Short comment on “Building the Amazon’s economy“, a bbc news interview of Brazil’s Strategic Affairs Minister, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, about plans to protect the Amazon rainforest while developing the region economically.
Available HERE
I would like to comment shortly on two arguments that Mr Unger used for talking of the dilemma between conservation and economical development. I do understand the compromises but i have to say that those arguments are really the worst for someone who understands a little about ecosystems ( i’m not referring to him but others) … and saddly may appear credible for someone who has no clue (that surely involves him).
Mr Unger said: “The Amazon is not simply a collection of trees” [...] “Many countries that exploit their forest intensively like say Finland… end up having more trees rather than less trees.. so we do not see any contraditions in principles…”
“The Amazon is not simply a collection of trees,” indeed.. it is much more than that. Trees are a medium for thousand … millions… of other species (be there in the micro or macro world), that humans haven’t discovered. And even if known, very little of those species today, … have their relationship to one another understood.
“Environmentalists” do not want to protect trees… they want to protect something that we don’t understand and perhaps never will… an untouched sanctuary for species to thrive…
This concept overcomes the cartesian reality, or science… it lies in the realm of spirituality and global vision. Ecosophists call it the “Self” with a capital S.
Regarding the second argument involving Finland… indeed Finland has a lot of trees. I live there and I can stand for such argument… but what that argument fails to clarify… is that Finland is covered by magnificent commercial forests that are DEAD of any biodiversity. Most of Finland’s endemic species such as the Flying squirrel, Tetraos Urogallus, Tinder fungus, etc… cannot thrive on a commercial forest, as the rest of the key elements to their sensitive niche (biotope) have been removed or distroyed.
Let me illustrate that simply: If you play “Jenga” (a stacking game, where the one that makes the stack collapse by removing one of its piece, loses) … how long can the stack remain if you start by removing the elements making the base of that stack…. the answer is: not long !
Forests are the same… what matters isn’t the wood… wood is dead matter anyway… but it’s the life that develops on it, under it, above it, within it…. it’s a complex network for which the removal of one single species will affect others undoubtely. These affects may happen by:
- removing competition, thus enabling the profusion of another species that will devastate the area…
- removing a key element for the subsistence of a certain species… that will disappear and affect othersdue to its disappearance.
- islandification… making a road through a forests disturbs the habitat and may restrict a species from migrating.. thus making it over-eat its limited food supply, and die… Some species of birds are said to be extremely sensitive to direct light and thus cannot venture “outside” of trees… the road may be only few meters wide… but that distance forbids these birds from migrating…
They are thus forced to feed on the last elements of their food stuff…. and facing death.
Now … if you have read James Lovelock’s theory of Gaia, and hopefully a better material such as those from and inspired by Arne Naess (Founder of Ecosophy or Deep ecology) : What if the role of the Amazon had a much bigger importance than just a sanctuary ? … what if it had a vital one for the chemistry of our planet?
In a warming, intoxicated planet, what if this was what held it all from a sudden collapse ?
Is it really worth to let it go? Is it worth to let them gamble and dare devil… just for the sake of “humanity” ?
Who’s more human, the one that let’s 25 million to die or the one that makes 6 billion go along with all living species ?
Now on the question: “do I really care about 25 million of Brazilians?” … You surely know my answers!
Building the Amazon’s economy … comments
May 16, 2008 by 1straw
Short comment on “Building the Amazon’s economy“, a bbc news interview of Brazil’s Strategic Affairs Minister, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, about plans to protect the Amazon rainforest while developing the region economically.
Available HERE
I would like to comment shortly on two arguments that Mr Unger used for talking of the dilemma between conservation and economical development. I do understand the compromises but i have to say that those arguments are really the worst for someone who understands a little about ecosystems ( i’m not referring to him but others) … and saddly may appear credible for someone who has no clue (that surely involves him).
Mr Unger said: “The Amazon is not simply a collection of trees” [...] “Many countries that exploit their forest intensively like say Finland… end up having more trees rather than less trees.. so we do not see any contraditions in principles…”
“The Amazon is not simply a collection of trees,” indeed.. it is much more than that. Trees are a medium for thousand … millions… of other species (be there in the micro or macro world), that humans haven’t discovered. And even if known, very little of those species today, … have their relationship to one another understood.
“Environmentalists” do not want to protect trees… they want to protect something that we don’t understand and perhaps never will… an untouched sanctuary for species to thrive…
This concept overcomes the cartesian reality, or science… it lies in the realm of spirituality and global vision. Ecosophists call it the “Self” with a capital S.
Regarding the second argument involving Finland… indeed Finland has a lot of trees. I live there and I can stand for such argument… but what that argument fails to clarify… is that Finland is covered by magnificent commercial forests that are DEAD of any biodiversity. Most of Finland’s endemic species such as the Flying squirrel, Tetraos Urogallus, Tinder fungus, etc… cannot thrive on a commercial forest, as the rest of the key elements to their sensitive niche (biotope) have been removed or distroyed.
Let me illustrate that simply: If you play “Jenga” (a stacking game, where the one that makes the stack collapse by removing one of its piece, loses) … how long can the stack remain if you start by removing the elements making the base of that stack…. the answer is: not long !
Forests are the same… what matters isn’t the wood… wood is dead matter anyway… but it’s the life that develops on it, under it, above it, within it…. it’s a complex network for which the removal of one single species will affect others undoubtely. These affects may happen by:
- removing competition, thus enabling the profusion of another species that will devastate the area…
- removing a key element for the subsistence of a certain species… that will disappear and affect othersdue to its disappearance.
- islandification… making a road through a forests disturbs the habitat and may restrict a species from migrating.. thus making it over-eat its limited food supply, and die… Some species of birds are said to be extremely sensitive to direct light and thus cannot venture “outside” of trees… the road may be only few meters wide… but that distance forbids these birds from migrating…
They are thus forced to feed on the last elements of their food stuff…. and facing death.
Now … if you have read James Lovelock’s theory of Gaia, and hopefully a better material such as those from and inspired by Arne Naess (Founder of Ecosophy or Deep ecology) : What if the role of the Amazon had a much bigger importance than just a sanctuary ? … what if it had a vital one for the chemistry of our planet?
In a warming, intoxicated planet, what if this was what held it all from a sudden collapse ?
Is it really worth to let it go? Is it worth to let them gamble and dare devil… just for the sake of “humanity” ?
Who’s more human, the one that let’s 25 million to die or the one that makes 6 billion go along with all living species ?
Now on the question: “do I really care about 25 million of Brazilians?” … You surely know my answers!
Posted in Economics, News, Politics | Tagged Amazon, BBC, brazil, comment, economy, Finland, Forest, Interview, logging, Mangabeira, protect, Roberto, Unger | No Comments Yet
Comments RSS