Selective Logging Not Saving Rainforests

K

Kmack

Newbie
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
linky linky

A four-year, comprehensive survey of the Amazon Basin in Brazil reveals that selective logging--the practice of cutting down just one or two tree species in an area--creates an additional 60 to 123 percent more damage than deforestation alone. Combining field surveys with data gathered from a satellite-imaging system that has a resolution as fine as one tree, scientists at Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, Calif., determined that not only have traditional analysis methods missed more than 50 percent of the damage caused by timber harvest, but that selective loggings results in 25 percent more greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

**** humanity. we are just absolutely destroying our planet. hopefully nature can wipe us out in the not too distant future, at least before it's too late.
 
we can never destroy our planet or life - that's mere vanity
all we seem to capable of is killing ourselves in remarkably original ways...
edit my spelling error metre is off the chart today for some reaon :(
edit 2 *reason arghhhh
 
ummm... what do we need trees for, anyway? i think they've far outlived their usefulness
 
Icarusintel said:
ummm... what do we need trees for, anyway? i think they've far outlived their usefulness
Click to expand...

oxygen. if there were no trees you would be dead. so actually, lets get rid of em all
 
Kmack said:
oxygen. if there were no trees you would be dead. so actually, lets get rid of em all
Click to expand...

Without trees the Oxygen would be enough to last another 3000 years or so,

The bigger problem is no trees = no Co2 or other greenhouse gases absobed at all = massive increase in temerature = huge climate instability and the ****ing of the human race ;(
 
Kmack said:
oxygen. if there were no trees you would be dead. so actually, lets get rid of em all
Click to expand...
it was sarcasm... guess i should put sarcasm tags next time, obviously trees are important, but last I checked I can still take in plenty of oxygen with every breath, and CO2 isn;t to the level where it's poisoning me yet, besides, the cutting isn;t gonna stop anytime soon
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Most oxygen comes from the ocean.
Click to expand...

and guess what dumbass, if there was no ocean, there would be no life either.

"most oxygen comes from the ocean"
congratulations, im sure NASA is already recruiting you, lest your superior brainpower and logic fall into the hands of the enemy.

that doesnt in any way alter my statement.

oh, also :LOL: at you.
 
Kmack said:
and guess what dumbass, if there was no ocean, there would be no life either.

"most oxygen comes from the ocean"
congratulations, im sure NASA is already recruiting you, lest your superior brainpower and logic fall into the hands of the enemy.

that doesnt in any way alter my statement.

oh, also :LOL: at you.
Click to expand...
do you even understand what he said? most of the oxygen comes from various plants that live in the oceans, this is common knowledge
 
Kmack said:
and guess what dumbass, if there was no ocean, there would be no life either.

"most oxygen comes from the ocean"
congratulations, im sure NASA is already recruiting you, lest your superior brainpower and logic fall into the hands of the enemy.

that doesnt in any way alter my statement.

oh, also :LOL: at you.
Click to expand...
The ocean isn't in any danger of going away, we're not close, in any way, to losing our source of oxygen.
 
Icarusintel said:
do you even understand what he said? most of the oxygen comes from various plants that live in the oceans, this is common knowledge
Click to expand...

i know, but it doesnt change my statement. you dont uderstand what i said i think is the problem...
 
Kmack said:
i know, but it doesnt change my statement. you dont uderstand what i said i think is the problem...
Click to expand...
No, I don't, you cracked a joke at me for clarifying where most of Earth's oxygen comes from?

Algae produces most of the oxygen that we breathe.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
No, I don't, you cracked a joke at me for clarifying where most of Earth's oxygen comes from?

Algae produces most of the oxygen that we breathe.
Click to expand...

congratulations. it doesnt change the fact that we need trees to live (which was my statement). i could pop off trivia all night but that doesnt make it relevant.

we rely on clean water to drink, so if all the water in the world disappeared, but we still had glaciers, yes we would still have water, would it be ideal? no would it jeopordize our survival? yes

just because we have some back-ups...
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
No, I don't, you cracked a joke at me for clarifying where most of Earth's oxygen comes from?

Algae produces most of the oxygen that we breathe.
Click to expand...

Yup, Rakurai's right.

-Angry Lawyer
 
Kmack said:
congratulations. it doesnt change the fact that we need trees to live (which was my statement). i could pop off trivia all night but that doesnt make it relevant.
Click to expand...
Um, my point was we actually don't need trees to live.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
No, I don't, you cracked a joke at me for clarifying where most of Earth's oxygen comes from?

Algae produces most of the oxygen that we breathe.
Click to expand...


So its OK to destroy the richest ecosystem on earth?
 
but trees maintain precious balance in our ecosystem which we are tampering with - thats kmacks point and the real worry
 
gick said:
So its OK to destroy the richest ecosystem on earth?
Click to expand...

He wasn't arguing that. But we don't need them to live. Bad stuff will happen if they go, but we'll still exist.

-Angry Lawyer
 
gick said:
So its OK to destroy the richest ecosystem on earth?
Click to expand...

its so difficult to put into words the problems with every argument made by rakuraiji whatever....

i think "immature" and "naive" do it well.

such a misguided worldview isnt really his fault though, he'll grow out of it.

until then, we must tolerate his continued unfocused arguments.

anyways, its true we have other means of getting oxygen, but we have NEVER survived without trees, how can we know that its possible? come on now, you make it too easy

Angry Lawyer said:
He wasn't arguing that. But we don't need them to live. Bad stuff will happen if they go, but we'll still exist.

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...

i see, so you have lived in a world devoid of trees? or read something by someone who has?

john3571000 said:
but trees maintain precious balance in our ecosystem which we are tampering with - thats kmacks point and the real worry
Click to expand...


they enjoy derailing such things with nit-picking arguments which shift focus to the arguments themselves (see every post past rakuraijiraryr...whatever)
 
gick said:
So its OK to destroy the richest ecosystem on earth?
Click to expand...
Nope. I had to point out that we won't suffocate from logging though, like people like to throw around.

Trees should be resonsibly treated/farmed like a cash crop. Particularly with replanting. Areas should be reserved for ecosystem (main parts of Rain Forests, etc)

Kmack said:
its so difficult to put into words the problems with every argument made by rakuraiji whatever....

i think "immature" and "naive" do it well.

such a misguided worldview isnt really his fault though, he'll grow out of it.

until then, we must tolerate his continued unfocused arguments.
Click to expand...
:cheers:



Kmack said:
i see, so you have lived in a world devoid of trees? or read something by someone who has?
Click to expand...
I never said it would be GOOD or that I'd want to, I said we would live, and be in no danger of suffocating or running out of oxygen. I never even said anything about supporting logging in the first place, actually. However, I do support RESPONSIBLE logging.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Trees should be resonsibly treated/farmed like a cash crop. Particularly with replanting. Areas should be reserved for ecosystem (main parts of Rain Forests, etc)
Click to expand...

and what selective logging is called is RESPONSIBLE, and the article PROVES its not, which is essentially my point... what the ****... are you retarted? because if you are just say so, i dont want to waste my time
 
Kmack said:
and what selective logging is called is RESPONSIBLE, and the article PROVES its not, which is essentially my point... what the ****... are you retarted? because if you are just say so, i dont want to waste my time
Click to expand...
Wow, perhaps you should just leave the politics forum.
 
Kmack said:
anyways, its true we have other means of getting oxygen, but we have NEVER survived without trees, how can we know that its possible?
Click to expand...
how do we know it's NOT possible to live in a world without trees?

without trees we have far more land to use to house people and to farm to provide for all the people, or maybe you also forget the rapidly expanding population on this tiny little planet of ours
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Wow, perhaps you should just leave the politics forum.
Click to expand...

silly Rakuraritanarijin, its spelled "yes kmack, I am about 75% retarted"

and back on topic, stop ignoring my points.

Selective logging is considered (like you just said before changing the topic again) respoinsible, and is widely embraced. my article (yes, there is an article in this post) is a study finding that it is in no way responsible.

perhaps instead of telling us that we can survive without trees (which is PURE speculation), you could comment on any number of things surrounding the actual article.
 
if we lived in a world with no trees, we would have to cull the human population a billion or 6, go back to pre stone age life because of pollutants and the food chain would be seriously ****ed
 
Kmack said:
silly Rakuraritanarijin, its spelled "yes kmack, I am about 75% retarted"

and back on topic, stop ignoring my points.

Selective logging is considered (like you just said before changing the topic again) respoinsible, and is widely embraced. my article (yes, there is an article in this post) is a study finding that it is in no way responsible.

perhaps instead of telling us that we can survive without trees (which is PURE speculation), you could comment on any number of things surrounding the actual article.
Click to expand...
Can you point out where I said selective logging was responsible in the first place? Good God.
 
Icarusintel said:
how do we know it's NOT possible to live in a world without trees?
Click to expand...

there is only one way to find out, and thats a pretty risky ****ing bet. in the case of the potential extermination of our race, i think i would err on the side of caution.

oh, and with NO trees like the discussion is about apparently, we would lose all tree-born food sources, pretty much every species of bird, millions of other species, it would destroy our ecosystem, and no, life could NOT exist in the abscence of trees, thats not really the topic though.

we need diffeerent types of logging (i know logging must continue) because selective is pretty awful.
 
Kmack said:
and what selective logging is called is RESPONSIBLE, and the article PROVES its not, which is essentially my point... what the ****... are you retarted? because if you are just say so, i dont want to waste my time
Click to expand...

Wow do you have to bring in personal insults every time someone questions your opinions? Last time when I told you that trees grow back you had to come back with some insults..
 
You know what, Kmack? I'm sick and tired of your personal attacks. The only reason you're launching yourself at Rakurai is because he leans a little more right than you.

But I'm sick of your personal attacks. You've not just limited it to Politics either - I found your joking about the rather real situation of my father getting shot over in Ireland rather distasteful.

Try listening to other people's opinions, instead of just seeing "Liberal Vs. Conservative" and attacking people on that. We're all human, and not all of our opinions fit in your narrow-minded categories.

-Angry Lawyer
 
Kmack said:
silly Rakuraritanarijin, its spelled "yes kmack, I am about 75% retarted"
Click to expand...
Sums up Kmack pretty well, mabye petty well.
 
Thanks Angry Lawyer. :)

It's funny, because this isn't even a right/left topic in the first place.
 
I don't agree with Rakurai on a hell of lot of points, but I'm still man enough to accept that he has an opinion of his own, and is fully entitled to it as not just a citizen of the USA, but as a human being, and I'm not going to let some childish insults stop him from expressing it.

-Angry Lawyer
 
you guys are so sweet, but the last 8 posts have no topical relevance, i dont think defend the dumbass was my topic. i gave up, and just tried to get on topic, sorry i hurt meatballs feelings, ill stop.

jeez, they are just words.... i let him express his opinion all the time, ive never stopped him have i? his opinion is just pathetic, and, that being my opinion, and alll of you attacking it, is no better than....

oh, i see,
 
There's no issue with expressing opinions. It's expressing your opinion like a jackass. And, of course, under the wonderful freedom of speech we've been endowed with, you'll be called on it.

So don't pretend like your voice is being stifled in some way. That shit is so passe.
 
Absinthe said:
There's no issue with expressing opinions. It's expressing your opinion like a jackass. And, of course, under the wonderful freedom of speech we've been endowed with, you'll be called on it.

So don't pretend like your voice is being stifled in some way. That shit is so passe.
Click to expand...

but thats what everyone is saying im doing to rakurameatball!

forget it this is so utterly off topic.

basically, the one form of logging that companies hearld as environmentally conscious and not too detrimental to the environment is actually WORSE than some of the methods we thought were worse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top