Is there logic in this picture /pol/?
Yes. Faulty logic, but logic nonetheless.
>>71953230
Maybe forests should buy a gun or two.
>>71953319
Can be faulty, but ultimately civilization is a very young concept in human history alone.
>>71953230
>destroyed forests
It's been like that since the dawn of man. It's called slash and burn. The tribes did it back then and caused global warming.
>>71953230
No, the entire shock of the info graph is based on the assumption that 50% of the worlds forrests took 4.6 billion years to grow. Not "5-30 secconds"
No. Circulating CO2 back into the atmosphere saved plant life. CO2 levels were at an all-time low until the industrial revolution.
Pic unrelated.
>>71953573
/thread
>>71953230
>posting antihumanist propaganda
>ever
All we are destroying is ourselves. Life adapts, there will be animals long after we're gone.
>forests have been on the earth since its creation
>>71953230
Every statement in that infographic is non-sequitur.
>>71953230
Yes but it is also pointless. The reason why we didn't cut down the forests earlier is because we didn't exist yet. It is a pointless fact that the earth has been around for billions of years and we chopped down some forest in a relatively much smaller amount of time. It still took a lot of time for that to happen and the fact that the earth has been around much longer makes no difference.
>>71953230
Forests were created 12 hours ago.
>Capachita: Trees
>>71953230
No, not at all.
>>71953503
This.
Technological progress always costs some environmental value up front but profits in otherwise inaccessible protection of environmental value.
The same processes that screwed up Lake Erie also enabled people to clean it up.
>>71953733
>>71953230
I'm in favour of the preservation of forests, but this type of argument doesn't appeal to me because it tries to minimise humanity
>>71953230
Technological singularity is behind this picture. No point in using linear scale.
>>71953230
Yay, now I run faster than the speed of light.
>>71953230
Uhh no, its all hyperbole.
4.6 billion year IF its that old, i know we cant give the exact age only probability. To simple say destroyed 50% of the forest in the world and imply its irreversible.
Is beyond rational thinking.
Because the US alone
>According to the United States Forest Service, approximately 751 million acres across the United States are classified as forest land. Upwards of two-thirds of this land - 514 million acres - is also considered timber land. Over the past 60 years, timber volume increased by about 50 percent as forest growth exceeded timber harvests.
I believe Canada forest is crazy expanding too.
Most of these so called experts, look at Indonesia as their only source.
>>71953230
those numbers are misleading, but they raise a good point. We need to protect our forests. That's why Bhutan is so based.
>>71953230
Maybe in Africa....
I read somewhere that the USA has way more trees now that before the colonial age due to large scale "reforestation".
>>71953230
>"we"
>destroyed forests
>forgets that we also grow forests
If they want me to listen and care they need to learn to not lie and be manipulative first.
no we havent
>>71953230
All of sub-Saharan Africa and the northern half of South America should be depopulated of humans by way of sterilization of the natives. There, I just solved deforestation and overpopulation. Where's my medal?
>>71953733
this
>>71954250
If you've read Pentti Linkola, you'd realise it's a problem in white countries too
>>71953230
Yes, industry, high speed travel and so on are all degenerate.
>>71953230
That's stupid because if we were to stop cutting down forests right now, than they would all have grown back in 100 years.
>>71953230
Liked & shared!!
>>71953230
We've destroyed all the trees simply so the white cucks in power have a place to escape to once their homes become overpopulated with shitskins who I might add, the whites keep pushing to breed.
Can you spot the irony.
>destroyed 50% of the world forests
no we haven't
>>71954323
Fuck off roach
>earth before humans
>retarded planet with life, somewhat special
>earth after humans
>planet with intelligent life, perhaps one of the few in the universe. Extremely unique, and its inhabitants have managed to travel outside it
>oh some forests got burned down though, this means we are so shit and we are le hurting this planet :((((
People who spam this kind of shit are never above 18
>>71953230
wasn't the first plant life only extant about 450 million years ago?
Forests only happened ~419 million years ago, and they weren't even proper trees until the mid devonian period.
>>71953230
> using items that would never have existed without the industrial revolution to bitch about the industrial revolution and humanity
Seems.... Ironic? Contradictory?
>>71954713
If humans were so intelligent they wouldn't be destroying the very things that keep them alive.
>b-but muh GMOs and fake food
Fuck off and die.
Even if we destroy 98% of world forests, it still will be very insignificant for planet and they will be restored one way or another
>>71954712
kek
who is that guy for real
>>71954797
>they will be restored
Just like Jesus and the dinosaurs.
Oh wait.
>>71953230
No, because there's actually more trees in the US now than when it was colonized. It turns out the Indians who were supposed to be all attune with nature and shit really enjoyed burning the forests down, and ebil whitey came along and had to return the land to its original ecology, just like we had to in Australia.
I'm increasingly convinced non-whites aren't human, and the only non-whites that are human typically have some manner of white genes in them already.
>>71954979
Abbos not only hunted almost all large mammals to extinction in Australia, they also burnt down most of its forests. Check out southern australia, it has an actual rainforest.
>>71954791
Pray tell, explain to me how GMO's are bad besides le ebil corporations make money off of them. Cause I've never heard anything beyond conjecture.
>>71955142
No, fuck you. Go make yet another GMO thread so other people can throw the facts at you.
>>71953230
kill all 3rd worlders in pre industrial countries. problem solved.
>>71955250
>trust me, they're bad! Educate yourself!
Do you have problem hair?
>>71954862
KOKSAL BABA
O
K
S
A
L
>>71955567
lol ty
>>71953230
>Is there logic in this picture /pol/?
nice ball you have here m8
>>71955105
It's also basically a crime to say what you just said whilst in Australia. You're not allowed to detract from the narrative white people beez bad for Mother Earf, even though we have saved numerous continents from other poisonous races, and we're being called out to do it over and over, again and again. Although, I do get a good chuckle every now and then when NatGeo plays some show depicting abbos as noble wanderers while they walk through an arid and void landscape. It's like yeah, you pommy fucker, that dark-skinned goblin's ancestors turned the forests INTO that...
I mean look at these things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBIubgsfK8E
They clearly look like the type that might give multiple shits about trees. It's great.
>>71953733
>since its creation
>creation
>>71956505
formation, creation, its semantics dude.
>>71953230
After all this time the forests haven't built a successful society. If they did then they would have trampled humans.
Serves them right to be destroyed.
>>71957253
t. shitskin
No white man hates nature
>>71956505
>oy vey goyim you know God doesn't real
Go away shlomo
>>71956505
nah m8, earth comes from nothingness
one day, for no apparent reason that nothingness decided it was time to explode and produce matter from nothing.
That matter then decided to stick together for no apparent reason and thanks to friction with the invisible gravity force, those blobs of matter took the shape of balls and gave birth to the spaceballs.Yes that's how dumb you really are.
Obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVPUFMwm73Y
The Industrial Revolution can probably best be compared to the Bronze Age: Sure nature took a hit for our benefit, but the damage was (in civilized White countries at least) temporary. The biggest ecological problem today is shitty, uplifted stone-age peoples with slash and burn mentalities stuck at a pre-industrial/early industrial level.
Decolonization was a stupid idea.
>>71957444
I'm a white male and know my true place in the hierarchy of nature as THE apex predator.
>>71953230
The universe has only existed for 4.4 billion years.
Who is the fucking moron that wrote this.
>>71958612
Shit, nevermind.
Something like 14 billion years. I have crap memory, sorry.
>>71957720
That is not how the Big Bang works ahmed
>>71953230
Look the libkeks are wrong on social issues, but climate science is actually real. If you don't agree you don't know anything about science or statistics.
Global warming exists. And we're the cause of it.
But why should we care? What obligation do we have for future """"children""" to take away what is ours? We don't owe them shit.
Let us eat our fill now and by the time our dinner is done, we'll be gone.
>>71953319
But it's not faulty faggot.
>>71953230
The US has more forests today than it did 100 years ago.
>>71959171
>modern day boomer
>>71958873
Im-fucking-plying.
Besides the fact the "97% concensus" thing is a load of bullcrap denoted from one bullshit study in Australia that was so flawed you would think a 2nd grader designed it, global warming and the huge release of carbon has actually been POSITIVE for the environment, because before we came along there was so little carbon in the atmosphere we almost reached the point that plant growth halted.
And this is not even touching the incredibly painful effects libtards have on developing countries whenever they try to ban coal, which is a hugely important source of fuel.
Ooooh, or another libtard environment issue, lets look at DDT, which to this day is completely safe, has no effect on fucking bald eagles or their eggs, and was wiping out malaria so well it was basically a fucking miracle. But now we banned it and forced everyone else to ban it or we wont trade with them.
No, Liberals are even more wrong on the environment than they are on fucking social issues or economics.
>>71960565
I was with you until DDT
I've seen tons of people from the fields suffer leukemia, aplastic anemia and different kinds of cancer from being sprayed with DDT over here.
>t. medfag
>>71961536
Can you provide a citation that DDT causes any of those?
>>71959966
Forester here. That's true, but the quality of tree in our modern woods doesn't even hold a candle to the old forests.
>>71953230
What about the Permian-Triassic extinction or the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction?
>>71961614
Aplastic anemia is a rather common symptom of prolonged exposure mate.
Here have a source :http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+50-29-3
>>71961536
The chemicals they replaced DDT with will do that too.
You're not supposed to stand in the fields when they spray pesticides. But wetbacks are cheap and easily replaceable.
>>71953230
Forests in norway is growing back btw.
Just need to improve food production, thats all.
>>71960565
Banning DDT was a great idea. That alone has killed tens of millions of niggers.
>>71961614
I've read it before on books + seen it on hospitals but i can quickly link you to some shit from google.
http://www.medicineandillness.com/AplasticAnaemia.htm
http://www.cancernetwork.com/articles/ddt-appears-activate-human-estrogen-receptors
Aplastic anemia eventually leads to leukemia and it is deadly on its own too.
You basically stop producing all kinds of blood cells, both red and white cells and you die if left untreated and in some cases even when you treat it properly.
time doesn't exist, therefore, i win
>>71957942
You're fat slob with mediocre intelligence. Now go hunt some comfort food from a local market Mr Predator.
