Willie Smits regrows a rainforest (be warned kids: you'll have to watch a 20-minute presentation)

27 posts

Flag Post

When everyone is optimistic, there’s always some sceptics left at Kongregate. Convincing you would be awesome, but sharing brilliance is more important. I’m excited to link you to a twenty minute presentation of a person who inspires in action and shares his ideas with the world. Restoring an ecosystem with respect for and colaboration of the locals, a step towards saving the world or too good to be true?

Take your time for a fresh presentation from TED.com

 
Flag Post

The world doesn’t need saving.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

 
Flag Post

It’s a nice gesture, but I’m dubious of its effectiveness. Won’t restoring an ecosystem as complex as a rainforest take decades, if not centuries?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by hokage4354:

The world doesn’t need saving.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

Ofcourse humans would be able to survive, but could they still prosper?

 
Flag Post

Amazing how it only took you guys five minutes to watch a twenty-minute presentation.

The world doesn’t need saving.
Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

Interesting viewpoint! Survival of the human race is the most important thing of all, and we shouldn’t even try to make it easier or care about nature at all! Restoring my lack of faith in humanity and starting a true discussion at the same time, that’s the sceptisism I was talking about!

It’s a nice gesture, but I’m dubious of its effectiveness. Won’t restoring an ecosystem as complex as a rainforest take decades, if not centuries?

That’s what I thought, now watch the presentation :-).

 
Flag Post

That’s what I was thinking.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

Possibly. It is equally possible that it would result in the extinction of mankind. If you are aiming for survival, you might want to not take risks.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Searth:

Amazing how it only took you guys five minutes to watch a twenty-minute presentation.

The world doesn’t need saving.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

Interesting viewpoint! Survival of the human race is the most important thing of all, and we shouldn’t even try to make it easier or care about nature at all! Restoring my lack of faith in humanity and starting a true discussion at the same time, that’s the sceptisism I was talking about!

Of course it’s most importantish.

I am more important than it.

So is my enjoyment.

And then human race, cause I’ll prosper from that too.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

That’s what I was thinking.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

Possibly. It is equally possible that it would result in the extinction of mankind. If you are aiming for survival, you might want to not take risks.

How is it equally possible that the destruction of trees would directly result in the extinction of mankind?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkfrogger:
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

That’s what I was thinking.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

Possibly. It is equally possible that it would result in the extinction of mankind. If you are aiming for survival, you might want to not take risks.

How is it equally possible that the destruction of trees would directly result in the extinction of mankind?

Large scale disruption of ecosystems have long term impacts on the environment that can bring ruin to us, either through drastic climate change or through less direct measures.

Example.

 
Flag Post

That’s what I thought, now watch the presentation :-).

Damn, you called my bluff =-P

My flash player isn’t working very well, so watching a twenty minute video will take about an hour. Anyway you could give a quick summary?

 
Flag Post

Maybe it would be nice to have a discussion about the talk instead of whether forests or good deeds are important. Too much discussions derail into that kind of pointless debate.

Aaron:

a quick summary?

By piecing together a complex ecological puzzle, biologist Willie Smits has found a way to re-grow clearcut rainforest in Borneo, saving local orangutans — and creating a thrilling blueprint for restoring fragile ecosystems.

He used a patch of dry land with poor people to start a twenty year project.
Basically he first makes sure forest fires won’t start again, because there are still embers inside the earth. Then they plant fast-growing trees, then slow-growing trees, then they use some lumber from the grown fast-growing trees to get things started, add fungi and more, sugar palm trees, thorns to keep the people seperated from the apes, and after twenty years they have a system where the locals have enough food, where there are hundreds of species, where urangutangs can thrive and where the forest can make clouds again and help fight global warming. To make sure the system keeps working, he establishes a form of democracy where people protect the forest with respect for the law, culture, and the animals. He wants to share his ‘recipe for sustainable reforestation’ or whatever you want to call it with as much people as possible.

I may have made some mistakes, but the idea remains the same.

 
Flag Post

again and help fight global warming.

Why not just get some phytoplankton? They don’t respirate unlike trees.

 
Flag Post

You should ask money to stay out of people’s threads, RMcD.
I changed the topic title.
EDIT: and suddenly everyone fled off.

 
Flag Post

Climate change is resulting in the oceans warming and becoming more acidic, both of which are not good news for phytoplankton.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RMcD:

again and help fight global warming.

Why not just get some phytoplankton? They don’t respirate unlike trees.

Phytoplankton don’t bind the soil together, trap moisture on land, serve as windbreaks for indigenous species, or any of the other countless ways that trees benefit the ecosystems they are present in.

 
Flag Post

The world doesn’t need saving.

Yes it does! Save the cheerleader save the world.

 
Flag Post

Thanks for your thoughts, I think we’re past the discussion about whether the forests need saving now.

Now for part 2: Please take your time to be the first who actually watches the talk, if you have an attention span shorter than 20 minutes just take a pause once in a while. Then, when you’ve seen everything, come back to this thread and post your humble opinion. Because right now most people just give in to the urge of posting immediately, without actually watching the video (unless your flash player or internet doesn’t work or something).

 
Flag Post

I’m trying to find a text version, but I’m not getting anywhere with that.

One quick question. Who is funding this project?

 
Flag Post

Humans don’t have the capacity to destroy Earth, stop worrying.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by hokage4354:

The world doesn’t need saving.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

That’s not true.

Trees produce Oxygen. Unless you thinks humans can survive without oxygen.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kyru:
Originally posted by hokage4354:

The world doesn’t need saving.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

That’s not true.

Trees produce Oxygen.

They aren’t the only things that produce oxygen…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Orzo:

Humans don’t have the capacity to destroy Earth, stop worrying.

Come back and say that again in 50 years ;P.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Orzo:
Originally posted by Kyru:
Originally posted by hokage4354:

The world doesn’t need saving.

Even if all of the world’s trees got cut down, humans would still be able to survive.

That’s not true.

Trees produce Oxygen.

They aren’t the only things that produce oxygen…

No, but they are a vital part of the ecosystem. Producing Oxygen is only one of their benefits. Tree-dwelling mammals, marsupials, and insects would go extinct without their habitat.

But I guess the key word here is survival. What do you mean by survival? Do you mean a meager, meaningless existence on this planet to go with the ego boost of having ripped the world of its resources or living with the comfort that we do now?

 
Flag Post

so i actually watched the video and im speechless i never would have imagined that in 3 yrs so much could change so drastically. it is quite amazing while i may not care a whole lot about the orangutans i think that the idea as a whole is just incredible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by unproductive:

Climate change is resulting in the oceans warming and becoming more acidic, both of which are not good news for phytoplankton.

they are becoming more acidic from carbonic acid which reforestation could curb maybe even reverse and lowering carbon should help start to lower air temperatures which will encourage more ice to develop in the north and south poles which will cause the oceans to get colder of corse if we act now it will still take 50 yrs for results