• Brazil Is Building A Huge Hydroelectric Dam On The Xingu River
    97 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30269771]Well obviously clear cutting a forest or displacing a town to get at it is worse for the environment than a mining operation in the middle of the arctic, and all of the best uranium seems to come from unpopulated and non-vegetated areas anyway.[/QUOTE]Cutting this little patch of forest to provide the country with sustainable electricity for a long time seems like a good investment. The mining industry's impact on the environment isn't just restricted the process of mining. By-products from the mining industries gets discharged into the nature, contaminating ground water, and disturbing the underwater environment, much like water power does. Besides, building these mines in an unpopulated area requires adequate means of transportation. Building a highway for trucks for the sole purpose of transporting the uranium isn't good for the environment either.
Xingu River? Sounds like it's in China.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;30268175]Excuse me as I go to the forest, build a mud hut, fill a bucket of water and kindly inform my landlord and president that I now own the city :downs: Get on with the program, gents.[/QUOTE] Right, as if that's what's happening. These people have been living here peacefully minding their own business for who knows how long. And don't try to bring up the fact that they don't pay any taxes. I really doubt they get [I]any[/I] form of benefit from the taxpayers' money. If anything, it's the president that thinks he owns everything. What gives him the right to march around where people are living and declare that he's going to build a superstructure there. Whether the Indians should be displaced or not is a whole other argument. Your presentation of the issue that they think they 'own' the land they live on is completely wrong.
when i went to the hoover dam, i learned all about how much dams fuck up ecosystems downstream.. but, amazon tributaries are very, very powerful hmm
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;30271456]Cutting this little patch of forest to provide the country with sustainable electricity for a long time seems like a good investment. The mining industry's impact on the environment isn't just restricted the process of mining. By-products from the mining industries gets discharged into the nature, contaminating ground water, and disturbing the underwater environment, much like water power does. Besides, building these mines in an unpopulated area requires adequate means of transportation. Building a highway for trucks for the sole purpose of transporting the uranium isn't good for the environment either.[/QUOTE] But when you build a dam, you're not only destroying the area around the dam for management buildings and water bypass tunnels, but you're also flooding huge areas of land to create a reservoir and destroying possible migration routes for fish and other animals that depend on the river. The flooding will displace or drown whatever is living there and destroy vast tracts of rain forest. This dam will probably cause the endangered zebra plecostomus to become extinct as it dries out and complete destroys it's only natural habitat. That's just one species of the hundreds (estimated around 600) that live [i]only[/i] in the Xingu River that this dam will probably eradicate. Then there's the 14 tribes that live on and depend on this river for food and water. Their food source will die because the dam will limit their movements along the river (or make them extinct), and their water supply will dry up from the construction of the dam and they will starve to death. This dam will result in the death of not only human tribes people, but hundreds of [i]species[/i] of fish and other endemic animals.
[QUOTE]• This article was amended on 17 February 2010. The original referred to [B]11,000GW[/B]. This has been corrected. [/QUOTE] Dam that's a lot of energy
I might be wrong on this, but don't large dams also cause huge build-ups of acidity in the rivers they are placed in? This is then washes down current, wiping out aquatic life both in the river itself and sea creatures as well. Oh, and can make the ground water distasteful or even poisonous.
[QUOTE=OvB;30272716]But when you build a dam, you're not only destroying the area around the dam for management buildings and water bypass tunnels, but you're also flooding huge areas of land to create a reservoir and destroying possible migration routes for fish and other animals that depend on the river. The flooding will displace or drown whatever is living there and destroy vast tracts of rain forest. This dam will probably cause the endangered zebra plecostomus to become extinct as it dries out and complete destroys it's only natural habitat. That's just one species of the some 600 that live [i]only[/i] in the Xingu River that this dam will probably eradicate. Then there's the 14 tribes that live on and depend on this river for food and water. Their food source will die because the dam will limit their movements along the river (or make them extinct), and their water supply will dry up from the construction of the dam and they will starve to death. This dam will result in the death of not only human tribes people, but hundreds of [i]species[/i] of fish and other endemic animals.[/QUOTE] I might be misinformed here, but isn't the idea of water power to have water pass through some turbines, to get to the other side of the dam, and not block the water from passing through altogether? How would they produce energy if they were just keeping water from passing through the dam? I'm not arguing that water power is good for the environment, I'm saying that nuclear power isn't good for the environment either. But water power is a sustainable, renewable and decentralised form of energy, which is the water power's advantage, but is bad for the aquatic life. Nuclear power produces lots of cheap energy, but is incredibly centralised, not renewable, and not good for the environment either.
I swear, if paragon facepunchers actually lead a country, it'd fall so fast from trying too hard to be morally good and forgetting about efficiency.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;30272858]I might be misinformed here, but isn't the idea of water power to have water pass through some turbines, to get to the other side of the dam, and not block the water from passing through altogether? How would they produce energy if they were just keeping water from passing through the dam? I'm not arguing that water power is good for the environment, I'm saying that nuclear power isn't good for the environment either. But water power is a sustainable, renewable and decentralised form of energy, which is the water power's advantage, but is bad for the aquatic life. Nuclear power produces lots of cheap energy, but is incredibly centralised, not renewable, and not good for the environment either.[/QUOTE] You need to create a suitably large resevoir behind the dam in order to exert enough pressure on the water passing through it to create power.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;30272858]I might be misinformed here, but isn't the idea of water power to have water pass through some turbines, to get to the other side of the dam, and not block the water from passing through altogether? How would they produce energy if they were just keeping water from passing through the dam? I'm not arguing that water power is good for the environment, I'm saying that nuclear power isn't good for the environment either. But water power is a sustainable, renewable and decentralised form of energy, which is the water power's advantage, but is bad for the aquatic life. Nuclear power produces lots of cheap energy, but is incredibly centralised, not renewable, and not good for the environment either.[/QUOTE] They dam up the river so the water builds up behind it, making the flow of the river ahead of the damn considerably smaller. The water is channeled through the dam into the turbines then dumped back into the river. Fish cannot go through the turbines and as far as I know there is now bypass for fish. The buildup of water behind the dam in the reservoir floods huge areas of land, and the controlled flow of water through the dam makes the rest of the river considerably slower and therefore smaller.
[QUOTE=OvB;30272716] This dam will result in the death of not only human tribes people, but hundreds of [i]species[/i] of fish and other endemic animals.[/QUOTE] Natives don't need to die, they can simply become industrial proletariat and live in a city where they have a better quality of life, more food and freedoms and above all they will become urban.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30279966]Natives don't need to die, they can simply become industrial proletariat and live in a city where they have a better quality of life, more food and freedoms and above all they will become urban.[/QUOTE] against their will key point here urbanization is shit
Won't this flood a fuckton of land? Including villages/tribes
Let's fuck over the surrounding nature and natives! Yeah! [QUOTE=Sobotnik;30279966]Natives don't need to die, they can simply become industrial proletariat and live in a city where they have a better quality of life, more food and freedoms and above all they will become urban.[/QUOTE] Who are you to decide what lifestyle is best for them? And how is there more freedom in an urbanized lifestyle? I'm just asking, because it seems like exactly the opposite to me.
[QUOTE=Chrille;30280772]Let's fuck over the surrounding nature and natives! Yeah! Who are you to decide what lifestyle is best for them? And how is there more freedom in an urbanized lifestyle? I'm just asking, because it seems like exactly the opposite to me.[/QUOTE] You live in a native hut, you live a short life with most medicine being heavily steeped in religion. They live in the rainforests with poor communication or the such. They will end up learning or knowing little and by encouraging them to remain in this lifestyle the natives remain stuck below. There are little prospects for their children. Now have all the land amalgamated into massive farming estates, and move the peasantry into the cities so they can become an industrial proletariat. Environmentalists want these people to remain poor and back in their primitive tribal customs and ways so that they cannot industrialize and become powerful and independent.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30281024]You live in a native hut, you live a short life with most medicine being heavily steeped in religion. They live in the rainforests with poor communication or the such. They will end up learning or knowing little and by encouraging them to remain in this lifestyle the natives remain stuck below. There are little prospects for their children. Now have all the land amalgamated into massive farming estates, and move the peasantry into the cities so they can become an industrial proletariat. Environmentalists want these people to remain poor and back in their primitive tribal customs and ways so that they cannot industrialize and become powerful and independent.[/QUOTE] Your world view saddens me, and seems like it belongs in the 18th century industrial revolution, to be honest. Nature isn't a giant resource waiting to be exploited, it needs to be preserved. We as civilized people pride ourselves as being above our instincts and have a more or less defined set of ideals and moral beliefs, and it's about fucking time that we show it if you ask me. There needs to be a balanced way of maintaining your society without fucking up everything else outside it. Now, I'm not one to romanticize native lifestyle, that shit is harsh, but most South American tribes have had contact with civilization (mainly through violence) and have chosen to continue living as they desire well knowing what modern society has to offer. They're free, whatever shitty freedom that might be in your eyes. Industrialization isn't freedom. Industrialization leads to consumerism, mass-corporatism, excessive materialism and so forth. You're not free. Sure, you live a good life (relatively), are probably healthy, educated and have more luxuries than those who live in less "free" countries, but you're by no means free. Make no such illusion. I'm not saying this in some conspiracy theory manner, but so far the only freedoms you have is the freedom of speech (although you don't really have that, do you), the freedom to go places (certain places anyway), the freedom to eat what you want and watch what you want on television (as long as it hasn't been censored). Meanwhile your government is imposing every fucking law they see fit to protect you from yourself. Yes, I realize that is what is necessary to protect our civilization (which I'm happy to live in), but it isn't freedom. Never has been, never will be.
Sobotnik, why do you hate humanity
[QUOTE=Chrille;30281196]Your world view saddens me, and seems like it belongs in the 18th century industrial revolution, to be honest.[/QUOTE] The men who began the industrial revolution started it for cynical and idealistic reasons. The environmentalists of today started the movement for cynical and idealistic reasons. The human race became more free after the industrial revolution. Sure there are governments and such, but until the first steam trains crawled along iron roads you lived in a single village your entire life and farmed in back breaking work from the moment the sun rose to the moment it set, being illiterate and repressed by the various religious orders and aristocracy. With industrialisation the human race has progressed greatly. Almost all achievements have been done in an urban environment. What took 10,000 years for a tribe of primitives took 1000 for feudal farmers. What took them 1000 years took barely a century for the industrial proletariat. Most people in the world lived, worked and died the same way every day from 10,000BC until 1800. When 4 in 5 people in Russia in 1920 lived as illiterate peasants by 1960 they sent men into space. You know watching Thomas the Tank engine then playing with toy trains then watching programmes about industry continually might have a factor in all this.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30281705]The men who began the industrial revolution started it for cynical and idealistic reasons. The environmentalists of today started the movement for cynical and idealistic reasons. The human race became more free after the industrial revolution. Sure there are governments and such, but until the first steam trains crawled along iron roads you lived in a single village your entire life and farmed in back breaking work from the moment the sun rose to the moment it set, being illiterate and repressed by the various religious orders and aristocracy. With industrialisation the human race has progressed greatly. Almost all achievements have been done in an urban environment. What took 10,000 years for a tribe of primitives took 1000 for feudal farmers. What took them 1000 years took barely a century for the industrial proletariat. Most people in the world lived, worked and died the same way every day from 10,000BC until 1800. When 4 in 5 people in Russia in 1920 lived as illiterate peasants by 1960 they sent men into space.[/QUOTE] And because the industrialization gave us opportunities amidst ethical atrocities we need to turn the entire planet into a giant factory?
Sobotnik, isn't it possible for us to expand and to live sustainably? The main reason I want humanity to expand into space is so that we can see more of it, not so we can rule as much of it as possible.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30281705] The human race became more free after the industrial revolution. Sure there are governments and such, but until the first steam trains crawled along iron roads you lived in a single village your entire life and farmed in back breaking work from the moment the sun rose to the moment it set, being illiterate and repressed by the various religious orders and aristocracy.[/QUOTE] Why is your form of repression better? Why not advocate freedom
Why does Brazil keep building these large dams? Okay, we can all understand the need for electricity. But this need is going to destroy a cruical part of the earths environment. The amazon is more than indingious folk, and crazy animals and insects that'll fuck you up. It also contributes to the weather and atmosphere. Its an important part of the earths ecosystem as well. All these people saying "activists and environmentalists are hypocrites" and whatever else, you're correct they are. But what they're doing now, is trying to save the least important things like indingious tribes. The Amazon is a whole lot more critical than their points. [editline]6th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;30279966]Natives don't need to die, they can simply become industrial proletariat and live in a city where they have a better quality of life, more food and freedoms and above all they will become urban.[/QUOTE] The question is, do they want too? They're used their style of life. Not everybody has to be on the same page as 1st world civilization.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30281631]Sobotnik, why do you hate humanity[/QUOTE] I don't think he even hates humanity, I think he loves it a bit too much
i thought it was obvious that sobotnik was a troll
[QUOTE=Lazor;30283112]i thought it was obvious that sobotnik was a troll[/QUOTE] Sir how dare you make such accusations, some people disagree and agree with me and that fact alone is alarming.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30281705]The men who began the industrial revolution started it for cynical and idealistic reasons. The environmentalists of today started the movement for cynical and idealistic reasons. The human race became more free after the industrial revolution. Sure there are governments and such, but until the first steam trains crawled along iron roads you lived in a single village your entire life and farmed in back breaking work from the moment the sun rose to the moment it set, being illiterate and repressed by the various religious orders and aristocracy. With industrialisation the human race has progressed greatly. Almost all achievements have been done in an urban environment. What took 10,000 years for a tribe of primitives took 1000 for feudal farmers. What took them 1000 years took barely a century for the industrial proletariat. Most people in the world lived, worked and died the same way every day from 10,000BC until 1800. When 4 in 5 people in Russia in 1920 lived as illiterate peasants by 1960 they sent men into space. You know watching Thomas the Tank engine then playing with toy trains then watching programmes about industry continually might have a factor in all this.[/QUOTE] Well, that was stupid. The human race did become more "free" after the industrial [b]EVOLUTION[/b]. However, people became more of a work horse. We made tools that increased output, but increased the chance of physical harm. You know what the cotton gin is right? Yeah, a tool made by a slave to lower the need for slaves. However, it only increased the need. Just like Assembly lines, just like factories, foundries, manufacturing plants, distribution hubs.. all that shit. They contain tools to "make the job easier" with the cost of more work in unsatisfactory environments and health hazards. And you're talking about sending natives to factories in brazil? Fucking puhleeze. The US has some high requirements for our factories, but they're still unsatisfactory. Imagine brazil. And do you think any of these people have any ability to manufacture anything? You're high on meth. When the first steam engine made its way down the iron road, it made our world smaller. But made our world dirty. When the first car hit the roads, it made it easier for us to get from A to B. But fueled the dependence on oil. Industralization only complexed the human life. All it did was increase output, but your back breaking hard work is still there. You'll be stuck on that train forever, only our output will increase. Not ease of life. Tribals have an easier life than us. They don't have to farm 100 acres of land inside a tractor for 12 hours a day. Sure that tractor makes the job easier, it doesn't make it any easier sitting there going 2mph up and down a fucking field all day. The health hazard is that now your body is becoming lazier. All your points, all your views.. they're invalid due to your inability to accept that other people have other lives.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;30282865]Why does Brazil keep building these large dams?[/QUOTE] because we have shit alot of water
[QUOTE=C4rnage;30283838]because we have shit alot of water[/QUOTE] Does your country not give a shit about earth or something?
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;30283914]Does your country not give a shit about earth or something?[/QUOTE] do your?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.