
We, the peoples of the Amazon, are full of fear. Soon you will be too - laurex
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/02/amazon-destruction-earth-brazilian-kayapo-people
======
trabant00
Reading this from Eastern Europe the "you" in: "You destroy our lands" "that
common enemy is you" "We call on you to stop what you are doing" "When your
money comes into our communities" etc sound very wrong. I imagine it also
sounds weird for people in America who have no connections with what happens
in the Amazon.

~~~
propater
I am always a bit baffled when, after decades of living in a globalized
economy, people who are part of advanced economies claim they have no
connections to events, driven by economics, occurring on the other side of the
world.

If you eat meat regularly, you are connected to Brazil's deforestation, either
for cattle or for soy feed. If you have invested in the stock market, you are
most likely connected to the international flow of capital, which is also
driving said deforestation.

Even if you are not doing any of that, you are still connected because you
live in the middle of a society that reaps economic and material benefits from
the structures that ultimately incentivise said deforestation.

~~~
lagadu
I guess I am your boogeyman: I eat meat regularly, have investments, grew up
and live in the middle of a western society.

By default I'm inclined to stop doing exactly zero of those, and by saying
"you're at fault no matter what you do or don't do" you've just removed the
sole remaining incentive for me to stop doing it: being able to say "it's not
my fault". If I'm to blame no matter what I do, I might as well enjoy it and
let the other suckers do the sacrifices for no gain that I'm unwilling to
make, completely guilt-free.

~~~
sls
Tbh it sounds like you're guilt-free either way. You're saying that it doesn't
matter at all to you when your actions harm others. You would like to be able
to say they didn't, but don't feel guilty if they do. Also fwiw as many people
who have tried it will tell you, there is a gain in acting selflessly, and
it's better than the gain from acting selfishly. The idea that altruism is for
suckers is actually harmful to your self-interest.

~~~
lagadu
Human behavior is economic behavior, which is a fancy way of saying "people do
things because there's a perceived benefit to doing so". Altruistic behavior
usually carries at least a social benefit, besides the "I did good" feeling
which is also a personal benefit. Blaming someone for something outside their
control and saying that they're always to blame no matter what nullifies both
of those incentives: you stop reaping their rewards.

This is a good example: if you're still shamed despite altruistic behavior,
why would I possibly keep making sacrifices that I gain nothing for (including
feeling good about having done them) when I can go back to my VASTLY more
rewarding hedonistic lifestyle?

If you put someone in a situation where they're supposed to feel shame no
matter what, they're going to become 100% insensitive to it in record time. In
other words: yes, I am guilt-free because there's no other possible state
under this framework of inescapable blame.

~~~
propater
I think you are too focused on the individual. Reducing your personal meat
consumption, your personal emissions and so on is nice and all but it is not
going to be enough. You are also embedded in a number of social structures and
institutions and those will have to change too if we want to be able to claim
to be "guilt free" and those changes require personal involvement.

~~~
Fjolsvith
Individuals tend to focus on the individual. Trying to change everyone's
routine is like trying to push water upstream. You'd be better served by
targeting a message to the Brazilian people that they should protect their
natural resource.

------
CalRobert
The tragic thing is that there's this idea you have to live life as an austere
pioneer hippie to address this. You really don't.

A world of mostly-vegetarian people living in modern, timber (for carbon
sequestration) flats in mixed-use environments, using renewable electricity to
power their heat pumps and AC, traveling primarily via bike, walking, and
public transport, and owning less disposable crap would go a long, long way.

You could hire an EV for a weekend excursion or take a slow, internet-
connected ship to travel for an overseas holiday.

I don't think living that way sounds especially terrible, to be honest.

Also, make 3 months' vacation the minimum. Turn off Slack at 5 PM. We have so
much material crap it's hard to fathom, but many people are horribly starved
of time. If I had more time I know I'd cook more and work in the garden more
instead of ordering takeaway.

A huge amount of human endeavour is spent helping a relatively few rich people
suck a bit more of the Earth before it implodes.

~~~
jamesb93
Not even that far. Primarily vegetarian diets and less driving would make
mountains of difference for the world. As someone who is fairly new to
adulthood I dont really see why we work so much - there just doesn't seem like
there is much to "get". There should ve a greater focus on tending our
environments around us, spending money on experiences and creating art (or
even just having a hobby).

~~~
missosoup
> Primarily vegetarian diets and less driving would make mountains of
> difference for the world.

Changing diets yes. Changing driving habits, not really. Personal use of
passenger vehicles accounts for a tiny fraction of transportation related CO2
emissions. The overwhelming majority comes from cargo ships and associated
logistics.

A typical cargo ship will burn about 30 liters of bunker fuel (far more
polluting than diesel) to travel 1 meter. 15 typical cargo ships emit as much
CO2 as all cars on the planet combined. There are about 15,000 such ships
operating today, with a further 30,000 slightly smaller ones. A single cruise
ship company like Carnival Cruise emits more CO2 than all of Europe's car's
combined.

Even if the entire world converted to zero-emission EVs overnight, it wouldn't
make a meaningful dent in these numbers.

The inconvenient truth is that in order to make a serious dent on
transportation related CO2 emissions, the entire developed world would have to
give up its lavish lifestyle of internationally shipped products and foods.
Sadly a harder sell then 'drive an EV to save the planet lol', so our
governments continue to focus on inconsequential but easily attainable
measures. And that is nothing to say of the fact that cutting down
international shipping is at odds with free market capitalism that's driving
our civilisation.

Fun fact: bulk carrier shipping is so cheap that in Australia, locally caught
fish are shipped to China for processing and freezing and then shipped back
here for retail. The pollution associated with this alone is more than the sum
pollution of all Australian cars.

~~~
tempguy9999
> will burn about 30 liters of bunker fuel.. to travel 1 meter

That's either a typo or a thinko. 30 litres per metre would be 30,000 litres
(a guess; 25 tons?) of bunker per kilometre.

From your own link "These mammoth engines [of the emma maersk] consume approx
16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at sea."

I don't have time to work it out but 30 litres per KM would be _less wrong_
anyway.

~~~
dagw
Poking around I found the numbers 6300 liters pr hour at ~20 knots for optimal
fuel consumption and 13600 liters pr hour at 31 knots at full engines.

That breaks down to 170 liters per km optimally or 237 liters per km at full
engines.

------
hirako2000
We are all full of fears, except those who are blind to the inevitable
consequences of their disconsidered acts against nature.

~~~
onion2k
People are rarely actually blind to the consequences of their actions. Most
people know exactly what they're doing, especially if they're not working
alone.

If someone is doing something you believe is bad it's because they have
prioritised something else (usually, but not always, personal gain).

~~~
cm2187
Not just personal gain. The benefits of industrialisation and capitalism have
been tremendous for people’s quality of life, stability of their food supply,
access to medicine, work hours, work conditions. If it has an impact on the
climate it is regrettable and should be mitigated as possible, but it is still
a major net positive.

~~~
onion2k
_The benefits of industrialisation and capitalism have been tremendous for
people’s quality of life, stability of their food supply, access to medicine,
work hours, work conditions._

While it's true that workers have better and easier lives now than they have
had in the past, I don't believe many early entrepreneurs pushed for
industrialization for the societal benefits. They did it because those changes
made them massive great piles of cash. If your workers are healthier, better
educated, and don't hate going to work so much the business benefits _far_
more than the workers do individually.

Better conditions, health, etc are a side effect of industrialization. They
were never the goal.

When you see HR making out something is a benefit for the workers you can be
fairly sure the management bought in because it will also improve the bottom
line in some measurable way.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I've noticed this is a general bait-and-switch our civilization makes about
the economy, to which we're all exposed since childhood.

As a kid you're led to believe that various careers have value because of nice
benefits to society they create. Maybe you wanted to become a pilot, because
you read that pilots fly planes that carry people and passengers to the places
they need to be, and those pilots get to enjoy being up there with the birds
and all. Then you become a pilot, and you learn that it was all a lie. The
airline doesn't care about people or freight, they care about numbers in a
spreadsheet, and it just so happens they fly planes to make those numbers
grow. As a pilot, you're not enjoying freedom of flying and being with the
birds, you're operating a semi-automated machine according to a checklist, and
do what the airline tells you to do so that their numbers go up. People?
Freight? Them needing to be elsewhere? Nobody cares about that.

One of the saddest discovery in my life was the realization that a similar
thing is the case with all careers. Every thing that's valuable to people,
once it gets scaled up and incorporated into the economy, suddenly loses all
its meaning, and becomes driven primarily by considerations of profit.

I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or bad thing. Maybe it's inevitable.
But I do know that nobody told me as a kid that society uses money and markets
as a proxy for decision making purposes, and we assume that making money is
the best indicator that you're doing good through whatever it is that you're
doing.

------
darepublic
So what should be done? Boycott Brazilian products? Stop eating meat? Stop
eating meat specifically if it comes from Brazil?

~~~
rajlego
Not eating meat is reasonable for people in most first world countries. It
would be harder to boycott Brazilian products though.

------
furioushatter
we gotta stop using palm oil, that's gonna be a challenge but I'm more
conscious now on product that contain it and try to do my part from where I'm
at cause for sure if be volunteering to fight the fire if I was there.

~~~
rnabel
I would recommend reading this article by The Guardian on palm oil:
[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/19/palm-oil-
ingred...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/19/palm-oil-ingredient-
biscuits-shampoo-environmental) (It is also available in podcast form)

From the article:

> Most importantly, it gives the highest yield per acre of any oilseed crop –
> almost five times as much oil per acre as rapeseed, almost six times as much
> as sunflower and more than eight times as much as soybeans. Boycotts of palm
> oil will only lead to its replacement by other crops needing far more
> farmland and likely more deforestation.

~~~
aitchnyu
So what would reduce demand for palm oil from rainforests?

------
nf8nnfufuu
They are right to be full of fear. Their way of living will very likely be
destroyed.

I doubt the rest of the world will even notice much.

However, maybe to protect the Amazonas, the thing to do is to give the
indigenous people guns. Who else is going to prevent deforestation? The
government seems to be unwilling to protect the rain forest. The indigenous
people claim they want to protect it.

Give them guns!

------
cm2187
I am not sure that many Brazilian farmers are reading the Guardian. But if it
can help the editor’s ego...

~~~
Angostura
I'm not sure the Guardian editor is reading you commnent either, so why are
you posting?

The answer is that articles like this may inform other influencers. Such as
those who consume Brazilian products.

