That’s the time scale it took place over, not the time scale it took to take place as I’m aware.
That said, native peoples have also played strong roles in maintaining the ecology of grasslands in e.g. the Great Plains through... fire.
But at the same time, those same natives who propagated breadfruit throughout the Amazon were also present as it transitioned from being partly savannah to full on rainforest again.
A few years ago, I watched a documentary about the making of the movie Fitzcaraldo. One section that made me chuckle was when the narrator said that scientists predict that the Amazon rainforest will be totally gone by the year 2010. Obviously that didn't happen.
I wouldn't feel too hopeless about things just based off of a study whose timescale is roughly the same as cold fusion research. We still had the rainforest in 2010 because people changed their behavior and the rate of deforestation decreased. There's still time to change things.
> scientists predict that the Amazon rainforest will be totally gone by the year 2010. Obviously that didn't happen.
Wouldn't that be natural to expect because of efforts to extend its lifetime?
If this study has a positive effect on policies, etc. I think it'd also be natural to expect that it lives longer than 2064. I interpret 2064 as being the end of its lifetime only if we do absolutely nothing more to prevent it.
Most of us poor millennials/zoomers will probably die way before then, based on the rising living costs and not being able to afford healthcare for easily curable/treatable diseases or health issues.
The only people who will be living by then will be the wealthy, older people and they'll be fine, forest or no forest.
There is something all of us can do to somewhat mitigate the trends, though nothing short of radical measures can halt the overall decline. We can practice minimalism in terms of what we consume. It appears deceptively simple, but the key thing is it can have a huge cascading effect and it is also something each one of us, no matter how busy or jaded, can actually do, even starting today.
This myth of individual action and that we can save the planet if we just don’t let the water run while brushing your teeth is dangerous. It moves all responsibility to the individual and shifts the focus away from politics, corporations and capitalism as the causes of the problem. Minimalism won’t solve the problem, it will only soothe you’re consciousness.
I have to agree. But politics as we know them are insufficient. It requires leadership committed to changing hearts and minds to bring about the culture that the changes require. I don't have high hopes regardless, since our culture now can be summarized as "me, above all else", and that's about as for away from the culture we need as you can get.
Corporations, policy makers and markets are often shaped by public will. Where we do or don’t give money and what we do or don’t express support for as a collective will shape the future. You can’t save the world alone. But working with a community, being an example for others, donating to effective efforts, seeking and speaking truth loudly - this stuff isn’t always just virtue signaling or self soothing. It’s actually the way change gets made over time.
18 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 48.3 ms ] thread† https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/pristine-untou...
> Over thousands of years, native people played a strong role in molding the ecology of this vast wilderness
That said, native peoples have also played strong roles in maintaining the ecology of grasslands in e.g. the Great Plains through... fire.
But at the same time, those same natives who propagated breadfruit throughout the Amazon were also present as it transitioned from being partly savannah to full on rainforest again.
Life’s what you make of it I suppose.
I wouldn't feel too hopeless about things just based off of a study whose timescale is roughly the same as cold fusion research. We still had the rainforest in 2010 because people changed their behavior and the rate of deforestation decreased. There's still time to change things.
Wouldn't that be natural to expect because of efforts to extend its lifetime?
If this study has a positive effect on policies, etc. I think it'd also be natural to expect that it lives longer than 2064. I interpret 2064 as being the end of its lifetime only if we do absolutely nothing more to prevent it.
The only people who will be living by then will be the wealthy, older people and they'll be fine, forest or no forest.
RIP