Curse

heist23 · Nov 22, 2005, 01:23 AM // 01:23

damn ANet. those stupid devs and their nerfs. bah.

...but whatever. spirits were so broken it wasn't even funny. along with other things....

but that's ON topic in a GWG forum.

3 posts left!

Sarrow · Nov 22, 2005, 01:25 AM // 01:25

I'd save it, anyone who produces oxygen for me is a friend of mine.
Oh and it will die because of the burning greenhouse effect... so technically we killed the rain forest in a 3rd party way

prowler · Nov 22, 2005, 01:26 AM // 01:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris_nin00

Oh Noes!!! The media is telling me to be quiet! What a lewd comment.

Here's my point
Why bother trying to save the rainforest when...
-It's gonna die out anyway.
-We get resources we NEED from the rainforest.
-We can harvest algae(not plankton

) and breath with those. Algae was the first type of plant on Earth to make Oxygen

/endo turno...

We all don't want that do we?

1.rainforest will not die naturally unless A MAJOR event happened. No secondary Succesion will appen here

2. Those RESOURCES cause CO2 into atmospeher. And there not needed we've got metal
3. algae cannot support higher mammel oxygen needs and algae can choke rivers and make the rivers die.

chris_nin00 · Nov 22, 2005, 01:31 AM // 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

1.rainforest will not die naturally unless A MAJOR event happened. No secondary Succesion will appen here

2. Those RESOURCES cause CO2 into atmospeher. And there not needed we've got metal
3. algae cannot support higher mammel oxygen needs and algae can choke rivers and make the rivers die.

1. Your right, it won't die naturally! WE cut down the trees! Slowly but surely they'll be gone sooner or later.

Think about the world population. It's growing rapidly! Where are we gonna put them? Underground?
2. Paper and medicine. Need I say more?

Look around you! everything is made outta wood! Books! Pencils! Boxes!
3. I put this last because its the weakest argument... I can't really back this one up so you win...

The problem is that we need to find another way to create oxygen for ourselves or go to another planet.

Banebow · Nov 22, 2005, 01:31 AM // 01:31

Save them.

Why? Because of the massive amounts of creaters we, as humans, will see fit to put into extinction if we continue as we are. Because the rain forests help to counteract the lazy way we all drive cars. Because we don't need the wood. Ever heard of recycling?

EchoSex · Nov 22, 2005, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Let what happens, happen. Who knows if the rainforest'll die out on it's own. Leave it alone for 10 years, obeserve. If it looks like it's grownin', then leave it. If it looks like it's dieing? Who cares.

Plutonic · Nov 22, 2005, 01:36 AM // 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by benmanhaha

ever heard of the ocean, with all its plankton, that produce oxygen.
but seriously i would save them, its heartless for us to just cut them down.

True, but no where near enough to keep us living.
We would have to breed algae to cover the oceans if we wanted them to sustain us... oooooo its scifi time.

prowler · Nov 22, 2005, 02:01 AM // 02:01

well put this in perspective.

If everyone lived like Canada/USA we would need 5 planet Earths to support us. Were using this one quickly

chris_nin00 · Nov 22, 2005, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

If everyone lived like Canada/USA we would need 5 planet Earths to support us. Were using this one quickly

You mean the same lifestyle as the average person that lives in Canada/USA? Right?
Considering that millions of people are in poverty...

Lou · Nov 22, 2005, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Save it unless you want to fu** over your children and their childrens children.

Venus · Nov 22, 2005, 02:14 AM // 02:14

Well, I think that we cant say "destroy" or "save." We need to have a balance, after all, trees are replacable... If tree farmers plan 2 trees for every tree they cut down, the forests will acually grow (and get cut down).

We absolutly cannot say "no more cutting down trees."

Those who are not liberal when they are young must not have a heart, but those who are not conservative when they are older must not have a brain.

(or somthing like that)

prowler · Nov 22, 2005, 02:19 AM // 02:19

i agree with venus everything shiuld be in balance everything shoulkd be kept with equal pros and cons with the occansional change in blance but the at the speed that were cutting were killing the tress too much. We shoudl slow it down. of course this will lower jobs but not much you can do.

if you picture the world as a 43 year old person, humens have been around for only a minute and the time the industrial revoultion started to now would be a few second. alot of damge in a little time.

Xue Yi Liang · Nov 22, 2005, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Tell your teacher this is what's called a "loaded question."

Nobody says we should "destroy" the Rainforest.

The questions you should be asking are these:
Are the rainforests really in danger? Don't just read the propaganda but look up the facts.
Who is endangering the rainforests? The answer isn't as simple as you might think. A simpleton would just say "It's the big bad lumber industry." In fact most people find it convenient to blame all the world's ills on "big business."

And the most important question of all ... Is this post just an excuse to remain online in the GWGuru forum when you really should be doing your homework?

prowler · Nov 22, 2005, 02:27 AM // 02:27

sadly xue this off topic and second all of its true and not propganda. proganada states for ALL trees to be stopped being cut down. But no point argueing with someone like you. Your blinded by the shadow media

Xue Yi Liang · Nov 22, 2005, 02:52 AM // 02:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

sadly xue this off topic and second all of its true and not propganda. proganada states for ALL trees to be stopped being cut down. But no point argueing with someone like you. Your blinded by the shadow media

It's funny you criticize me when you have no idea where I'm coming from. For your information the preservation of rainforests is an important issue to me. Why the heck do you assume I'm trivializing the issue when all I'm doing is arguing against making gross generalizations? - Do me a favor and take a deep breath before you give a knee-jerk response. Then say something concrete instead of hurling insults blindly.

I'm not a proponent of all "big business" but it's conveniently naive to assume they're the source of all the world's evils. You need to consider local politics as well as political forces on both sides of the debate. All I said was to look up facts - why do you get so defensive about that?

I believe the rainforests are important. But, provoked by good intentions, it's easy to just believe that Greenpeace, for example, has all the answers - I can give you the facts about this particular organization if you're open-minded enough to listen.

When I speak of truth I mean to know exactly the percentages of loss. It means understanding who is doing the cutting. It means who is seeding new ground while clearing out old wood. It means knowing who are the people that cut forests without consideration to conservation at all. It means understanding the ecology of clearing certain areas and reseeding. It means using your brain and doing your research instead of just chanting slogans and writing folk songs.

When you grow up you'll learn to think before you open your mouth.

chris_nin00 · Nov 22, 2005, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

I can give you the facts about this particular organization if you're open-minded enough to listen.

I want some!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

When you grow up you'll learn to think before you open your mouth.

Media says be quiet prow

benmanhaha · Nov 22, 2005, 03:01 AM // 03:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plutonic

True, but no where near enough to keep us living.
We would have to breed algae to cover the oceans if we wanted them to sustain us... oooooo its scifi time.

really? i guess i had assumed water to trees ratio equaled enough air, but I suppose you're right. Although it would be cool to cover the world in algae.

Xue Yi Liang · Nov 22, 2005, 03:19 AM // 03:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris_nin00

I want some!

I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll just give you a link.
This link is to an article in the publication New Scientist. It is an interview with Dr. Patrick Moore PhD, one of the original founders of Greenpeace, who left the organization when it evolved and became less interested in science and more focused on civil disobedience (the disobedience aspect of Greenpeace is responsible for its media attention and, consequently, created access to huge donations). Greenpeace was born out of truth and passion, but has, in recent times, become a large, wealthy, political interest force (and science be damned.)
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-in...art/moore.html

Arturo02 · Nov 22, 2005, 04:15 AM // 04:15

besides the obvious, if we lose the rainforests we lose chocolate. Throw that in with your debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

well put this in perspective.

If everyone lived like Canada/USA we would need 5 planet Earths to support us. Were using this one quickly

actually, the third world countries do a lot more damage to the world's ecosystem then the US or Canada. They often have little enviromental regulations.

Lou · Nov 22, 2005, 04:25 AM // 04:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo02

actually, the third world countries do a lot more damage to the world's ecosystem then the US or Canada. They often have little enviromental regulations.

I didn't know that...