Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Whatever happened to that rainforest thing?

emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
edited April 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Growing up in the 90s, I remember a lot more being said about preserving the rainforest, at least here in America. Then, awareness for teens and tweens about slashing and burning seemed to be higher than it is now thanks to Captain Planet and Fern Gully, a few 'adopt an acre' newspaper ads and a load of TV commercials, and Sean Connery's Medicine Man. Ugh, I think every one of my high school science teachers showed Medicine Man in class at least once.

Nowadays, though, you hear about global warming and emissions and read about recycling drives and going green, but not a peep about the rainforest burning. Has the rainforest problem been solved or is it because we just got bored hearing about how a football field-sized chunk of ancient trees is destroyed every five seconds? This makes me wonder if we're going to be buzzing about global warming in a decade or if it will fade away, too.

emnmnme on
easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif

Posts

  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    The rainforest said 'fuck this shit' and moved to Venus.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    That statistic about 70%+ of the Earth's oxygen actually comes from ocean algae got around.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It faded away, like a lot of other environmental concerns. However, we are becoming more environmentally conscious as a society and legislators/lobbying groups are becoming more concerned about the environment. In a sense it's all been kind of swallowed up into climate change almost along the notion of Gaia theory. Everything is interconnected and so a concern about the 'overarching' problem means a concern for the smaller ones as well.

    tea-1.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    That statistic about 70%+ of the Earth's oxygen actually comes from ocean algae got around.

    But think of the biodiversity!

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    That statistic about 70%+ of the Earth's oxygen actually comes from ocean algae got around.

    But think of the biodiversity!
    If there's one thing I don't need it's another 300+ things which are small yet incredibly, unreasonably poisonous.

    Vietnam has like 216+ snakes. Like 3 are not posionous.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    That statistic about 70%+ of the Earth's oxygen actually comes from ocean algae got around.

    But think of the biodiversity!
    If there's one thing I don't need it's another 300+ things which are small yet incredibly, unreasonably poisonous.

    Vietnam has like 216+ snakes. Like 3 are not posionous.

    Or botflies. We could do with less of those.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    That statistic about 70%+ of the Earth's oxygen actually comes from ocean algae got around.

    Yeah, but rainforests are more important in terms of biodiversity and crazy ass shit that evolves in there which might lead to positive scientific or engineering discoveries. Plus unsustainable means of growing food are bad because you can't sustain them. I'm looking forward to hydroponics making it all moot.

    tea-1.jpg
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2009
    Medicine Man was pwn3d by Waterworld. Anyways, it is sad that one environmental concern was drowned about by another. Personally I think the ocean's water is in the worst dire peril of all from pollution to over fishing.

    Treats Animals Right!
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Emanon wrote: »
    Medicine Man was pwn3d by Waterworld. Anyways, it is sad that one environmental concern was drowned about by another. Personally I think the ocean's water is in the worst dire peril of all from pollution to over fishing.

    Unfortunately Mercury is the most delicious of the transition metals.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Does that take into account new growth?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

    ...how is it anyone's fault that the 1990's era activism didn't occur a century before all of the participants were born?

    I mean, I dare you to make less sense.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Whatever man, forests are scary. I'd rather have desks and guitars and walls than a dark, perilous labyrinth where things dwell, or even lurk.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

    ...how is it anyone's fault that the 1990's era activism didn't occur a century before all of the participants were born?

    I mean, I dare you to make less sense.

    I think the point is that we did that and we're all just fine.

    But it does completely ignore new trees, right now America has more trees than it did ~1900.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

    ...how is it anyone's fault that the 1990's era activism didn't occur a century before all of the participants were born?

    I mean, I dare you to make less sense.

    Our foresting industry has gotten smart, they replant what they cut in sort of a rotational cutting system to maximize their profits.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

    ...how is it anyone's fault that the 1990's era activism didn't occur a century before all of the participants were born?

    I mean, I dare you to make less sense.

    Our foresting industry has gotten smart, they replant what they cut in sort of a rotational cutting system to maximize their profits.

    Right, and sustainable old growth foresting acts to improve the area that is being logged while also providing stunningly beautiful pieces of wood.

    I must be missing your point.

    tea-1.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Whatever man, forests are scary. I'd rather have desks and guitars and walls than a dark, perilous labyrinth where things dwell, or even lurk.

    And I'd rather have more water to drink than dangerous, creaking polar ice caps.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

    ...how is it anyone's fault that the 1990's era activism didn't occur a century before all of the participants were born?

    I mean, I dare you to make less sense.

    Our foresting industry has gotten smart, they replant what they cut in sort of a rotational cutting system to maximize their profits.

    My point was that we had lost almost all of the truly unspoiled forests in America already, but instead of putting our own house in order we went after S. American forests because they're so exotic.

    And there is nothing at all about tree farms that provides anything like an old growth or just plain untouched forest. I don't care how many trees Weyerhaeuser plants on their farms, that's not a forest.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

    ...how is it anyone's fault that the 1990's era activism didn't occur a century before all of the participants were born?

    I mean, I dare you to make less sense.

    Our foresting industry has gotten smart, they replant what they cut in sort of a rotational cutting system to maximize their profits.

    My point was that we had lost almost all of the truly unspoiled forests in America already, but instead of putting our own house in order we went after S. American forests because they're so exotic.

    And there is nothing at all about tree farms that provides anything like an old growth or just plain untouched forest. I don't care how many trees Weyerhaeuser plants on their farms, that's not a forest.

    How do you 'put our house in order' when the actions we need to slow or prevent had already happened and the perpetrators of those actions had all died and been buried before any of us were born?

    tea-1.jpg
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    There are still a few left, you know.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    There are still a few left, you know.

    Yes. And?

    tea-1.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    The 19th and early 20th century is not the same as doing it today.

  • TheFishTheFish Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It was just the fad concern of the day. In the 60s it was Ban The Bomb, in the 70s it was Save The Whales, in the 80s it was animal testing, in the 90s it was rainforests.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    TheFish wrote: »
    It was just the fad concern of the day. In the 60s it was Ban The Bomb, in the 70s it was Save The Whales, in the 80s it was animal testing, in the 90s it was rainforests.

    ...nuclear proliferation has always been a major concern and the President just last week (or was it 2 weeks ago?) proposed the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    tea-1.jpg
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Caring about the rainforest is so 90's. Bush made damn sure of that.

    The problems are not over, and other countries that have the forests are the ones who have work to do. Madagascar's farmers for example (this months' Time Magazine,) are not breaking their habit of tearing down the rainforests to create their own rice farms.

    They figure (ZOMG there are trees here so I bet delicious rice would grow here!) So they tear down some forest and grow rice there for a while, but the trees there are ageless, and the soil does not have the nutrients one would think they would. Food grows only for a short time, but the land eventually turns to lifeless clay, and the farmers move on to the next area. They don't have the money, training or interest to take care of the soil.

    steam_sig.png
  • GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    That statistic about 70%+ of the Earth's oxygen actually comes from ocean algae got around.

    Except that the average person has no idea that ocean algae exists. That wouldn't quell the public outcry. It's been replaced by pictures of cute polar bears.

    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So, because activists in the 90's made motions to save South American and Asian forests which still existed, they're bad people for not caring about the AMERICAN forests, which by your own info, we're already wiped out?

    Yeah, that makes sense.

  • tallgeezetallgeeze Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    TheFish wrote: »
    It was just the fad concern of the day. In the 60s it was Ban The Bomb, in the 70s it was Save The Whales, in the 80s it was animal testing, in the 90s it was rainforests.

    ...nuclear proliferation has always been a major concern and the President just last week (or was it 2 weeks ago?) proposed the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    and he promised adorable kittens and rabbits for every child.

    I like the guy, but that ain't happening anytime soon.

    Anywho, since this type of thing seems to go in decades can we expect all versions of the phrase "go green" to be done within the next few years?

  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    There are still a few left, you know.

    Yes. And?

    And who wants to beat the shit out of some old people?

    The desire to deprive some of our citizens of their rights—economic, civic or political—has the same basic motivation as actuates the Fascist mind when it seeks to dominate whole peoples and nations.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    tallgeeze wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    TheFish wrote: »
    It was just the fad concern of the day. In the 60s it was Ban The Bomb, in the 70s it was Save The Whales, in the 80s it was animal testing, in the 90s it was rainforests.

    ...nuclear proliferation has always been a major concern and the President just last week (or was it 2 weeks ago?) proposed the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    and he promised adorable kittens and rabbits for every child.

    I like the guy, but that ain't happening anytime soon.

    We've been constantly reducing our stockpiles for decades. Going from the new level to just having triple digits seems rather likely.
    Anywho, since this type of thing seems to go in decades can we expect all versions of the phrase "go green" to be done within the next few years?

    Not likely given the economic benefit to being sustainable.

    tea-1.jpg
  • tallgeezetallgeeze Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    There are still a few left, you know.

    Yes. And?

    And who wants to beat the shit out of some old people?


    if you google that phrase I bet more than 3 sites come up. just saying

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    It was a farce to begin with. Everyone pointed at the Amazon, and South America's tropical forests were largely spared, while Asian and African forests disappeared.

    Meanwhile we did this to America itself and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass:
    Spoiler:

    ...how is it anyone's fault that the 1990's era activism didn't occur a century before all of the participants were born?

    I mean, I dare you to make less sense.

    Our foresting industry has gotten smart, they replant what they cut in sort of a rotational cutting system to maximize their profits.

    Right, and sustainable old growth foresting acts to improve the area that is being logged while also providing stunningly beautiful pieces of wood.

    I must be missing your point.

    I was agreeing with you in saying it was stupid the old growth is gone. Because the chart shows old growth when there's new growth that replaces a lot of that. If not, oh well, logging is logging and most of the shit we buy today is synthetic wood from wal-mart.

  • postinonthenetspostinonthenets Registered User
    edited April 2009
    What exactly does virgin forest mean? And I thought tree cover in the US has actually increased due to the reduction in farming?

    Solitude sometimes is best society, and short retirement urges sweet return

    Twitter
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    What exactly does virgin forest mean? And I thought tree cover in the US has actually increased due to the reduction in farming?

    I'm guessing original forest growth before the dawn of man.

  • postinonthenetspostinonthenets Registered User
    edited April 2009
    So...there could still be forest there?

    Solitude sometimes is best society, and short retirement urges sweet return

    Twitter
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    What exactly does virgin forest mean? And I thought tree cover in the US has actually increased due to the reduction in farming?

    I'm guessing original forest growth before the dawn of man.

    Virgin Trees?
    superstar4.jpg

    steam_sig.png
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So...there could still be forest there?

    Yes, but those forests may not be fully matured ecosystems. Like was said before, forests that logging companies plant and then harvest don't really count toward that total. They count toward the "trees" total but they don't harbor the same sort of ecosystem as old forests.

    steam_sig.png
  • postinonthenetspostinonthenets Registered User
    edited April 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    So...there could still be forest there?

    Yes, but those forests may not be fully matured ecosystems. Like was said before, forests that logging companies plant and then harvest don't really count toward that total. They count toward the "trees" total but they don't harbor the same sort of ecosystem as old forests.

    Ahh I get it.

    Solitude sometimes is best society, and short retirement urges sweet return

    Twitter
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    So...there could still be forest there?

    Yes, but those forests may not be fully matured ecosystems. Like was said before, forests that logging companies plant and then harvest don't really count toward that total. They count toward the "trees" total but they don't harbor the same sort of ecosystem as old forests.

    Not like it's all logging forests, though. There's great big chunks of land that were cleared for farming or for the wood and now it's just wilderness again.

Sign In or Register to comment.