all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

Huh losers. Deforestation is an indicator of a growing economy. China is collapsing

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 52 points 8 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 48 points 8 months ago

    Better to chop them all down and make half of it a golf course and the other half an AI data center.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 8 months ago

    Altering the climate in any way except through recreational tire fires is communism! frothingfash

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Removing those trees in the first place changed the water cycle too.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Ah, but how long was it grassland? Humans have been changing the landscape for tens of thousands of years, on top of major climate changes before and during that. Much of what we call "natural" or "wild" was/is actually curated and lived in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    The point is that this land was not immutably grassland historically, and so the prior point re: its prior state is not inherently valid. The only question is how long it was the case, if that's what we are meant to care about.

    I haven't said anything about whether it's strategically better in this case, that's just a category error re: your reply. I am highlighting that one should avoid the (often settler naturalistic fallacy mindset) that the right thing is what it "used to be", where "used to be" tends to be a somewhat mythological description of the place 50 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    So is the assumption I was responding to, which assumed that there were trees there to cut down in the first place.

    Both the comment you responded to and the comment you made had that kind of assumption. And I'm not replying to what they said...

    I wasn't making any normative claims about what the land should be, just pointing out that this process appears to have been afforestation of an area that, prior to this intervention, was grassland, and so the implicit assumption in the original comment that the local water cycle had already been perturbed may be wrong.

    I don't think that's what you communicated, actually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago

    At what cost???

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 8 months ago

    Riiiiight, because desertification never dries out anything.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    China could find the cure for cancer and Westerners would still find a way to call Xi Jinping evil because of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago

    Unlike me, I just cut down all the trees. That surely has no consequences whatsoever he he he he

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago*

    You know even if there was an underlying adverse ecological impact, the cool thing about planting too many trees is you can just cut them down again WAYYY easier than if you needed to plant another forest.

    I know which problem I'd rather have is all I'm saying.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (4 children)
    [–] 17 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    The water changed place, what an irremediable tragedy, everybody knows there's no way to transport water

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    This is a little bit simplistic, local hydrology could change, like rainfall patterns or the presence/absence of water courses and aquifers. Rainfall in an environment can't really be replaced by transported water. For some areas it could result in habitat loss or change and species loss or change. For agriculture yes it could possibly be piped in but this still requires building sufficient infrastructure to replace the loss of flows, and in the meantime some people may no longer be able to earn an income/work the land. This is not to say that I don't broadly support afforestation and reforestation efforts, but to say that it's just water moving from one place to another is missing the river for the trees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago

    geordi-no using water for trees to capture carbon and create natural habitats for wildlife

    geordi-yes using water for cooling AI data centers because air conditioning costs a lil more

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago

    who will stand up to the sino-conifer menace?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago

    i will not be breathing the chinese air. i’ll accept chinese plastics in my blood stream if american corporations profit off it but how are they gonna make any money off some trees in china that aren’t even being planted just to be harvested like all the trees in america are?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago

    Think of all the Pokémon cards those could become

  • source
  • [+] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
    [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    oh no, ebil seeseepee caught planting too much trees xigma-male

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    The Chinese are raising an army of communist ents to wage war against the west. This is why we should launch a pre-emptive invasion and firebombing campaign.

  • source