[PASSED] Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act"

[Ainocra]

As the Star Empire of Ainocra is possessed of several planets covered completely in jungle we support this repeal.

[Habababaslavia]

Seeing as the repeal has already won at this point I can only express my disappointment in all of you and your disregard for the environment.

[Hittanryan]

Glad to confirm my lack of faith in the WA to do anything. Auralia has demonstrated little to no knowledge on the subject of the rainforest and has repealed this based on the arguably false premise of the environment "existing to serve human needs." He lost the debate, but won the vote. Go General Assembly.

[Kushtor]

Glad to confirm my lack of faith in the WA to do anything. Auralia has demonstrated little to no knowledge on the subject of the rainforest and has repealed this based on the arguably false premise of the environment "existing to serve human needs." He lost the debate, but won the vote. Go General Assembly.

He even made his true motives behind a repeal quite clear during the debate.
Always remember to examine the author of a proposal!

[Habababaslavia]

Glad to confirm my lack of faith in the WA to do anything. Auralia has demonstrated little to no knowledge on the subject of the rainforest and has repealed this based on the arguably false premise of the environment "existing to serve human needs." He lost the debate, but won the vote. Go General Assembly.

He even made his true motives behind a repeal quite clear during the debate.
Always remember to examine the author of a proposal!

I still think RPA wasn't harsh enough. Can someone draft an even more Draconian tree protection bill to replace this one? The rainforests are so much more important than then people living there.

[Dellin]

He even made his true motives behind a repeal quite clear during the debate.
Always remember to examine the author of a proposal!

I still think RPA wasn't harsh enough. Can someone draft an even more Draconian tree protection bill to replace this one? The rainforests are so much more important than then people living there.

Yes, since the RPA kills people/makes their lives terrible. Unless you call a multinational corporation a person? Then yes, it regulates their ability to destroy the environment a bit.

[Auralia]

I still think RPA wasn't harsh enough. Can someone draft an even more Draconian tree protection bill to replace this one? The rainforests are so much more important than then people living there.

Yes, since the RPA kills people/makes their lives terrible. Unless you call a multinational corporation a person? Then yes, it regulates their ability to destroy the environment a bit.

Actually, I think he was serious, since he voted against the repeal. That's really sad.

In any event, the RPA actually harms anyone who isn't a member of a "non-industrial tribe". Most subsistence farmers, while poor, cannot be considered members of a "non-industrial tribe".

[Dellin]

Yes, since the RPA kills people/makes their lives terrible. Unless you call a multinational corporation a person? Then yes, it regulates their ability to destroy the environment a bit.

Actually, I think he was serious, since he voted against the repeal. That's really sad.

In any event, the RPA actually harms anyone who isn't a member of a "non-industrial tribe". Most subsistence farmers, while poor, cannot be considered members of a "non-industrial tribe".

Yes, because all of them always use slash-and-burn techniques and can't grow crops in any other way.

[Auralia]

Actually, I think he was serious, since he voted against the repeal. That's really sad.

In any event, the RPA actually harms anyone who isn't a member of a "non-industrial tribe". Most subsistence farmers, while poor, cannot be considered members of a "non-industrial tribe".

Yes, because all of them always use slash-and-burn techniques and can't grow crops in any other way.

A fair number do, and yes, sometimes there is no other feasible option. And of course, slash-and-burn agriculture is perfectly sustainable when done right.

[Dellin]

Yes, because all of them always use slash-and-burn techniques and can't grow crops in any other way.

A fair number do, and yes, sometimes there is no other feasible option. And of course, slash-and-burn agriculture is perfectly sustainable when done right.

The articles that you linked (given, I didn't read all of them) don't even seem to support that claim, yet you continuously repeat it. Most of them seemed to have as their thesis: Slash-and-burn can be sustainable, if it is done on a very small scale and is highly controlled. Chances are many of the farmers you are describing won't be able to do such in a controlled way. They all mostly seem to say that such sustainability is mostly hypothetical.

Also: then can we agree larger entities should be banned from slash-and-burn techniques?

There are also more sustainable alternatives to slash-and-burn. Wouldn't a better long-term solution be to introduce such alternatives? I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you are going to say no.

[Hittanryan]

A fair number do, and yes, sometimes there is no other feasible option. And of course, slash-and-burn agriculture is perfectly sustainable when done right.

The articles that you linked (given, I didn't read all of them) don't even seem to support that claim, yet you continuously repeat it. Most of them seemed to have as their thesis: Slash-and-burn can be sustainable, if it is done on a very small scale and is highly controlled. Chances are many of the farmers you are describing won't be able to do such in a controlled way. They all mostly seem to say that such sustainability is mostly hypothetical.

Also: then can we agree larger entities should be banned from slash-and-burn techniques?

There are also more sustainable alternatives to slash-and-burn. Wouldn't a better long-term solution be to introduce such alternatives? I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you are going to say no.

You're repeating the debate that Auralia already lost a few pages back. Ultimately he said human business interests trump environmental ones, even when they really are one and the same. Considering Auralia's tendency to cherry-pick articles to try to support claims they don't even make, I can't imagine he'd ever search for something to the contrary. The pharmaceutical industry is a large industry that benefits from preserving the rainforest, yet somehow Auralia prioritizes extremely short-term, unsustainable agricultural techniques over life-saving medicine.

[Auralia]

The articles that you linked (given, I didn't read all of them) don't even seem to support that claim, yet you continuously repeat it. Most of them seemed to have as their thesis: Slash-and-burn can be sustainable, if it is done on a very small scale and is highly controlled. Chances are many of the farmers you are describing won't be able to do such in a controlled way. They all mostly seem to say that such sustainability is mostly hypothetical.

Slash-and-burn agriculture has been practiced for ages. It is sustainable when there is enough land per farmer. Yes, this means that it can only be practiced sustainably by smaller populations if there is little available land.

Also: then can we agree larger entities should be banned from slash-and-burn techniques?

No, because the chief issue isn't the size of the population, it's the amount of land available.

There are also more sustainable alternatives to slash-and-burn. Wouldn't a better long-term solution be to introduce such alternatives? I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you are going to say no.

I would support a resolution encouraging (and even providing funding for) the introduction of more sustainable agricultural practices.

[Auralia]

You're repeating the debate that Auralia already lost a few pages back.

I didn't lose the debate. You didn't respond to my post.

Ultimately he said human business interests trump environmental ones, even when they really are one and the same.

No, I didn't.

Considering Auralia's tendency to cherry-pick articles to try to support claims they don't even make

Evidence for that assertion?

The pharmaceutical industry is a large industry that benefits from preserving the rainforest, yet somehow Auralia prioritizes extremely short-term, unsustainable agricultural techniques over life-saving medicine.

I have only argued that slash-and-burn agriculture and mining operations in tropical rainforests are not inherently unsustainable, and therefore absolute bans on these practices are unjustifiable. I have never declared support for the widespread use of unsustainable mining or agricultural practices.

[Hittanryan]

You're repeating the debate that Auralia already lost a few pages back.

I didn't lose the debate. You didn't respond to my post.

You were refusing to address any of my points, merely repeating your own. I take that as an admission of defeat.

Besides, one of your points seemed to be disagreeing with the notion that human activities can impact the environment. I didn't consider that absurd position worth refuting.

Ultimately he said human business interests trump environmental ones, even when they really are one and the same.

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. In your own words:

Rainforests are not cities, and trees are not humans. The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests. Partial environmental damage is a reasonable tradeoff to economic development, so long as the damage is properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development.

Considering Auralia's tendency to cherry-pick articles to try to support claims they don't even make

Evidence for that assertion?

Right here, where you claimed reclamation on the scale we were discussing was possible because of isolated cases of small-scale reclamation. You were in fact supporting what I was arguing, that reclamation has not yet been developed on the scale required to offset unrestricted slash-and-burn.

I concede that rainforests are different from boreal forests, and that these differences make land reclamation more difficult. That does not mean that land reclamation is impossible or even economically unfeasible. Indeed, a cursory Google search reveals numerous cases where rainforest restoration has been successful, at least to some extent: here, here, here, here, here and here.

All of your other sources do the same. You are cherry-picking small scale cases of reclamation and arbitrarily claiming they will work on the scale needed to offset widespread slash-and-burn.

The pharmaceutical industry is a large industry that benefits from preserving the rainforest, yet somehow Auralia prioritizes extremely short-term, unsustainable agricultural techniques over life-saving medicine.

I have only argued that slash-and-burn agriculture and mining operations in tropical rainforests are not inherently unsustainable, and therefore absolute bans on these practices are unjustifiable. I have never declared support for the widespread use of unsustainable mining or agricultural practices.

Considering the reasons why slash and burn agriculture is adopted in the first place, namely cost-cutting, then it almost certainly is inherently unsustainable. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest or willfully blind to the circumstances which give rise to it.

[Auralia]

I take that as an admission of defeat.

Well, you go ahead and do that then.

Besides, one of your points seemed to be disagreeing with the notion that human activities can impact the environment. I didn't consider that absurd position worth refuting.

Oh? And which point was that?

Yes, you did. In your own words:

Rainforests are not cities, and trees are not humans. The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests. Partial environmental damage is a reasonable tradeoff to economic development, so long as the damage is properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development.

I said in the same paragraph that environmental damage should be properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development, since preserving the environment for use by future generations is a human interest. That is the opposite of "human business interests trump environmental ones, even when they really are one and the same".

All of your other sources do the same. You are cherry-picking small scale cases of reclamation and arbitrarily claiming they will work on the scale needed to offset widespread slash-and-burn.

I do not support unrestricted slash-and-burn. I have never expressed support for unrestricted slash-and-burn. I have only expressed opposition to absolute bans on slash-and-burn, even when it can be practiced sustainably. I would very much appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth.

Considering the reasons why slash and burn agriculture is adopted in the first place, namely cost-cutting, then it almost certainly is inherently unsustainable.

Why? Slash-and-burn agriculture is sustainable so long as there is sufficient land available per farmer to allow for vegetation regrowth.

[Hittanryan]

I take that as an admission of defeat.

Well, you go ahead and do that then.

When you refuse to address what I'm saying, and just keep spouting the same exact points ad nauseam despite evidence to the contrary, yes, that indicates you have nothing more to say on the matter.

Besides, one of your points seemed to be disagreeing with the notion that human activities can impact the environment. I didn't consider that absurd position worth refuting.

Oh? And which point was that?

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...

As a Catholic, I obviously disagree.

Which part did you disagree with, the idea that the biosphere is indestructible, that we don't have a right to destroy it without impacting ourselves, or that homo sapiens is a species of animal? If you think anyone put earth here for us to use, I'm going to have to see a source for that.

All of your other sources do the same. You are cherry-picking small scale cases of reclamation and arbitrarily claiming they will work on the scale needed to offset widespread slash-and-burn.

I do not support unrestricted slash-and-burn. I have never expressed support for unrestricted slash-and-burn. I have only expressed opposition to absolute bans on slash-and-burn, even when it can be practiced sustainably. I would very much appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth.

When you're dismissing our concerns over slash-and-burn by claiming it "can be" done sustainably despite the fact that it almost never is, then one could be forgiven for taking your position as one of tacit complicity. You've put your own words in your mouth, Auralia, I don't know what else to tell you.

Considering the reasons why slash and burn agriculture is adopted in the first place, namely cost-cutting, then it almost certainly is inherently unsustainable.

Why? Slash-and-burn agriculture is sustainable so long as there is sufficient land available per farmer to allow for vegetation regrowth.

Simple, because the cleared land cannot sustain a typical farm for long. Rainforest soils are rapidly depleted of nutrients without vegetation, forcing farmers who practice slash-and-burn to move onto new lands in only a few seasons, which is not long enough to allow for regrowth. For a few meager growing seasons, you're looking at centuries of serious impacts.

[Basking Turtles]

Less than two weeks ago, this Assembly passed the Rainforest Protection Act by a 3-to-1 margin. Now in a few short days, we will be voting on its repeal.

This is an important observation.

Regardless of the actual contents of a resolution, how meaningful is the work done by the GA if support for a resolution is so volatile? What credibility can the GA have if it produces such farces?

After a long stint as a member state, Basking Turtles has now resigned from the WA, because we see no purpose for an organisation that suffers from the political equivalent of bipolar disorder.

[Auralia]

Which part did you disagree with, the idea that the biosphere is indestructible, that we don't have a right to destroy it without impacting ourselves, or that homo sapiens is a species of animal? If you think anyone put earth here for us to use, I'm going to have to see a source for that.

I disagree with the notion that there is no purpose for the biosphere and that homo sapiens is "simply another animal" on this planet. I believe that we are in fact superior to animals and are entitled to treat nature as a resource (that we must properly manage, for our own sake), and I cite natural law as evidence.

When you're dismissing our concerns over slash-and-burn by claiming it "can be" done sustainably despite the fact that it almost never is, then one could be forgiven for taking your position as one of tacit complicity. You've put your own words in your mouth, Auralia, I don't know what else to tell you.

First of all, you have no evidence that slash-and-burn agriculture "almost never is" done sustainably. On the contrary, it appears that slash-and-burn agriculture has been practiced sustainably by small populations for quite some time.

Second, I have not dismissed your concerns. I have simply said that they are insufficient to justify the RPA's absolute bans on certain practices. I can't see how you managed to conclude that I thought unrestricted slash-and-burn was a good idea.

Simple, because the cleared land cannot sustain a typical farm for long. Rainforest soils are rapidly depleted of nutrients without vegetation, forcing farmers who practice slash-and-burn to move onto new lands in only a few seasons, which is not long enough to allow for regrowth. For a few meager growing seasons, you're looking at centuries of serious impacts.

And once they're finished with those new lands, they can move back to the old lands, since enough time has passed for vegetation regrowth. That's my whole point: slash-and-burn agriculture can be sustainably practiced, given enough land per farmer.

[Saveyou Island]

Is there currently a replacement in the works?

[Auralia]

Less than two weeks ago, this Assembly passed the Rainforest Protection Act by a 3-to-1 margin. Now in a few short days, we will be voting on its repeal.

This is an important observation.

Regardless of the actual contents of a resolution, how meaningful is the work done by the GA if support for a resolution is so volatile? What credibility can the GA have if it produces such farces?

After a long stint as a member state, Basking Turtles has now resigned from the WA, because we see no purpose for an organisation that suffers from the political equivalent of bipolar disorder.

Not all resolutions are repealed shortly after they are passed.

[WallaWakkaWalla]

Yes, because all of them always use slash-and-burn techniques and can't grow crops in any other way.

A fair number do, and yes, sometimes there is no other feasible option. And of course, slash-and-burn agriculture is perfectly sustainable when done right.

It appears that the honorable representative from Auralia has never heard of Inga Alley Cropping, which is in fact even MORE Sustainable then slash-and-burn because it takes advantage of a plan that is well suited and often native to rainforests to help keep the soil from being exhausted and has even greater yields then slash-and-burn, and, best of all, is NOT Banned by RFA in it's current form. Or perhaps even simpler is the method called slash-and-char, where instead of burning everything down, the cut down biomass is charred and made into charcoal, locking much of the carbon in and allowing it to be quickly recycled back into the ecosystem. Just thought you ought to know that these are both feasible and sustainable, unlike slash-and-burn, and both are, and this bears repeating since this was part of your original argument, NOT BANNED.

I would also like to refute the notion that Slash-and-burn has 'been substainable' in the small scale. As anyone who is a fan of Mythbusters knows, just because something works at small-scale, does NOT mean it will work when expanded to large scale, especially when we're talking industrial agricultural levels of scale.

As for the Representative from Dellin, Bravo to you, for helping to stand up to ignorance with creativity.

[WallaWakkaWalla]

This is an important observation.

Regardless of the actual contents of a resolution, how meaningful is the work done by the GA if support for a resolution is so volatile? What credibility can the GA have if it produces such farces?

After a long stint as a member state, Basking Turtles has now resigned from the WA, because we see no purpose for an organisation that suffers from the political equivalent of bipolar disorder.

Not all resolutions are repealed shortly after they are passed.

But the fact that it happens, THAT is what the Representatives from Basking Turtles and Chimericana are pointing out. What does it mean when the WA passes something? There should be a minimum time before a resolution can be repealed, so that we have a chance to see the longer-term effects of our work here!

[Saveyou Island]

Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act" was passed 6,429 votes to 5,183.

[Auralia]

It appears that the honorable representative from Auralia has never heard of Inga Alley Cropping, which is in fact even MORE Sustainable then slash-and-burn because it takes advantage of a plan that is well suited and often native to rainforests to help keep the soil from being exhausted and has even greater yields then slash-and-burn, and, best of all, is NOT Banned by RFA in it's current form. Or perhaps even simpler is the method called slash-and-char, where instead of burning everything down, the cut down biomass is charred and made into charcoal, locking much of the carbon in and allowing it to be quickly recycled back into the ecosystem. Just thought you ought to know that these are both feasible and sustainable, unlike slash-and-burn, and both are, and this bears repeating since this was part of your original argument, NOT BANNED.

I don't know too much about Inga alley cropping and slash-and-char agriculture, so I can't really comment on this. If what you're saying is true, then that's great. However, it doesn't change the fact that slash-and-burn agriculture is sustainable when done properly, and therefore RFA's complete ban on the practice is unjustified.

I would also like to refute the notion that Slash-and-burn has 'been substainable' in the small scale. As anyone who is a fan of Mythbusters knows, just because something works at small-scale, does NOT mean it will work when expanded to large scale, especially when we're talking industrial agricultural levels of scale.

How are you refuting that "Slash-and-burn has 'been substainable' in the small scale" by claiming that it is not sustainable "when expanded to large scale"?

[Chimericana]

There should be a minimum time before a resolution can be repealed, so that we have a chance to see the longer-term effects of our work here!

So an obvious question to ask is this: how long is long enough for a resolution to remain immune from frivolous repeal attempts?