are there

we are still discovering new species all the time, how can we even think we can guess a correct number


the impeacher
science still has value, but in many cases it has been overly affected by politics
science has become its own religion, with people who dont "believe" being ridiculed
when they start making guesses based on next to no information, then they are of little value

[The Impeacher]

mathurin wrote:


the impeacher
science still has value, but in many cases it has been overly affected by politics
science has become its own religion, with people who dont "believe" being ridiculed
when they start making guesses based on next to no information, then they are of little value

i don't make the mistake of thinking bad science is science, nor do i buy into the propaganda of using bad science to defame the concept as a religion.

[Random Evil Guy]

Wolverine wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Wolverine wrote:

Random Evil Guy wrote: Wolverine wrote: If the species is going extinct do to people, we need to do our best to preserve the species. Without outrageously infringing on people rights, and/or degrading the well being of people.

But if the species is going extinct just "because", who cares? As what Penn and Teller say, "nature decides who stays and who goes".

Species die, its apart of nature.

true, but how many parts of the world are really devoid of human influence?

besides, following that argument, humans are part of nature and if we cause the extinction of other species, that is what 'nature decides'.
There isn't an area that is truly devoid of humand influence, everything effects everything to a certain extent.
I don't think that people "influence" a species into extiction, through passive means, who cares? Appearenty the species is weak, and would go extinct anyway.

what are 'passive means'?
Living.

so you consider for example clearing land, setting up electricity, water, etc, which is usually required for 'living' in an area, to be 'passive means'?

[ieatfood]

The basic issue is this.

Some people ascribe MORAL value to nature. Others do not.

People who ascribe moral value to nature will want to protect it even if there is no reason to do so. This is why environmentalist arguments often seem so irrational.

Let's look at this scenario. Imagine some guy who owns a swath of redwood trees, which are endangered. This guy decides that he will cut down all the trees and pave it over with concrete to build a parking lot for his SUVs.

Assume that no one else will be affected by this. Is this something that is ok?

[John Galt]

thrasher wrote: Quote:
What use is a tropical rainforest? before you tell me about the wonders of converting CO2 to O2, look up how much an acre of grass compared to an acre of forest converts. Mmmmk. So golf courses it is!

Roughly half of the world's species reside in trpoical rainforests, which are currently experiencing massive deforestation. I also believe that 70% of our pharmaceuticals have organismal origins, and 9 of the of 10 most prescribed treatments have organismal origins. We are losing time very quickly in finding sources of treatment for many of our diseases. That alone is reason enough to preserve the rainforests.

Off the hope that there may be something there to use, which we cannot find because you cannot see the trees for the forest? OK, you buy the land and research it. Let others use the land and make cattle farms out of it.

[ieatfood]

thrasher wrote:

Roughly half of the world's species reside in trpoical rainforests, which are currently experiencing massive deforestation. I also believe that 70% of our pharmaceuticals have organismal origins, and 9 of the of 10 most prescribed treatments have organismal origins. We are losing time very quickly in finding sources of treatment for many of our diseases. That alone is reason enough to preserve the rainforests.



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

[The Impeacher]

John Galt wrote: Let others use the land [...]

well, duh, John.

[The Impeacher]

ieatfood wrote:



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

is that before or after its clear cut and burned that we have "no potential for exploring it?"

you possess no logic whatsoever! :lol:

[ieatfood]

The Impeacher wrote: ieatfood wrote:



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

is that before or after its clear cut and burned that we have "no potential for exploring it?"

you possess no logic whatsoever! :lol:

Just becuase something exists does not mean that there is potential for exploring it.

The amount of rainforest that is explored is limited not by the amount of rainforest, but rather by the amount of funding that is required to perform such exploration. (eg the amount of biological assays that you can do)

For example, even if you have a billion species, if you only have enough resources to test 1,000 of them, then you can kill off 900 million species, without chaning the number of species that you test.

Thus, we can destroy vast swaths of forest without changing the amount of rainforest that can potentially be explored.

Therein lies the logic. That fact that you don't understand it is not my problem.

[DarkMerlin]

ieatfood wrote: The Impeacher wrote: ieatfood wrote:



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

is that before or after its clear cut and burned that we have "no potential for exploring it?"

you possess no logic whatsoever! :lol:

Just becuase something exists does not mean that there is potential for exploring it.

The amount of rainforest that is explored is limited not by the amount of rainforest, but rather by the amount of funding that is required to perform such exploration. (eg the amount of biological assays that you can do)

For example, even if you have a billion species, if you only have enough resources to test 1,000 of them, then you can kill off 900 million species, without chaning the number of species that you test.

Thus, we can destroy vast swaths of forest without changing the amount of rainforest that can potentially be explored.

Therein lies the logic. That fact that you don't understand it is not my problem.

Ah, but see, you first point (bolded) is incorrect. As long as the rainforests exist we will have the opportunity to explore them, and the resources required for such exploration (namely people) are renewable. Exploring acres of rainforest is not like building platinum monuments, where the number of monuments that can be built is limited by the amount of platinum on the planet, since "exploring" is not a limited commodity. Hence, given enough time we could explore all of the rainforest and test every plant and animal species within to create new pharmacuticals.

[ieatfood]

DarkMerlin wrote: ieatfood wrote: The Impeacher wrote: ieatfood wrote:



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

is that before or after its clear cut and burned that we have "no potential for exploring it?"

you possess no logic whatsoever! :lol:

Just becuase something exists does not mean that there is potential for exploring it.

The amount of rainforest that is explored is limited not by the amount of rainforest, but rather by the amount of funding that is required to perform such exploration. (eg the amount of biological assays that you can do)

For example, even if you have a billion species, if you only have enough resources to test 1,000 of them, then you can kill off 900 million species, without chaning the number of species that you test.

Thus, we can destroy vast swaths of forest without changing the amount of rainforest that can potentially be explored.

Therein lies the logic. That fact that you don't understand it is not my problem.

Ah, but see, you first point (bolded) is incorrect. As long as the rainforests exist we will have the opportunity to explore them, and the resources required for such exploration (namely people) are renewable. Exploring acres of rainforest is not like building platinum monuments, where the number of monuments that can be built is limited by the amount of platinum on the planet, since "exploring" is not a limited commodity. Hence, given enough time we could explore all of the rainforest and test every plant and animal species within to create new pharmacuticals.

clearly, the example I gave went over your head
but let me restate
the amount of research being done on drugs is not limited by rainforest acreage but is rather limited by the amount of funding

assume in this world, there are 10,000 acres of rainforest. The actual amont of rainforest doesnt matter because we only have enough money to research 1 acre per year. Thus, in 1,000 years, we would only be able to research 1,000 acres. Thus, even if we destroyed 5,000 acres, it wouldn't matter. We would not have enough money to research those 5,000 acres whether they existed or not.

Do you get it now? Or do you need further explanation? I don't see why you can't get it. It's a fairly simple concept.

[DarkMerlin]

ieatfood wrote: DarkMerlin wrote: ieatfood wrote: The Impeacher wrote: ieatfood wrote:



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

is that before or after its clear cut and burned that we have "no potential for exploring it?"

you possess no logic whatsoever! :lol:

Just becuase something exists does not mean that there is potential for exploring it.

The amount of rainforest that is explored is limited not by the amount of rainforest, but rather by the amount of funding that is required to perform such exploration. (eg the amount of biological assays that you can do)

For example, even if you have a billion species, if you only have enough resources to test 1,000 of them, then you can kill off 900 million species, without chaning the number of species that you test.

Thus, we can destroy vast swaths of forest without changing the amount of rainforest that can potentially be explored.

Therein lies the logic. That fact that you don't understand it is not my problem.

Ah, but see, you first point (bolded) is incorrect. As long as the rainforests exist we will have the opportunity to explore them, and the resources required for such exploration (namely people) are renewable. Exploring acres of rainforest is not like building platinum monuments, where the number of monuments that can be built is limited by the amount of platinum on the planet, since "exploring" is not a limited commodity. Hence, given enough time we could explore all of the rainforest and test every plant and animal species within to create new pharmacuticals.

clearly, the example I gave went over your head
but let me restate
the amount of research being done on drugs is not limited by rainforest acreage but is rather limited by the amount of funding

assume in this world, there are 10,000 acres of rainforest. The actual amont of rainforest doesnt matter because we only have enough money to research 1 acre per year. Thus, in 1,000 years, we would only be able to research 1,000 acres. Thus, even if we destroyed 5,000 acres, it wouldn't matter. We would not have enough money to research those 5,000 acres whether they existed or not.

Do you get it now? Or do you need further explanation? I don't see why you can't get it. It's a fairly simple concept.

But your argument is based on pretty unrealistic assumptions about our current and future ability to explore the rainforest. Given that our desire to search the rainforest for pharmacutical resources may quite possibily increase, as might our capacity to conduct such research (on both an acre/dollar and an acre/year basis), it would be nearly impossible to say that "the future will only need X acres of rainforest."

[thrasher]

ieatfood wrote: DarkMerlin wrote: ieatfood wrote: The Impeacher wrote: ieatfood wrote:



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

is that before or after its clear cut and burned that we have "no potential for exploring it?"

you possess no logic whatsoever! :lol:

Just becuase something exists does not mean that there is potential for exploring it.

The amount of rainforest that is explored is limited not by the amount of rainforest, but rather by the amount of funding that is required to perform such exploration. (eg the amount of biological assays that you can do)

For example, even if you have a billion species, if you only have enough resources to test 1,000 of them, then you can kill off 900 million species, without chaning the number of species that you test.

Thus, we can destroy vast swaths of forest without changing the amount of rainforest that can potentially be explored.

Therein lies the logic. That fact that you don't understand it is not my problem.

Ah, but see, you first point (bolded) is incorrect. As long as the rainforests exist we will have the opportunity to explore them, and the resources required for such exploration (namely people) are renewable. Exploring acres of rainforest is not like building platinum monuments, where the number of monuments that can be built is limited by the amount of platinum on the planet, since "exploring" is not a limited commodity. Hence, given enough time we could explore all of the rainforest and test every plant and animal species within to create new pharmacuticals.

clearly, the example I gave went over your head
but let me restate
the amount of research being done on drugs is not limited by rainforest acreage but is rather limited by the amount of funding

assume in this world, there are 10,000 acres of rainforest. The actual amont of rainforest doesnt matter because we only have enough money to research 1 acre per year. Thus, in 1,000 years, we would only be able to research 1,000 acres. Thus, even if we destroyed 5,000 acres, it wouldn't matter. We would not have enough money to research those 5,000 acres whether they existed or not.

Do you get it now? Or do you need further explanation? I don't see why you can't get it. It's a fairly simple concept.

The amount of funding is irrelevant in this situation. The fact remains that once the forst has been cleared, the potential no longer exists, and it cannot be restored. Furthermore, with advancing biochemical and storage techniques, obtaining samples needed for biochemical analysis is becoming easier and easier. At current exploration levels, yes, it would take an enormous amount of time to catalog and screen for potential pharmaceuticals. But that's because eploration is almost non-existent at the moment.

And what is the alternative? Rainforest soil is essentially worthless with respect to sustainable agriculture, so why would you advocate the destruction of the rainforests to provide, at most, 4 years of crops, where you then have to move on to the next patch. That makes not a bit of sense.

[DarkMerlin]

thrasher wrote: ieatfood wrote: DarkMerlin wrote: ieatfood wrote: The Impeacher wrote: ieatfood wrote:



Only a small % of the rainforest is explored for pharmeceuticals. The rest has no potential for being explored. Thus, for the vast majority of forest, your argument holds no water.

is that before or after its clear cut and burned that we have "no potential for exploring it?"

you possess no logic whatsoever! :lol:

Just becuase something exists does not mean that there is potential for exploring it.

The amount of rainforest that is explored is limited not by the amount of rainforest, but rather by the amount of funding that is required to perform such exploration. (eg the amount of biological assays that you can do)

For example, even if you have a billion species, if you only have enough resources to test 1,000 of them, then you can kill off 900 million species, without chaning the number of species that you test.

Thus, we can destroy vast swaths of forest without changing the amount of rainforest that can potentially be explored.

Therein lies the logic. That fact that you don't understand it is not my problem.

Ah, but see, you first point (bolded) is incorrect. As long as the rainforests exist we will have the opportunity to explore them, and the resources required for such exploration (namely people) are renewable. Exploring acres of rainforest is not like building platinum monuments, where the number of monuments that can be built is limited by the amount of platinum on the planet, since "exploring" is not a limited commodity. Hence, given enough time we could explore all of the rainforest and test every plant and animal species within to create new pharmacuticals.

clearly, the example I gave went over your head
but let me restate
the amount of research being done on drugs is not limited by rainforest acreage but is rather limited by the amount of funding

assume in this world, there are 10,000 acres of rainforest. The actual amont of rainforest doesnt matter because we only have enough money to research 1 acre per year. Thus, in 1,000 years, we would only be able to research 1,000 acres. Thus, even if we destroyed 5,000 acres, it wouldn't matter. We would not have enough money to research those 5,000 acres whether they existed or not.

Do you get it now? Or do you need further explanation? I don't see why you can't get it. It's a fairly simple concept.

The amount of funding is irrelevant in this situation. The fact remains that once the forst has been cleared, the potential no longer exists, and it cannot be restored. Furthermore, with advancing biochemical and storage techniques, obtaining samples needed for biochemical analysis is becoming easier and easier. At current exploration levels, yes, it would take an enormous amount of time to catalog and screen for potential pharmaceuticals. But that's because eploration is almost non-existent at the moment.

And what is the alternative? Rainforest soil is essentially worthless with respect to sustainable agriculture, so why would you advocate the destruction of the rainforests to provide, at most, 4 years of crops, where you then have to move on to the next patch. That makes not a bit of sense.

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

Like you said, rainforest soil is not nearly as useful for agriculture as, say, the topsoil of the North American midwest. Topsoil, I might also add, is just as irreplacable as rainforest and is being destroyed by suburban sprawl and otherwise covered over by concrete at an alarming rate. The midwest is literally the breadbasket of the world, and if we aren't careful with our topsoil we will simply no longer have the land we need to grow enough food to feed the world, no matter what advances we make in agricultural efficiency. The rainforest may get all the publicity, but topsoil is just as precious, and its destruction is an issue that very few people know about.

[bob.appleyard]

Less than 2 species a year isn't a great deal.

[ieatfood]

thrasher wrote:

The amount of funding is irrelevant in this situation. The fact remains that once the forst has been cleared, the potential no longer exists, and it cannot be restored. Furthermore, with advancing biochemical and storage techniques, obtaining samples needed for biochemical analysis is becoming easier and easier. At current exploration levels, yes, it would take an enormous amount of time to catalog and screen for potential pharmaceuticals. But that's because eploration is almost non-existent at the moment.

And what is the alternative? Rainforest soil is essentially worthless with respect to sustainable agriculture, so why would you advocate the destruction of the rainforests to provide, at most, 4 years of crops, where you then have to move on to the next patch. That makes not a bit of sense.
even if exploration levels were to increase, they would never increase to a point where the actual amount of rainforest would become the limiting factor

secondly, rainforest is cleared to build houses and for other uses, not necessarily for farming.

[FCTE]

I wish the UN would go extinct in the next 5 seconds.