[PASSED] Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act"

[Dellin]

This discussion is getting rather silly at this point. I'm reminded of the "dance science" debate in the Access to Science in Schools thread.

Probably because the bases of your repeals seem to often be minor and, frankly, based on pretty silly and outmoded ideologies about things. They often call for a reductio ad absrudum to even discuss them in a coherent way.

Mostly because I am usually confused since you generally say you are for the idea, but x, y, or z minor thing is usually wrong, and then all of a sudden your ideological center opens up and you are really opposed in a lot of ways that would make a resolution bend squares into triangles.

I'm against this repeal, obviously, but I actually do think you will get the resolution repealed, since there are enough nations out there that think this resolution destroys their economy or does other crazy global warming conspiracy things.

[The Scientific States]

Humans possess an intellect and free will. Other animals (and plants) do not.

Not everyone is Catholic Auralia. Animals are intelligent beings with free will.

[Sciongrad]

Humans possess an intellect and free will. Other animals (and plants) do not.

Not everyone is Catholic Auralia. Animals are intelligent beings with free will.

While I'm not one to defend Catholicism all that fiercely, I don't see how it's at all relevant. Furthermore, I don't think it's a fair assessment to consider non-sapient animals as being intelligent and having free will.

[The Saint James Islands]

Not everyone is Catholic Auralia. Animals are intelligent beings with free will.

While I'm not one to defend Catholicism all that fiercely, I don't see how it's at all relevant. Furthermore, I don't think it's a fair assessment to consider non-sapient animals as being intelligent and having free will.

Well, I don't defend Catholicism at all either. And I agree that your assessment is quite rational, Sciongrad.

However, to assume that everything in the natural world is here for man's benefit is the hallmark of an anthropocentric attitude towards our world. It's certainly not healthy when we want to ensure our continued existence on this planet.

[Hittanryan]

Slash-and-burn agriculture can be practiced in a sustainable manner. Yes, much of the time it's not, but that doesn't justify an absolute ban on the practice. See here, here, here, here and here.
[...]
No. The article I highlighted demonstrated that rainforest restoration appears to be the norm following mining operations in Brazil: "A legal requirement to restore the forest has been under way since 1984, with nine million trees planted up to 2011 over 4,500 hectares to recreate high biodiversity rainforest."
[...]
Fair enough. Then mandate sustainable forest management, not absolute bans on development.

Nine million trees planted vs. how many cut down? If Brazil mandates "sustainable forest management," how is it that deforestation continues to vastly outpace reclamation? Easy, lax enforcement and the fact that rainforest reclamation (when it's practiced at all) is slow and expensive at best, and ineffective at worst. Without clear-cut (pardon the expression) language regarding specific logging practices, nations will simply come up with their own definitions of "sustainable."

Again, just because slash and burn can be done sustainably, doesn't mean that it will. In fact, since slash and burn is usually a cost-saving technique, it is almost certain that it will not. The costs of unsustainable slash and burn methods must be raised to be equivalent to sustainable methods, which will not be done by the much-heralded free market.

I'm sorry, what? On whose authority?

God (per Genesis) or natural law (per humanity's relationship with the environment since the dawn of civilization), take your pick. But even if you accept neither, I can think of no other reason for preserving the environment, aside from ensuring that it will continue to benefit future generations of humans. Can you?

There is no "purpose" for the biosphere. Nobody put it there for us to use, it's not indestructible, and there are no laws which declare we have a right to destroy it without consequence. Homo sapiens is simply another animal on this wet rock of a planet, and we're only going to get one.

Since I doubt you'll be moved by aesthetics, let's put it in economic terms: important things that are productive now will become unproductive. This will generate uncertainty due to the presence of externalities, which ultimately is to the detriment of the economy.

That's a straw man. Sustainable development =/= environmental destruction.
[...]
And you don't seem to understand that nature changes all the time and is far more resilient than you give it credit for.

Further, there is a difference between environmental protection and absolute bans on development.

What was that you were saying about straw men? Actual environmentalists, the ones who truly care about sustainable development as opposed to pipe dreams, recognize the need to balance economic development with ecological impact. What you are proposing is not sustainable on the scale required to offset the slash and burn practices that pose the greatest threat to the rainforest. The regrowth phase takes so long, and the other species so specialized, that it cannot be distinguished from habitat destruction. Fragmentation can and does lead to extirpation of entire native species, and provides conduits for invasive species.

The fact of the matter is that rainforests are extremely sensitive to human activity, and we have much more to learn about them before we can even predict the full scope of our impact or the losses we are taking in other industries. Biodiversity found in rainforests make them important to drug discovery, while new species are still being discovered in the more remote parts of the Amazon. For short-sighted and ultimately very temporary economic gain, you are sacrificing things you didn't even know you needed.

[Horusland]

I'm sorry, what? On whose authority?

God (per Genesis) or natural law (per humanity's relationship with the environment since the dawn of civilization), take your pick. But even if you accept neither, I can think of no other reason for preserving the environment, aside from ensuring that it will continue to benefit future generations of humans. Can you?

Everyone can. Please tell me what your problem is. You want to use the environment as if it's your toy. You give answers like 'oh, well we always destroyed stuff, why should we stop?'. Why? Because it's bad. And just because you've been doing bad things since prehistory does NOT mean that you should keep doing them. We are trying to advance. The WA's purpose is to advance and do good, not give excuses to why we should destroy things.

Every time I read one of your posts, I wonder how you can believe these things.

[The Remean Lordship]

I don't know what to say now, mainly because I am almost convinced about the inability of this council to function with a sense of decency. First I an accused of being a social darwinist because I cited his theories about survival of the fittest (proven) in the context not at all pertaining to humans, and now I find a lack of sympathy in any sort in this, and many other, uncouth resolutions. I ask you, what does it take to find some benevolence around here?

@ Auralia,

I believe this statement answers any and all questions and statements asked of me in your previous question/statement. If you don't understand, use (not so discriminating and demeaning) context clues.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Not everyone is Catholic Auralia. Animals are intelligent beings with free will.

While there are some people who suggest that the tourist has free will, we have not been able to observe this in the laboratory.

OOC: Hey, look it up, my national animal is the 'tourist' and they are really quite tasty.

I mean do intelligent beings actually come to the Antarctic to spend the winters in total isolation studying the most obvious things? I think not. Tourists are clearly migratory animals who have lost all common sense.

See? Does this look intelligent to you?

[Retired WerePenguins]

I don't know what to say now, mainly because I am almost convinced about the inability of this council to function with a sense of decency.

"Almost?" I've been convinced of this for years. And don't give me this nonsense of the "survival of the fittest." Only the damn lucky survive; the fittest often get hit with some awful disaster just when they least expect it.

I mean take the great dinosaurs. They were all "fit" ... until the earth's oxygen supply dropped in half and then the asteroid crashed into a large sea. Then they were all DEAD.

You can all be as fit as you want to be; one Gamma Ray Burst and everyone dies!

[Horusland]

Yes, people. The best way to help the world get better is to complain about what is wrong without actually doing anything about it. I applaud you. Here:

Why, this entire WA thing is useless. Who needs it? Let's delete it all!

Now, seriously, we need to make sure that this doesn't pass. And I think that will be easy to do, seeing that Auralia's side contains Auralia, and it's Auralia vs. the world.

[Bears Armed]

I can think of no other reason for preserving the environment, aside from ensuring that it will continue to benefit future generations of humans.

"Ahem!"

[Auralia]

I can think of no other reason for preserving the environment, aside from ensuring that it will continue to benefit future generations of humans.

"Ahem!"

Forgive me. Future generations of sapients.

[Horusland]

"Ahem!"

Forgive me. Future generations of sapients.

Though I do not know much about Urrsish culture, I believe that they have a connection to these very forests we're destroying.
As well as any animal-based nation might, including mine.

[Burtonia WA Embassy]

Though I do not know much about Urrsish culture, I believe that they have a connection to these very forests we're destroying.
As well as any animal-based nation might, including mine.

Your nation, like any other, reserves the right to preserve its own forests if the act is repealed. This repeal effort removes one specific, ill-conceived international regulation, not every single conservation effort by individual member-states.

[Zandalari]

Zandalar Zandali steps up the microphone, "Ah yes, the rainforest protection act, it had such good intents, however it fell short on it's implementations, it disregarded nations with a logging industry, or nations primarily consisting of rainforests, such as Zandalari. We were disheartened to see that the original pass due to it containing completely obvious flaws. We, the Zandalari people are in favor of repealing the atrociously written Rainforest protection act. Taeiwanniwanga Atal'Wahassem." Zandalar Zandali steps down from the podium, giggling the way to his seat.

[Chester Pearson]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

At the behest of Empress Beatrice, and Prime Minister Jack Layston I have been instructed to cast a vote of NAY for this resolution. We cannot in good conscience go against the the wishes of our people, the environment, or our region in a matter that received the overwhelming support of this assembly. The resolution being repealed passed by a landslide vote, and is now trying to be repealed on a thin veil of economics. What is an economy, when a nation has no environmental beauty to back it up?

Warmest regards,

[Zandalari]

At the behest of Empress Beatrice, and Prime Minister Jack Layston I have been instructed to cast a vote of NAY for this resolution. We cannot in good conscience go against the the wishes of our people, the environment, or our region in a matter that received the overwhelming support of this assembly. The resolution being repealed passed by a landslide vote, and is now trying to be repealed on a thin veil of economics. What is an economy, when a nation has no environmental beauty to back it up?

Warmest regards,

Zandalar Zandali jumps up and starts speaking before he reaches the microphone, "Now sir, I understand where you are coming from. But you have to realize that some nations, including mine are almost exclusively Rainforest, this resolution, which I hope is repealed, severely cuts into the economic power that Zandalari and many others can be. Now Zandalari cares a large amount about our ecosystem, we can do a lot of business here without destroying the ecosystem, but according to this resolution, we are being a detriment to our environment and the world, even though foreign and our own ecologists say we are perfectly fine. I hope I've convinced you to vote yea, if not, I'm not really sure what to say. E'chuta Atal'ChesterPearson." He slowly goes for his chair, hoping to interject again.

[WallaWakkaWalla]

Auralia, In this repeal of yours, you mention 2 things that I would like clarification and documentation on. First, how CAN slash-and-burn agriculture done for subsistence farming be done in an environmentally sound way, when all that I've read up on the subject says that due to the nutrient-poor soil native to tropical rainforests, the method causes significant and PERMANENT damage to the ecosystem? Second, leading a bit from the first, can you provide statistically significant examples of where mining or slash-and-burn has occurred and the damage to the area was temporary and naturally repaired? I apologize if you've answered this before but when statements like this are made, one must ask for evidence to support your claim.

[United Federation of Canada]

AND................................................... Here come the Wikipedia links!

[Auralia]

Auralia, In this repeal of yours, you mention 2 things that I would like clarification and documentation on. First, how CAN slash-and-burn agriculture done for subsistence farming be done in an environmentally sound way, when all that I've read up on the subject says that due to the nutrient-poor soil native to tropical rainforests, the method causes significant and PERMANENT damage to the ecosystem? Second, leading a bit from the first, can you provide statistically significant examples of where mining or slash-and-burn has occurred and the damage to the area was temporary and naturally repaired? I apologize if you've answered this before but when statements like this are made, one must ask for evidence to support your claim.

Slash-and-burn: here, here, here, here and here.

Rainforest restoration: here, here, here, here, here and here.

[Lun Noir]

Settled at the seat on the assembly panel, the representative of the island chain chimes in.

Preserving the environment has its place, and everyone has a different notion of how and when to do it best. It is our position that this responsibility and judgement fall to the jurisdiction of each sovereign Nation, rather than in the realm of international law. Permit the peoples who live in a place decide how to protect or utilize their own lands.

Some decades ago, we clear cut such a forest for reasons unique to our region. The forest was home to a number of venomous species and invasive plant life which constantly sought to overtake surrounding developments. It posed an ongoing safety hazard and health hazard, and the resources it provided were a boon. Had we been obligated by this shortsighted 'one-size-fits-all' protection act at that time, we would continue to have hundreds of citizens per year being paralyzed or killed simply by virtue of living near this natural landscape which some people find beautiful.

Certain environmentalists might find that despicable, and might object to the transformation which took place after. They're hypocrites, who either don't realize or refuse to recognize that such actions aren't destroying the land, just changing its ecosystem. Where that rainforest once was, now is drylands with their own far less hazardous wildlife, and are much more friendly for human habitation. Our own environmentalists have found that these drylands have actually had a very beneficial environmental impact: Minerals from the desert-like region gather in the system of streams and lakes on the island and fertilize the riverbanks, as well as pooling in a basin downstream, which has made the soils in those area far more rich in nutrients which the forest was previously drinking up all of like a gluttonous pig. In other words, the net result was more overall fertile landscape rather than all of it being concentrated to one, small uninhabitable area.

While some peoples and Nations might fanatically seek to protect rainforests, it is here believed that such a view is extremely narrow minded. This is not a solution, it is a knee jerk reaction. Responsible solutions require understanding the particulars on a case by case basis, at the local level and as such, attempting to make blanket international judgments makes no sense to us.

We vote Yea for repealing this resolution.

[Horusland]

Mmkay, so who's redoing the Rainforest Protection Act?

[Mousebumples]

Mmkay, so who's redoing the Rainforest Protection Act?

Since when does every piece of (potentially) repealed legislation need to be replaced? The WA survived many, many years WITHOUT the Rainforest Protection Act, as it was only passed last month. I know I haven't been very active (or, well, at all active on the forums) as of late, but I wouldn't think asking "who's going to replace it?" is or should be of a primary concern to WA regulars ...

[Horusland]

Mmkay, so who's redoing the Rainforest Protection Act?

Since when does every piece of (potentially) repealed legislation need to be replaced? The WA survived many, many years WITHOUT the Rainforest Protection Act, as it was only passed last month. I know I haven't been very active (or, well, at all active on the forums) as of late, but I wouldn't think asking "who's going to replace it?" is or should be of a primary concern to WA regulars ...

There was talk about replacing it, and it was the first intention of the repeal. The RPA has good intentions, but is written badly. That was the reason for the repeal.

[Auralia]

Since when does every piece of (potentially) repealed legislation need to be replaced? The WA survived many, many years WITHOUT the Rainforest Protection Act, as it was only passed last month. I know I haven't been very active (or, well, at all active on the forums) as of late, but I wouldn't think asking "who's going to replace it?" is or should be of a primary concern to WA regulars ...

There was talk about replacing it, and it was the first intention of the repeal. The RPA has good intentions, but is written badly. That was the reason for the repeal.

Libraria and Ausitoria is working on a replacement.