Tropical Rainforest Destruction Is An Inevitable Consequence Of Brazil's Need To Develop.
The Brazilian government has to develop it's natural resources in order for it to be able to develop. This will mean a continuation of the rainforest destruction that has seen 18% of the Amazon disappear already. The Brazilian government has to put the needs of the Brazilian people before global environmental concerns.
I agree because.....
Side Score: 30
|
 |
I disagree because......
Side Score: 57
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this statement. In order for thousands of Brazilian citizens to create income for themslves, they require to use the rainforest. Without the rainforest, a large amount of people in Brazil's population would be plunged into poverty; causing them and there families to starve. Some say they can just easily get a job in the city or elsewhere and the problem will be solved but without taking into consideration the difficulty of actually getting one. Research shows that if you can't speak Portugese, a large language barrier is put in place which decreases the amount of jobs your actually eligible to join. Data from the National Statistical Office shows the unemployed rate in Brazil to be 6.7% as of 2010. If you do the maths and take 6.7% off the total population, it gave me 12,730,000. That means that nearly 13 MILLION people in Brazil are currently unemployed. This would significantly increase if all the people who use the rainforest were forced to stop, making big issues for Brazil. So many people are using the rainforest to make a living and have been doing for years, and yet onlu 18% of the rainforest has actually been destroyed. The figure climbs very slowly, and so it's perfectly reasonable that they can do this. Yes, destruction of the rainforest contributes to Global Warming but not so much that thousands should be losing there jobs. Instead of focusing on this to stop Global Warming the Government's in every country should be cracking down on the big producers of CO2 like all the cars that travel around the world frequently and huge factories that produce large amounts. I personally feel the Brazilian government should definitely be putting the needs of the Brazilian populatiol before global enviromental concenrs, because it's not just Brazil causing a problem. It's everyone. If destroying the rainforest is such a problem to do any of that, then there's a simple way to sort it. Work with the Brazilian Government to replenish the rainforest, following Canada's footsteps in which for every tree that is cut down, three more must be planted by law. By this way the rainforest will be replaced easily. - Rhys Bagshaw, Side: I agree because.....
3
points
I think some people are missing the point of the title - "Tropical Rainforest Destruction Is An Inevitable Consequence Of Brazil's Need To Develop." As humans we class ourselves as intelligent, and we've realised that the rainforests need to be protected. Not doing so will have serious environmental effects, as well as the loss of a huge variety of species. However, for Brazil to develop, they'll have to use whatever resources they have. This includes the rainforest. Two of the main exports of Brazil are Iron Ore and paper. Obtaining both of these products requires destroying the rainforest: wood is the main ingredient in paper and the iron mines are mainly located underneath the rainforest. We're not debating whether destroying the rainforest is bad, we're debating whether destroying the rainforest is neccessary for Brazilians. Side: I agree because.....
Brazil had borrowed money from the "world bank" and now need to pay the money back which means they are trying to make the money any way possible i.e. Mining, Loggers and Ranches are the main way of getting money into their economy! Signing OFF...... Side: I disagree because......
Is it a possibility that humans are unable to preserve their natural environment in spite of their understanding of the conseqences of their actions? BBC2's 'QI' a couple of months ago included a piece on how sailors returning from the Galapagos Islands with specimens for the west couldn't help themselves but eat the Giant Tortoises they'd got on board - they'd travelled thousands of miles there and back only to return with large empty shells. Secondly there is the evidence from North America - between 10 and 40000 years ago a mass extinction occured where over 50% of the mammals died out. Recent research suggests this was a consequence of human migrants (after the last Ice Age) finding a food source (mammals) which had developed no evolutionary fear of human hunters. Faced with an abundance of protein, instead of moderating their hunting, our ancestors ate the lot. I would suggest that we're not very good at preserving our resources. And the rainforest is, like the Galapagos tortoises or the North American Mammals, too good to stop devouring. However http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ might suggest a little hope. Side: I agree because.....
1
point
1
point
1
point
I agree with the statement because there are many different users of the rainforest, not all of them may use it sustainably, but its still being used. The main reason people are using the rainforest is to make a living. Even though the loggers and cattle ranchers and buisnesses after mahogany trees are destreoying some of the rainforest, they have no choice to do because they need to earn a living as well as anybody else. The Brazilian Government could also use the rainforest in whatever way they wanted in order to become more economically developed, however many people stop them from hariming it even though it could better the lives of Brazilian citizens. By stopping it we are helping to create more shacks in shanty towns where millions of citizens live becuase of the shortage of jobs and money. Many would say there are plenty of jobs in the town, but for some finding work in the city is difficult and they would have to move their family from the village they currently live. This means it is easier for them to use and on going resource close by, such as the rainforest. I agree there could be more sustainable ways of using to provide money, food and education for their families, but some jump for the chance of the first job they find whether its logging or cattle ranching or something of similliar proportions. Side: I agree because.....
1
point
I agree with the argument, as it is important for thousands of Brazilian people to earn an income to feed their families and to buy all necessary thing to keep a good lifestyle. If the Brazilian government didn't exploit the rainforest's's natural resources, many people living in Brazil would not earn enough money to keep their good life style. Though 18% of the Amazon has already the Brazilian government in my eyes don't have another choice unless they find a way to use the rainforest in a way that they would be able to re-use the parts of the Amazon which they cut down. So i can't really go against the statement because the government are doing whats best for the thousands of Brazilian people. So unless they find an alternate way of use the rainforest what they are doing now is for the best. Side: I agree because.....
1
point
There are more problems though. The destruction and exploitation of the rainforest has hit heights as more groups with different reasons have been cutting the rainforest down, such as illegal logging companies have been coming in and chopping parts down that have been legally reserved by another group of people called rainforest alliance who are trying to reserve as much of the rainforest as possible. This causes problems like fighting and maybe some times with guns! But thats just an example as there are many more groups of people wanting different things, but thats the problem. What I think they should do is that they should have a big meeting with people from all the groups and try to agree on a sustainable way of using the rainforest. Side: I agree because.....
i think brazil should save the rain forest because of the things i have seen it dosnt look a very good place to live when its been taken.yes,they need the money but destoying something that most people love is bad.just think your one of the tribes and you dont want to be discoved then you wont want them to destroy the rain forest there!!!!!!!!! Side: I agree because.....
1
point
I disagree completely with your argument SAM, because for a start the tribal areas that have not been discovered yet don't have a clue about whats happening or even that there's other people living somewhere else, so they wouldn't know that people are cutting down the rainforest which would make them not even think of them being discovered. Secondly at the start you quote that if the Amazon was cut down its would look like a rubbish place to live, but if they don't cut it down Brazil would look rubbish because they would not be growing economically. And finally, you say that its bad to destroy something that people love, but i think your mislead because actually citizens of Brazil would rather cut it down than live without food, water and other essential things needed for a good lifestyle. Side: I disagree because......
1
point
Rainforests around the world still continue to fall. Does it really make a difference? Why should anyone care if some plants, animals, mushrooms, and microorganisms perish? Rainforests are often hot and humid, difficult to reach, insect-ridden, and have elusive wildlife. Control Jake’s movements as he speeds along the railway tracks in Subway Surfers. Keep a lookout for oncoming trains and obstacles. Side: I agree because.....
|
I think it is wrong to deny the Brazilian Government of the development of their land, but I belive they should develop it in a different day. There is of course many different groups included in the debate over the rainforest, so surely it is in everyones best intrest to co-operate and decide together. Include everyones ideas and belifes and make a better decision. Just hacking at the rainforest, contributing to global warming, killing species of plants and animals is definatly not the way to do things. I think they should turn the rainforest into a nature reserve. That would meet everyones best intrests. The government would make money from tourists, the amazon would be safe, plants and animals could live on, Kayapo Indians could take guided tours and keep their land. The farmers could even make money working in gift shops, cafes and many other things. The one way the problem will be properly sorted is if everyone puts their ideas together and think of a better solution. Side: I disagree because......
2
points
1
point
0
points
that is a very good point, the Brazilian government need to find new ways of revenue, tourism and local business are very important in Brazil and they need to focus more on that, they need to find a solution for everybody but obviously that poses problems as well, perhaps if they develop the country further then the companies destroying the rainforest can focus their attention not only on the rainforest and other areas that need economic stimulation Side: I disagree because......
2
points
2
points
2
points
2
points
Even though development is important in Brazil, the destruction of the rainforest completely will only lead to more conflict between the Brazilian government and those wanted to stop development in the rainforest altogether, as well as many other problems. Side: I disagree because......
2
points
I disagree because the effects of destruction of the Amazon rainforest will have greater effects on rest of the world for example global warming due to the loss of 18% of the trees been cleared each day because lack of oxygen will make room for more greenhouse gases to be released in to the atmosphere. Side: I disagree because......
2
points
I disagree because Brazil needs to develop but cutting down trees is not the answer to developing it more.There are loads of wildlife and tribes in the forest and cutting/burning trees is taking there home away from them , every time they cut/burn trees en-danged animals are being wiped out.I understand why they are doing this to make things like furniture.But scientist say by 2050 cutting/burning trees will make a huge impact on the climate and we will be the ones to suffer:) <3 Side: I disagree because......
1
point
1
point
the governments problem is he has to decide weather he should stop all this happening, however, if he does, a large amount of people will loose their job, also it is used for important things like finding medicane, getting logs, the downside is that if this carries on, there will be continues problems like fires ect but this is for the brazillian government to decide Side: I disagree because......
1
point
People are important but the Amazon rainforest is good for the enviroment!!!!!!!!!!!!!Because the trees suck in the carbon dioxide (CO2) and let out oxigen so we people can breath!Therefore we shall not destroy the Amazon rainforest!!!!!!!!!!! The Amazon tropical rainforest produce more than 20% of Earth's oxygen! Side: I disagree because......
I disagree because it will destroy animals and there homes. This may lead to extinction of animals that are rare to the rainforest's.There will be no tree or plants in the forests so the people who live there will have to move away because there house has no protection. Side: I disagree because......
1
point
1
point
Without the rainforest Brazil would be unable to develop. However it's not all about chopping the trees down. They need to balance things carefully. Once the trees are gone they won't come back, but if the land is used as cattle farms, more cows can be put on so it is a continuous cycle of wealth. On the other hand they create the most destruction. Once 30% of the forest has gone, they should stop all deforestation. I think that there is no way to solve this problem. Side: I disagree because......
I don't agree with you at all. First of all your point that "There's no way to solve this problem". Of course there is. The "problem" is that the rain forest is being destroyed, but as I said in my post a very simple way is to plant three trees for every one tree that is cut down. Once that happens, the rain forest can basically not be destroyed as the new trees will have already of grown before a catastrophic percentage of the rain forest has gone. Side: I disagree because......
1
point
it can take a 100 years for a tree to grow, and by that time the rest of the forest will be gone. Another reason i disagree is because where are all the tree saplings going to come from. also the Brazilian government are not going to be bothered about the environment, just about a better life for the Brazilians. Side: I disagree because......
1
point
I agree that Brazil needs to develop and has the right to develop, however there are definitely other ways to do it rather than cutting down the rain forest. Brazil should be proud that they have such a beautiful paradise in their country. Other country's manage to develop without destroying a rain forest, so why cant Brazil? Side: I disagree because......
1
point
i think that they should be allowed to use the rainforest but instead of just cutting down the trees and then move somewhere else they should plant some new ones. the miners could team you with the loggers and instead of burning the forest they could chop it down mine it out then flaten the land and plant more trees in the same place so that the rainforest will be there for longer Side: I disagree because......
0
points
I disagree because losing 18% of the rain forest each day has catastrophic affects on the rest of the world like green house gases because trees give off oxygen also 137 plant, animal and insect species lost every single day due to rain forest deforestation also some of the plants are used for medicine. Most people also think a brand new mahogany dining table looks good, which it does but this is the problem most of the deforestation is for mahogany trees to make into the expensive mahogany tables and chairs for 1 mahogany tree its estimated around 30 other trees to get to the 1 mahogany tree and the most popular way of clearing the other trees is burning them which also adds to the green house gases. Brazil may need to progress in their country but they could be other ways to help the country to progress also not to mention there are people who live in the amazon and have lived there for thousands of years and are being forced to move. Side: I disagree because......
1
point
I disagree with Mitchell's point because firstly if 18% of the forest where being cut down each day it would be gone, the 18% is all together since about 1980. But I do agree with the green house gasses part since the Brazilian government are burning the Amazon down releasing carbon dioxide onto the atmosphere causing places like england to supher from someone else doing something the shouldn't on the other side of the world this is why we also should be worried about what the Brazilian government is doing. Side: I agree because.....
|
