alt Hacker NewsAs I said in that thread, it was merely a rhetoric device to express the fact that I value my nation's development far more than I value the rainforest.
Every election, someone like Greta Thunberg shows up and tells everyone to vote for Lula to save the Amazon.
What about the Brazilian people? Our industry? Our economy? Our prosperity? Our autonomy? Our independence? Our sovereignty?
They couldn't care less about any of that.
The suggestion that we should slow down our own development "to safeguard the Amazon" is offensive to me.
I'll say it again: if burning that jungle down would magically turn Brazil into China or the US, with high value industries, space program, well equipped military, nuclear weapons... I'd sacrifice it all without losing even one second of sleep.
Note the "if", it's important. There's no reason to burn it all down just for kicks. There must be significant advantage for the trade to be worth it. The point is: the trade is on the table as far as I'm concerned. We can endeavour to preserve it, but if it gets in the way of national interests then it definitely must go.
Replies
I think it's a false premise to begin with. Protecting your natural resources and rich biodiversity doesn't mean Brazilians have to suffer.
But thanks for clarifying your comment and position.
I get that Lula isn't great, politics is hard. But from the outside it looks like a small majority of Brazilians have voted to say 'not another Bolsonaro'. He would have probably continued like his father and fostered closer ties to Trump and borrowing a few tactics from his playbook, i.e. definitely not good for the average Joe like us.
Good for corporations? Yes - hence why Meta and co tried to push Bolsonaro.
So, this is one of very few of your comments where I can get a glimpse of reason: you have a good point here, the rest of the world telling Brazil to protect its natural resources is hypocrisy of the finest grade. First they clearcut their own forests, make lots of money on raiding the rest of the world and then when the consequences of all that pillaging catch up with them they start telling countries like Brazil that they really should protect the rainforest, 'for the good of the planet'.
That said: they too have a point, they've learned the hard way that this is going to end very bad, not just for Brazil but for the whole continent and possibly even the world. And to that extent they should compensate Brazil year on year for maintaining the Amazon as it is today, to make sure that there is no downside to doing the right thing.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with Joe Jackson, he has a beautiful little bit in 'the obvious song':
"There was a man in the jungle Trying to make ends meet Found himself one day with an axe in his hand When a voice said "Buddy can you spare that tree We gotta save this world-starting with your land." It was a rock 'n' roll millionaire from the USA Doing three to the gallon in a big white car And he sang and he sang 'till he polluted the air And he blew a lot of smoke from a Cuban cigar"
And that's it in a nutshell. So what Brazil should do - and I'm not kidding - is to hold the Amazon hostage. If the part of the world that wants it preserved is really serious they should pay up, and Brazil can use the proceeds to improve the lives of Brazilians. That at least would take a part of the sting out. As for the high value industries, the space program, the well equipped military and the nuclear weapons: those are all things with flip sides as well, and some of those flip sides only become apparent once you go down that route. I think a part of that could be realized steering clear from the downsides, but be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.