|
  |
|
|
Dont say deforestation is bad! (For Intelligent People Only)
By Anthony Epp
Deforestation Deforestation is described as the “removal of large numbers of trees”, which inevitably leads to the side effect of removing “native organisms from their ecosystem”(p). The wood is removed for a variety of reasons, including: farming land for indigenous people, providing wood to be used as a renewable fuel, and wood for building and paper making. This leads to a series of side effects, some negative, though the vast majority is positive. These include the loss of certain species, changes in climate, desertification, economically viable and superior quality papermaking, an increase in land available for farming in third world countries and a safer environment.
In this essay I hope to deal with they following issues:
· Exposing the ‘activists’ and their dishonest and baseless claims.
· Analyzing the actual word and phrasing of ‘deforestation’.
· Exploding the myths that we readily believe and why we believe them.
· Explaining how deforestation is good for the planet and its inhabitants. Many of these ‘activists’, who forcefully inform you that deforestation is such a terrible thing, can more accurately be described as “tree hugging hippies”(South Park episode 902 – “Die Hippy Die”). They are modern day hippies, and frequently engage in activates commonly associated with hippy ways of life. Habitual illegal drug use and a view of sexuality, which can only be described as immoral, are common practice. Normally you would never listen to these vagrants, these ‘stoners’, these people who think they are better than you. However, under the guise of a ‘nature activist’ they open cracks in your mind and pour in their drug induced views. When they get together to ‘save the planet’, it becomes a “Dionysian” festival full of ‘sexual indiscipline’, and a time in which they burn a whole forest in drug use. This is the true “witches brew” (Friedrich Nietzsche- The Birth of Tragedy). Why do we let these creatures of immorality influence us such? Why do we allow them to corrupt our children? The reason is simple. All mankind feels a connection to the wilderness from which we came. The ‘activists’ play upon this link and make us feel as though we are hurting our past home, and therefore ourselves. They also make us feel guilty for this ‘problem’.
We all feel guilty for something, but these ‘people’ try to make us think that it is because of deforestation that we feel guilty. Through merciless propaganda campaigns they medicate us to feel that we will feel better through opposing this much-needed job. They cripple society in this way, and since we are unable to address the real problems in our lives, we instead focus upon non-existent nightmares in the sky, in the hope we will be helped. We will not however. These ‘people’ will take our money and grow the ‘special’ plants they want to use, and the gaps in our hearts and minds will stay unfilled as our pockets empty to keep these villains high.
It was these people who made the word ‘deforestation’ have negative connotations. It should never be thought of this however. If we examine the antonym to this word we get ‘forestation’. What is forestation? A growth of a forest? A jungle? Surely this is the opposite of where we live now. Forestation means the removal of the tree of the cities, buildings, in return for true trees. Surely my friends we can see what this means! The removal of buildings is the opposite of what we want. This means the destruction of civilization! While you read this, think of some way in which you have not benefited from civilization. It is now something vital to our existence and not something we should throw away for half a dozen extra trees.
If we examine the words then, after realizing their true meaning, we can say thus: the other word for ‘forestation’ is ‘decivillization’ and the alternative word for ‘deforestation’ is ‘civilization’. To save confusion therefore I will be using the word civilization as an alternative to deforestation in this essay. As you can obviously see the error people make when looking at the problems of civilization is ignoring the positive connotations.
Now to quash the rumors which we are fed everyday by the biased media these are the ‘evils’ of civilization, such as the loss of certain species, changes in climate, and desertification, as well as the reasons for these ‘problems’ which are often portrayed as selfish and caused by big heartless companies. After this you will surely see that the only sensible conclusion we can come to is that civilization is a good thing.
One of the main reasons for civilization is the need for extra farmland. It is described as a terrible thing to be increasing the amount of farmland for people to work on. However, areas available for farming is growing fastest in less economically developed countries. Have you ever considered how much they need this extra farmland? These countries are using this a way to pull themselves out of poverty, by removing some trees to increase areas available for farming to feed the large indigenous population. Why should we criticize those less well off for their methods of survival? Would you really rather watch them starve to death? Why should we attempt to stop these people from making their way into true civilization simply because we disapprove of their methods? Our ancestors had to do the same thing to carve out their cities, homes and residences for their families. These people are not doing something new or wrong, they are simply farming to sustain their lives, something that has been done for hundreds upon thousands of years. Another reason for the deforestation is that of renewable fuel. With all the ‘activists’ also concerned about our use and dependence on fossil fuels, they then damn our best alternative fuels. They feel that using wood as a renewable source of fuel is totally wrong and absurd. They fail to tell you that wood is one of the most viable, economical and effective alternatives to fossil fuels. Why is this a bad thing? They claim that we should not be continuing with a tradition, which has happened since the dawn of time, although it is natural for us to cut down the trees. Other sources of renewable energy may cause further damage to this planet which ‘activists’ are so keen to save. Hydroelectricity, for example, relies upon the creation of huge dams, flooding vast tracts of land behind them. As a result of dams being built to provide hydroelectricity, “delicate ecosystems such as estuaries and sand banks are removed”, while the flow of the river which has been dammed drops disturbingly, resulting in those who live downstream of the dam and rely upon the river for both a source of water and irrigation for crops suffer from the “effects of drought, famine, and water-borne illnesses which breed in the stagnant waters of dams”, such as cholera and typhoid. Wind power, another ‘wonder-source’ of energy is also damaging, having been given as a reason for the “increased deaths of migratory birds such as the European swallow”, while it also disrupts RADAR, something vital to our nations’ defenses. Should we put our nation at risk for the sake of a renewable source of energy that ‘activists’ are so keen to promote? The only other true alternative is nuclear power, which is also vehemently opposed by ‘activists’. Surely you can see now that those who oppose ‘deforestation’ are in fact opposed to our whole way of living and are highly hypocritical?
The final main reason for ‘deforestation’, which I will put forward, is the use of wood in building and papermaking. Firstly if we look at the reasons wood is used in building. It has been used for thousands of years as a building resource. How many of the most beautiful houses have wood furnishing inside or in their walls. It is used for a variety of purposes in a home, from the actual structure to the furniture that you recline in. Can you name me one other material as versatile as this? There is no other way that we could produce such a wide variety of goods so cheaply and efficiently. There is no alternative to wood. This reason, which as you can see is much needed, is another major explanation for ‘deforestation’.
Also, where would we be without paper? Paper is essential to pass on our knowledge, to keep future generations informed and able, which allows our civilization to evolve; yet ‘activists’ target it as a problem. Those who leaflet us like a ticker tape parade even use the trees they claim to protect in order to spread the message.
And what of the logging companies which remove the trees? The ‘activists’ claim that the trees are gone forever. However, it is a little published fact that “only 0.07% of deforestation is permanent”(w). Surely anyone could realize that logging companies would quickly go out of business if this were not the case? It is this fact that makes the whole protest of logging companies pointless. Should you worry about this 0.07% then read this other little known fact: “two-thirds of the Earth's surface is covered by water. 30% of the Earth's surface is covered by trees. That's 96% of the Earth, untouched by civilization. Of the remaining 4%, 3% is desert, 0.6% is plains, savannah or tundra, leaving 0.4% for urban use”. This is an absurdly small amount of land for civilization to live on. Surely then you can see that man needs to push back the boundaries of the forest slightly so that civilization may expand. Now to move onto the so-called negative effects of deforestation. This includes the loss of certain species. Many ‘activists’ use this to latch onto people conscious and make us feel bad. They give the impressions that whole species of cute ‘ickle’ puppies are being wiped out on a daily basis. The truth is far from this myth. The species are not wiped out simply by cutting down a tree. This is nonsense. They simply move to another tree and continue their existence. It is never puppies that killed either. The creatures that inhabit these trees are often simply insects that are numerous in number. Things like huge hairy spiders, or blood sucking leeches infest the area. The deaths of these demon like creatures cannot be seen as a great loss since they are in such huge numbers in the forest that it makes no impact to their populations. The few mammals, which do infest these trees, simply move to a new home and suffer almost nothing from the removal of the timber.
Another problem that those people claim is the spread of deserts. This problem goes in direct contrast to their claims about saving species. The truth is deserts have been spreading ever since man first farmed and this is not necessarily a bad thing. There is an abundance of wildlife in deserts, from giraffes to elephants, from majestic lions to lowly lizards. And these ‘activists’ claim that the natural spread of these creatures habitat is wrong and should be stopped. Isn’t that the slightest bit hypocritical?
Also the removal of trees has been linked to climate change. Many people have been led to believe that this is a bad thing. This is not in fact the case. The phenomena of global dimming is said to be leading to a cooling in the earths temperature. Surely then the removal of some trees to allow more green house gases to reach the atmosphere can only be beneficial to us. This will allow us to keep on living with our current necessities, as well as helping to improve the standards of poorer peoples lives, and also our own. It is for this reason that we need to continue with deforestation, our very civilization depends upon it to keep the earths temperature in balance.
As I have proven to you, ‘activists’ are little more than diluted drug users or people with misconceptions and uneducated backgrounds, which have loose morals and an even looser grip upon the realities of deforestation and what an end to deforestation would cause, perpetuating lies which benefit no one, impeding the work of those who seek to further mankind through ‘deforestation’. I have revealed what ‘deforestation’ truly means to society today, and how it is at the crux of advancing civilization. I have exposed the myths as that, and elucidated upon why it is we believe these falsehoods. Finally, I have explained, without reasonable doubt, why we should unite in supporting the continuation of deforestation throughout the world, so that with it civilization may progress.
|
|
 |
|
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
The copyright for this content entitled "Dont say deforestation is bad! (For Intelligent People Only)" has been specified by the contributor as:
All Rights Reserved
This content may not be copied, distributed or adapted by anyone under any circumstances.
|
|
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
