What are some reasons NOT to save the rainforest and the land?

Question

I have to debate this in class. . . it's not what i believe at all but i got stuck with it. . .and i need help! Like, is global warming just a myth, is it ok to hunt, is using up land ok for the sake of people? again this is NOT what i believe it's just for a debate! thanks!

Answer 1

There's a difference between Saving and Managing.  

Hording is just as bad as stripping and burning things to the ground.

A lot of the huge US forest fires recently are a result of logging being halted to "Save" the trees. Save them for what?

For the next lightening strike to set it on fire?  Good plan there.

The Rain Forests (whatever happened to the Jungles?) are the same thing.   If proper logging and reforestation practices are used, The materials can be harvested and new growth can be planted in place of the old growth and resource is then sustainable rather than finite.

Answer 2

if u hate life

Answer 3

A reason not to save the land is that, as the planet turns into a huge superheated gassy ball, all humans will die...and since its all of our faults, then I guess its what we deserve

Answer 4

Simple: there are none.

Answer 5

Well, you might argue that the end of time is soon and there would be no reason to make the effort.  I know it is pretty dumb, but it can be used as an argument.

Answer 6

Well I agree with the first response. There are no reasons to not help preserve the rainforst and all of the land and our natural resources. However, I think you can argue that all of Earth is a big cycle. We feed off the land and animals, we need them to survive.

That's a tough one to argue though, it's still all about moderation and putting back into the land what we take out.

Answer 7

The main reason is that you could consider the rainforest to be a resource to be used so if we're no using it, then it's just going to waste.  If you're allowed, you could also take the religious angle that man was given the Earth to use so if we don't use it, then we're insulting God by being ungrateful (like not accepting a gift).  Also, you could argue that the economy and the well being of people is more important than nature.  Don't forget to mention that diseases that are carried by mosquitoes and so on mostly grow in wild areas, not cities and suburbs so you're actually saving lives.

Answer 8

there aren't any good ones...but you can say that people need a place to live in and as the population expands and as communities get crowded and as schools get overpopulated, the only reasonable solution is to cut down some of those forests and build new communities and new whatever. State it don't give it as an option.

Answer 9

I got this from a book on Global Warming and Nature... I don't want to forger the words, so this is in my own words very similar to the text...

Glabal Warming is a crisis where two sides of the scientists are still trying to prove. There for a great population from Japan and China, disagree and say that we American's are over looking the possibilities. Then Europe and the rest of Assia are sill arguing could it be. One side of the world see that Global Warming is a myth, while the other is trying to prove it, instead of actually fighting the crisis.

This is from the Nature section

There has been many confusion if there isn't or if there is a great debate going around mother nature. Some say, there isn't much to prove except the icecaps melting. There fore, some are wondering of the future of Earth, and if there is a danger, who will be the first vicims of Global Warming?

Ok, this is more to the point about rain forests...

The +'s of having rainforests

+ The leaves of trees in the rainforest is about 25% of our fresh oxygen supply.

+ Home to the animals ++ some animals there are for amusement of what we have in the zoo, some helpfull supply of food & clothing (back in the time as if N.A.)

+ Garbage dump land, unsatisfying with the land covered with a lot of rains, which will uncover the garbage dump.

Negatives -

- The land supply of the major rain forests is keeping the land from the cities exposing for bigger population, bigger land to use

There is more, but I am too tiered to type it all up. This like wrapped up of what says in the book.

Answer 10

One argument that you could raise is the fact that the land from the rain forests could be used to produce crops as much of the land that comes from the rain forest is used for.

These crops of course would go to feed those who are hungry which are located in the poorer parts of the world.  

You can expand on that, as there are many more uses for the land than to grow crops. You have to remember that the people who live around the rain forest dont have a need for the trees, so it is cheaper for them to burn the trees and to clear the land in order to raise cattle or grow foods.

Another B*S* reason you could give, is to prevent forest fires! Or to get rid of all those pesky mosquitoes!

lol but thats just a joke.

Good luck, and use your imagination!

Answer 11

Because people who live in and near the rainforest need to eat, cook their food, and support their family.   Reseach why the rainforest is being cut down right now - for farming? for firewood?  If you tell people that they can't cut down the rainforest, then where are they supposed to farm?   To cook their food?  Or sterilize their water?

Becausing saving the rainforest is expensive.  You can outlaw deforestation, but who is going to pay for patrols, for prosecution, for incarceration of people caught cutting down trees?  

Because governments have the right to self-govern.  If the governments of countries that have rainforests don't want to protect the forests, then who will step in and "set them straight"?   Are we willing to go to war over trees?  Over environmental policy?   Who has the authority to decide what happens to the forests, if not the owners of the forests themselves?

Again, this is not what I believe.  It's just for a debate. :)

Good luck.