This ain't it chief. The old growth european forests were destroyed centuries ago. That doesn't mean that we should accept Brazil destroying one of the worlds remaining old-growth forests.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Never said anything about that. But the focus is always on the poor colonised countries to protect their nature and not develop. While Europe destroyed its forests and much of the forests of the world through centuries of colonialism.

What about this. If the developed world wants the Amazon and other rainforests to stay intact, why don’t they pay Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia etc.?

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Payment implies a capitalist world order, which would be impossible if we lived in a world where natural resources are given non-extraction value. So rich countries paying poorer countries for environmental purposes is already a nonsense premise. In a different socialist world, maybe that could work in some way. Regardless of how you want to frame it, deforestation should be opposed in all ways, including state-sponsored violence.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would payment imply capitalism? Pay in resources idk, who cares. Europe is rich because of the material wealth from South America, Africa and Asia.

For Brazil to forgo exploiting its material wealth, it has to be compensated.

Or it will forever exist in a subservient and underdeveloped state.

That’s just pure logic, I’m not sure what is wrong with what I said.