Toho Kingdom

_JNavs_ wrote:
Plus where will all these millions of animals be rehomed too? This was like a big hit on the Animal Kingdom, not just "South America's forest"

What millions of animals? When this thing's done, the survivors will be living in what little remains. There won't be "millions of animals" to rehome because the animals that would need rehoming will all be charred remains judging by this fire's magnitude

Looking at this, the situation looks... not nearly so dire as presented?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/worl ... onaro.html

Deforestation of the Amazon can potentially reach a tipping point where the entire landscape will irreversibly convert to a savanna. The latest estimates state 20-25% deforestation.

We are now at 20%.

It’s also a long part of a continual trend. The outrage is Is not just about this fire, but the possible future and continual deforestation that has occurred in recent years.

_JNavs_ wrote:Tegus are considered an invasive species over in Florida, but if their native population decreases massively from this issue in Brazil, will we continue to wipe them out of Florida? Or could they be rehomed?

If they're actively detrimental to the native animal population there, yes. They'd need to go somewhere else. Maybe a little Tegu house.

The reason invasive species are called such is because they disrupt the balance of an area's ecosystem. Unfortunately, any and all displaced species from the Amazon can then be considered invasive unless and until the other ecosystems stabilize with their presence. Which can also mean the death or displacement of the most closely related (by function) species that the "invading" species competes with.

A lot of times they're "bad" cause they're in an environment or ecosystem that evolved without them in mind. There are exceptions, I've found a short fun video talking about it.



Long story short, there is so many moving pieces we don't really know how a species will effect an ecosystem it's not native to. It's pretty complex when you have literally millions of different types of living organisms.

It seems like competition for limited food stuff and lack of natural predators are the biggest qualities - at least from a Layman perspective - that makes a species invasive in the detrimental sense.

According to an article in the New York Times, the Amazon fires are actually normal and a yearly occurrence. There’s only outrage now because the Brazilian president is someone The Left(TM) doesn’t like.

I’m not saying it’s not still bad. I hate that strawman that comes up every time someone points out something that’s been going on for years. Of course I want the fires and deforestation to stop. I’m just saying we could have paid this much attention decades ago, but for some reason (probably political tribe related), we didn’t.

Yeah, when the article notes that this is the highest level of fires since 2016, you definitely realize that this is one of those things the 24-hour news cycle seems to be blowing a bit out of proportion. As you said, not not bad. But not quite as dire or 'sudden, unique appocalypse' as it has been framed, either.

Zarm wrote:Yeah, when the article notes that this is the highest level of fires since 2016, you definitely realize that this is one of those things the 24-hour news cycle seems to be blowing a bit out of proportion. As you said, not not bad. But not quite as dire or 'sudden, unique appocalypse' as it has been framed, either.

I don’t see how any of that is being blown out of promotion. The reference to 2016 is noting that there is a continual trend of deforestation and fires that hasn’t been stopped.

It’s like saying,”2017 was the hottest year on record” and then the news reporting “2019 was”. That shows a trend of things getting worse.

And yeah, fires happen in forests, but this is clearly also happening due to humans burning and cutting down trees in order to make room for farm land. And yes, I’m recorded industrial history, the Amazon’s land has been harvested.

LSD Jellyfish wrote: It’s like saying,”2017 was the hottest year on record” and then the news reporting “2019 was”. That shows a trend of things getting worse.

For some reason there are people who will see that exact thing and think "Yeah, this is fine".

Because essentially, this is being broadly treated as 'the entire amazon is one fire from raging forest fires for weeks, a sudden and unprecedented disaster.' Which is a bit disingenuous. If this were being reported as 'once again, this annual event is a bad thing and should be stopped,' that's one thing. But the general treatment of 'this is a sudden, unprecedented event,' and even in some cases, 'this is caused by climate change, which leaves the forest ripe for burning', is disingenuous or even outright lying. It's taking a bad thing- but presenting it as something else, a singular and completely environmental-based, out-of-control event caused by [whatever individual article blames for the entire forest being on fire], rather than an annual (although detrimental) intentional human practice.

Again, that's not to diminish the badness of what's going on; just recognizing that the way it's been reported has been... fast and loose with the facts to create a very different impression than what's actually going on.

Whatever the issues with deforestation are- and I'm not saying there aren't any- this is being reported as 'Ah, the rain forest is uncontrollably on fire; what's happening to our environment? What's happening to our planet???' And that's not it. It's like the new breaking "Sudden mass gathering of white males with guns in Toledo!" And then a week later, it turns out that the reporter was actually just at annual NRA show. It's not that a thing didn't happen, it's the way it was being reported to sound like something else that's being criticized as disingenuous.

Zarm wrote:Because essentially, this is being broadly treated as 'the entire amazon is one fire from raging forest fires for weeks, a sudden and unprecedented disaster.' Which is a bit disingenuous. If this were being reported as 'once again, this annual event is a bad thing and should be stopped,' that's one thing. But the general treatment of 'this is a sudden, unprecedented event,' and even in some cases, 'this is caused by climate change, which leaves the forest ripe for burning', is disingenuous or even outright lying. It's taking a bad thing- but presenting it as something else, a singular and completely environmental-based, out-of-control event caused by [whatever individual article blames for the entire forest being on fire], rather than an annual (although detrimental) intentional human practice.

Again, that's not to diminish the badness of what's going on; just recognizing that the way it's been reported has been... fast and loose with the facts to create a very different impression than what's actually going on.

Wow! People are actually caring! What a bad thing!


Sure, the news is making it a big issue now, but better later then never. This shit was wildly talked about in environmental classes I took in college. Sure it’s “being blown up now” but that doesn’t invalidate the issue.

This is the type of thinking where just becausebthe news obviously exploits it, people suddenly think it’s a big lie.

Yeah no, in no way has this situation been blown out of proportion. It's finally getting some of the attention it deserves, people are being blamed and groups are being exposed, the Amazon needed this for decades. Hopefully this is something that is heavily funded and fixed with time.


I think the UN taking over the forest would be best. Maybe aim for this to be our first "Nature Preserve" on a massive scale.

That's not what I'm saying or have said. What I'm saying is, it was being reported in a dishonest manner to make it sound as if something different was going on than what actually was- as per the paragraph I added in to the end of the last post.

Deforestation is not what this was being reported as; 'spontaneous mass fire due to environmental damage' is what it was being reported as. And that simply isn't what was happening. That's the problem- not that there is suddenly no issue, but that the report was being sensationalized and misdirected to serve an agenda rather than honestly reporting what was actually happening from the get-go. That's the issue; that's the criticism; the *way* it was reported.

The news like to sensationalize things. Not downplaying it, but if a meteor was headed towards Earth that would burn up and pose no threat they would say it can and will just to get more clicks only to later "apologize" and retract that statement once it burns up.

LSD Jellyfish wrote: Wow! People are actually caring! What a bad thing!

Yeah, this "People only care now because reasons XY and Z" doesn't make much sense to me. Like yeah... people suddenly care about something when it's brought to their attention. If your friend installed a burglar alarm you wouldn't be like "Psssh, you're only doing that because the house next to you was robbed. You're playing into Big Home Security's hands!" That kind of talk doesn't really accomplish much other than communicating to others "I like use to whatever the current news story is as a platform to voice my distaste for the opposition for the 500th time".

If there's disingenuous reports, the reports are to blame. Not the people who see it and think "Wow, that's bad!"

Meh, I'm with Zarm on this one.

The Amazon burns every year not new news.

Considering how there are multiple major news articles attributing these fires to increased deforestation, I fail to see how news media is being "dishonest". Sensationalized? Perhaps, depending on how you read it. Dishonest? I don't think so.