Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!mll From: mll@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Luce) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Rain Forest Destruction Message-ID: <9560005@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> Date: 7 Jun 91 23:27:08 GMT References: <1991Jun1.213133.2781@colorado.edu> Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA Lines: 116 / hpfcso:sci.bio / mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) / 4:11 pm Jun 3, 1991 / william@alumni.colorado.edu (William Hughes) writes: > Do you realize that 50 acres of rain forest are being >destroyed every minute? That's 26,280,000 acres each year. At >this rate, scientists calculate that by the year 2000, there >will be little or no rain forests left in the world. This is a >major problem. >>And Michael P. Deignan responds: So? >> An incredibly flippant response. The world is facing the largest mass >> extinction since the Cretaceous/Tertiary transition, and all Mr. Deignan >> can offer is "So?" Then William Hughes writes: >because the rain forests contain more than 50% of >the world's animal species. Did you know that the rain forest >loses one species per day? >> And again Mr. Deignan responds: Ever hear of Darwin? >> Yes, Mr. Deignan, most of us have heard of Darwin. Have you ever *read* >> him?? It is of course quite natural for a certain background level of >> extinctions to be taking place. What worries people is that the present >> rate of extinctions is *orders of magnitude* greater than any background >> rate that might be expected. And why is that? There can hardly be any >> doubt that the elevated rate of extinctions is due to human activities, >> and particularly to the destruction of the tropical rainforests. You, >> sir, seem to believe that since the trees of the tropical rainforests >> cannot defend themselves against chainsaws, they 'deserve' extinction. >> Perhaps you think that humans are demonstrating their 'evolutionary >> superiority' by destroying all these other species. Perhaps you think >> that we should have kept shooting until the last buffalo was dead. >> Perhaps you are just an ignoramus. >Many of these species may be the answer to >diseases such as AIDS and cancer. So might the dinosaurs. Coorelation study references, please? >> "So might the dinosaurs."?! What's your point, Mr. Deignan? The dino- >> saurs are extinct (except for the birds). The blame for that, at least, >> cannot be placed on humans. The blame for the current wave of extinctions >> can be. Can you spot the difference? >Furthermore, the rain forest >provides clean air to help clean up our already polluted >atmosphere. This is also a major problem, because the rain >forest helps control the world's climate. No, the rain forest provides only a portion of this control. The earth's oceans provide far more. So, if you're really interested in saving the earth, work to stop ocean dumping instead. >> What does ocean dumping have to do with control of the world's climate? >> While I certainly do not condone ocean dumping, it is a trivial problem >> compared to tropical deforestation, extinction of species, and the >> greenhouse effect... > This problem is being caused by multilateral development >banks (MDB's) who loan 22 billion dollars to third world >development every year. Other companies which exacerbate the >situation are private bank such as Citicorp, Wells Fargo, and >the Bank of America who loan over 3 times what the MDB's loan. >Coca-cola is also part of the problem. Oh, yes, let's not forget to throw in that "evil, huge, uncaring multinational corporation" claim too... >Besides the land turns to desert after 1 - 10 years.i Yeah, the deserts in the northeast are one prime example of how all this buildup really hurts the earth. >> Don't know much about tropical rainforest soils, do you, Mr. Deignan? >> Why anyone would think that the consequences of deforestation in the >> Northeast (I'm presuming you're talking about the U.S. Northeast) are >> a good analogy for the consequences of deforestation in the Amazon >> Basin, is utterly beyond me... >Also, there >are many large-scale projects that use large areas of land, but >employ few people. So, I guess we should just disallow farming, huh? > However, there are solutions: programs that let you but >acreage of rain forest - and nobody can legally use that land >for any purpose, except you. One such program is available >through the Rain Forest Foundation. You can purchase l acre for >$100, or one-half acre for $58. You will receive a signed >Certificate of Acknowledgement, and a map pinpointing your acre >of rain forest, plus a Rain Forest Foundation T-shirt. For >details, call toll free 1-800-542-1800 or write The Rain Forest >Foundation, P.O. Box 757, Plainville, Connecticut 06062. Are these certificates recognized deeds by the respective governments of the countries in question? >> Your only good question in your entire post... Or, should I be saying: Money grab alert! Money grab alert! MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / This space intentionally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / left blank... -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / ----------