Amazon.com Widgets

Is the cost of preserving the rain forest worth the benefits?

  • Its Very Important To Everyone

    This issue first started in the 1970's and when people heard the ranchers, the settlers, and the government leaders started coming in and destroying the trees. The Amazon Rain forest used to cover 14% of the earths surface now only 6% is remaining. The Amazon Rain forest gives the world 20% of its oxygen and if we destroy it then global warming will increase and think of all the animals living it the forest. So I say SAVE THE AMAZON RAINFOREST.

  • Yes because it's important for our survival

    Without the Amazon rain forest we will be using up lots of resources causing holes in the o zone layer so we will cause the polar ice caps to melt and more water then we will have more natural disasters.
    SO that is why I think we should save the Amazon rain forest and its important for our survival

  • Let's keep the part we haven't destroyed, shall we?

    If we took the 8 TRILLION dollars we have spent on military funding since 9/11 and instead put it to good use, we could have practically regrown the forest. When it comes down to it, the earth is all we have, and all the animals have, and all the plants have. It's not fair for a couple of egotistical jerks to destroy it for the rest of us.

  • Once they're gone, they're gone.

    I think we need to be more careful about cutting down or clearing out large areas of forests because people in the future may need some of the things they provide but if they’re gone, they’re gone. You can’t just get the rainforests back. They can be managed differently than just clearing them out and killing species.

  • The Rainforets will help curb global warming

    Well basically, it reduces CO2 emissions drastically, as well as preserving all the wildlife and plants that the rainforest is rich in
    Deforestation accounts for 20% of CO2 emissions so if we can reduce/ideally prevent it altogether then the growing number of people on the planet will be able to be supported by the number of trees that emit oxygen.

  • We must think about the oxygen

    The rainforest acts as the lungs of our Earth. Without those millions of trees our earth's air would soon become so full of carbon dioxide that we will pretty much not be able to breathe! The rainforest provides us with about 20% of the earths air as well as holding most of the animal life and medicine that may help us cure diseases.

  • Rain forests are useful to all.

    All the trees in the rainforest helps prevent soil erosion and help produce more oxygen. If there were no trees and other plants to hold in the soil it could cause devastating effects. Like : landslides, heavy flooding, drought, etc.. Plus if there were insufficient amount of oxygen produced from alot of these plants and trees then there would be no production of food that benefits a lot of different species around us. Not only land animals but as well as the ones in the water, who gets a lot of their oxygen consumption through the oxygen thats coming from the air thats diffusing into the water. Another point , is the sun as well. If balance of plants and animals in the rainforest is disturbed, there would be no shade to protect a lot of these animals and no where for sunlight to go, to perhaps start photosynthesis in plants and then produce food. And all these factors overall at the end of the process will affect humans in so many ways, even though it doesnt affect us primarily, it all starts with the living things that are present in those community, and in the long run us humans.

    Posted by: azr
  • Rain forests are useful

    All the trees in the rainforest helps prevent soil erosion and help produce more oxygen. If there were no trees and other plants to hold in the soil it could cause devastating effects. Like : landslides, heavy flooding, drought, etc.. Plus if there were insufficient amount of oxygen produced from alot of these plants and trees then there would be no production of food that benefits a lot of different species around us. Not only land animals but as well as the ones in the water, who gets a lot of their oxygen consumption through the oxygen thats coming from the air thats diffusing into the water. Another point , is the sun as well. If balance of plants and animals in the rainforest is disturbed, there would be no shade to protect a lot of these animals and no where for sunlight to go, to perhaps start photosynthesis in plants and then produce food. And all these factors overall at the end of the process will affect humans in so many ways, even though it doesnt affect us primarily, it all starts with the living things that are present in those community. So, I strongly agree that the cost of preserving the rainforest is worth the benefits.

  • We need rainforests

    If the rainforests trees are all cut down, most likely the animals there would die, as well as the plants we could use for cures for disease in the future. So rain forests are essential for us humans living!! Also, if we don't have rain forests, the most exotic place on earth, people around there will not be able to receive money out of tourism, or fruits which can only be grown in that temp., climate.

  • Yes it is,

    It is worth it; we depend on the rainforest for cleaning our air. We have developed many medicines and 70% of the ingredients of cancer-fighting treatments are derived from plants in the rainforest. The Amazon rainforest also is the largest as well as the most species-rich place on the Earth. It has more ant species in a single tree than the entire UK as well as it having more fish species than the oceans and it having more species in a square kilometer than we have in all of the United States.

  • The preservation of rain forests is the last thing we should be concerned with.

    To clear things up, most of the Earth's oxygen supply comes from the phytoplankton and cyanobacteria in the ocean, not the rain forest. Furthermore, if one is against the deforestation of the rain forest then why isn't one concerned with antibacterial medicines? Bacteria are infinitely more important to an ecosystem than plants and yet nobody is complaining about them. Just because there is no more rain forest absolutely does not mean no more ecosystem, it will simply mean a different ecosystem. Are there complaints that the Sahara Desert doesn't have enough trees? Or the North Pole has too much snow? There are different kinds of ecosystems and preferring one over the other makes zero sense. The vast diversity of the rain forest is no excuse to prevent deforestation, over 99% of all previously living species are now extinct and yet nobody is crying about them. People are way too biased for things they can see, everyone is going crazy for polar bears but nobody cares about the bacteria, no one species should be of more concern than another.

  • The question did not specify what the cost of preserving the rain forest would be or what the benefits would be.

    Preserving the rain forests is a good objective. But one must measure the costs of doing so versus the benefits. For example, if the cost of all of the current rain forests exceeded the total gross national product of the world for the next 100 years, then alternatives must be explored that save a portion of the rain forests (or save them in some altered state) at a much lower cost.

    Posted by: BooBristle
  • The rain forest is doing fine and pushing people out in the name of helping it further will eventually hurt.

    The rate of deforestation listed for the rain forest, if accurate, would have meant that the entire Amazon was deforested by 2005 - which it is not. In many abandoned farms, the rain forest is growing back. While it is necessary to limit destructive activity like slash and burn farming, this does not preclude pushing all hunters and gatherers, sustainable logging, and tourists out. Quite the opposite. If people are pushed out of the existing forest and then even further in a growing no-humans allowed zone, hungry and unemployed locals will come to despise all conservation efforts and begin to actively subvert them. If sustainability allows economic activity within the rainforest, the land will hold value and be protected. Unfortunately, most "preserve the forest" movements call for rich Westerners to buy the land and kick out locals. This hurts both local people in the short term and the environmental movement as a whole by showing it to not care about the plight of humans (via the poor). Preserving the rain forest requires active management, not an idealized platform.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • It is ice

    Fdfgsfhsuwgkdgncvncvhgdk ufwinwifbgerufwedjffwhgdjhkjsdnkjbbhcgeyrhuedwhcghsdnbcjhnvdfbvdsxghhujcxkjvblgh,mfndbvxgcyu yuibnkghtrrje,nwhmbsnvfsxgzc yuicvklfgrmfenewbsgshyucivvoblogtrkejschvcuibvlkghgfrjjedhsgyu bt tg 6t 6 tt b 6b b 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 66 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 66 h b y b tv fttr gt g rv gvt f vg dvdfvser ewft hb b srf vgf fh mkmjbvc

  • It is ice

    Fdfgsfhsuwgkdgncvncvhgdk ufwinwifbgerufwedjffwhgdjhkjsdnkjbbhcgeyrhuedwhcghsdnbcjhnvdfbvdsxghhujcxkjvblgh,mfndbvxgcyu yuibnkghtrrje,nwhmbsnvfsxgzc yuicvklfgrmfenewbsgshyucivvoblogtrkejschvcuibvlkghgfrjjedhsgyu bt tg 6t 6 tt b 6b b 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 66 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 66 h b y b tv fttr gt g rv gvt f vg dvdfvser ewft hb b srf vgf fh mkmjbvc

  • No no no

    No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

  • Boo sucks stfu

    Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooo k k k k k k k kk k k k k k k k k k k m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

  • The preservation of rain forests should not be of primordial concern.

    To clear things up, most of the Earth's oxygen supply comes from the phytoplankton and cyanobacteria in the ocean, not the rain forest. Furthermore, if one is against the deforestation of the rain forest then why isn't one concerned with antibacterial medicines? Bacteria are infinitely more important to an ecosystem than plants and yet nobody is complaining about them. Just because there is no more rain forest absolutely does not mean no more ecosystem, it will simply mean a different ecosystem. Are there complaints that the Sahara Desert doesn't have enough trees? Or the North Pole has too much snow? There are different kinds of ecosystems and preferring one over the other makes zero sense. The vast diversity of the rain forest is no excuse to prevent deforestation, over 99% of all previously living species are now extinct and yet nobody is crying about them. People are way too biased for things they can see, everyone is going crazy for polar bears but nobody cares about the bacteria, no one species should be of more concern than another.

  • Rainforests should be oiled

    Thsi would provide furtures for the people that live in the rainforest. If the rainforest are cut down it would not effect the world. The companies would also make roads for the people to use, they would also make bigger and better homes or houses to live in. this would help the people by giving them more way to get into town.

  • The non-benefits of presserving the rainforest are

    As the team ahs demostrated so far their are benefits opf not preserving the rainforest are it will be destroed in less then fifty years because the companyies would get better and also get better lawers. There is also the people living in the rainforest may want cars to get out to where they live.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.