NationStates Jolt Archive

Was just watching a program on the TV here about people buying chunks of Brazilian rainforests in an effort to save them. Would you support your respective government buying chunks of land in other nations in order to preserve them? Second question is should we really as a society think about doing this?

I wouldnt object to it...

However, I dont trust my Government to be entirely honest in the matter...

There wont be a guarantee they wont want to "open up the pipeline" so to speak, ;)

true.. as a government entity, I wouldn't trust them NOT to develop the patch of rainforest they buy. as a private entity tho. I can see it happening. but the big question is what responsibilities go with buying a part of a rainforest. if someone gets hurt/lost, is it the owner's responsibility? is it the owner's responsibility to secure their parcel against poachers and developers? will the host nation tack on taxes and fees?

In my eyes, it's an excuse for imperialism.

In that case, I'm all for it.

Imperialism FTW!

:D

true.. as a government entity, I wouldn't trust them NOT to develop the patch of rainforest they buy. as a private entity tho. I can see it happening. but the big question is what responsibilities go with buying a part of a rainforest. if someone gets hurt/lost, is it the owner's responsibility? is it the owner's responsibility to secure their parcel against poachers and developers? will the host nation tack on taxes and fees?

Interesting questions you are bringing up. I know they are two different animals but what is the difference of a country making a profit through a state company such as China does. The national government of China owns companies that have assets here in the US and other nations. They make money from those owned assets. So I don't think it is much different than that. Now the idea is conservation so I would imagine the only things that they would make any money on is fees. Which wouldn't be to much considering the direct investment made.

In my eyes, it's an excuse for imperialism.

In that case, I'm all for it.

Imperialism FTW!

:D

It could be an issue of imperialism if the amount of land one country owned was great enough. However what I think would happen is that the host nation such as Brazil would quickly pass laws protecting themselves from a foreign nation owning to much private land.

I'm all for chopping down every last tree on the planet. Then we have no need to worry about protecting forests as they simply won't exist. As for the massive amounts of soil erosion we'll soon have to contend with? We'll scrape this planet down to the bare bedrock and ship all loose mineral matter out to deep undersea trenches. With the mass displacement of soil, ocean levels should rise to sufficiently cover almost all of the planet. You all may claim, "Oh what shall we do know for there is no land to live on?" And I shall reply, "It's a good thing we chopped all those trees down when we had the chance, isn't it?"

it's a sensible idea, but thanks to bush wrecking the economy, the US can't afford to help out. :(

It depends on how the preservation is done, really. I don't support buying tracts of land and just closing them off, as that does not create any value for those who live on the land. It is much better to make perservation of the rain forest more valuable than cattle herding or plantation farming.

Only if we use those purchased lands to build secret CIA instalations in order to reach out across South America and induce coups.

Only if we use those purchased lands to build secret CIA instalations in order to reach out across South America and induce coups.

We do need another place to store enemy combatants with a Latin sounding name.

it's a sensible idea, but thanks to bush wrecking the economy, the US can't afford to help out. :(

The economy was on the downward slide prior to Bush. However thanks to Obama we have tons of money. We just need to print it. :p

We do need another place to store enemy combatants with a Latin sounding name.
Well, we only sorta need another place . . .

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090502/world/guantanamo_trials_1

The Obama administration may revamp and restart the Bush-era military trial system for suspected terrorists as it struggles to determine the fate of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and fulfil a pledge to close the prison camp by January.

The move would further delay terrorism trials and, coupled with recent comments by U.S. military and legal officials, amounts to a public admission by President Barack Obama's team that delivering on that promise is easier said than done.

it's a sensible idea, but thanks to bush wrecking the economy, the US can't afford to help out. :(

It's quite cute to see simple people with simple minds scapegoat someone in order to cast blame over a problem which they otherwise can't possibly understand.

Only if we use those purchased lands to build secret CIA instalations in order to reach out across South America and induce coups.
Heikoku's got a three-day ban, so the flamebait/joke was rather redundant.

Heikoku's got a three-day ban, so the flamebait/joke was rather redundant.

Habits are hard to break. We are talking about Brazil here so it does seem somewhat fitting.

Heikoku's got a three-day ban, so the flamebait/joke was rather redundant.

He'll enjoy my joke when he gets back from his vacation, then. :p

Anyway, Heikoku and I declared truce so we are no longer fighting.

Anyway, Heikoku and I declared truce so we are no longer fighting.
A Molotov–Ribbentrop pact?

Heikoku's got a three-day ban, so the flamebait/joke was rather redundant.

A Molotov–Ribbentrop pact?
LOL :D while the comparison is gold, I hope not. I just got tired of our endless arguments that didn't go anywhere because neither of us were going to budge from our positions.

LOL :D while the comparison is gold, I hope not. I just got tired of our endless arguments that didn't go anywhere because neither of us were going to budge from our positions.

So, what about that Allende guy eh? I hear he was pretty good. :p

LOL :D while the comparison is gold, I hope not. I just got tired of our endless arguments that didn't go anywhere because neither of us were going to budge from our positions.

But without that, there is no NSG...

So, what about that Allende guy eh? I hear he was pretty good. :p
:mad:His communist policies that were turning Chile into-. . . . ah, joke? :p

But without that, there is no NSG...
Yeah but. . . it was getting old. I'm not resigned to the issue, just to debating it like in every thread with the same poster.

The only way to stop the continued destructrion of the rainforests in our current capitalist paradigm is to make it more expensive to destroy it than to keep it. To do that, you would have to create industires around keeping he rainforest from being destroyed.

Medicine and hunting are two industries that could be tapped right away for such work. Talking with aboroginal groups about their medicinal skills and working with them to extract the medicinal flora and fauna in order to move research forward. Or selling the right to hunt (and if you're lucky, kill) an animal from an endangered species.

What the fuck do savages running around half naked in the damn jungle know?

What the fuck do savages running around half naked in the damn jungle know?

Apparently nothing. This is why we need to cut down the trees to get to them and make them wear clothes and worship our gods. After all they are savages. :p

Apparently nothing. This is why we need to cut down the trees to get to them and make them wear clothes and worship our gods. After all they are savages. :p Especially the women...going topless!? ONLY after you've made a constitutional argument that you should be allowed to, not just as a 'natural state'. Ugh.

And all that savage mumbo jumbo about deforestation leading to some sort of murky 'bad things', blech. I mean seriously. Australia engaged in massive deforestation in order to plant crops, and look at how awesome that has gone!

true.. as a government entity, I wouldn't trust them NOT to develop the patch of rainforest they buy.
If I may ask, could you explain why you think this way? From my perspective, there is no reason for them to develop the rainforest. The government is under no obligation to turn a profit, and people tend to look at them askance when they do.

Interesting questions you are bringing up. I know they are two different animals but what is the difference of a country making a profit through a state company such as China does. The national government of China owns companies that have assets here in the US and other nations. They make money from those owned assets. So I don't think it is much different than that. Now the idea is conservation so I would imagine the only things that they would make any money on is fees. Which wouldn't be to much considering the direct investment made.
however, as you mentioned. China owns companies that have assets, so any payback to the Chinese Gov though their owned assets would make sense. it gets fishy when the Chinese Gov gets money from assets they have no ties with. ;)

If I may ask, could you explain why you think this way? From my perspective, there is no reason for them to develop the rainforest. The government is under no obligation to turn a profit, and people tend to look at them askance when they do. simple. you are talking about spending money on another country's rainforest. Your gov will spend Millions on it and get what in return? normally, there would be some give and take, say in the form of Trade agreements or what not. but even that won't offset the cost. now if your Gov buys a patch of rainforest in another country... say US buys several thousand acres in Africa. would that patch of land be considered US territory? if so, then the US will have to maintain it. that would mean minimal maintenance (say a security force since, in simple terms, Africa could not legally send anyone in to hunt poachers, this being simple terms) so the US will have to have a presence there that would require at least buildings as well as transportation (ground and air). and from there, it's a simple step to allow tourism (safari type at least) and that would require more development. maybe not the slash and burn type that the word 'development' brings to mind, but the slow and gradual development that can impact the rainforest and those in it.

simple. you are talking about spending money on another country's rainforest. Your gov will spend Millions on it and get what in return? normally, there would be some give and take, say in the form of Trade agreements or what not. but even that won't offset the cost. now if your Gov buys a patch of rainforest in another country... say US buys several thousand acres in Africa. would that patch of land be considered US territory? if so, then the US will have to maintain it. that would mean minimal maintenance (say a security force since, in simple terms, Africa could not legally send anyone in to hunt poachers, this being simple terms) so the US will have to have a presence there that would require at least buildings as well as transportation (ground and air). and from there, it's a simple step to allow tourism (safari type at least) and that would require more development. maybe not the slash and burn type that the word 'development' brings to mind, but the slow and gradual development that can impact the rainforest and those in it.
That does makes sense. Thank you.