PlanetCatfish.com

So build a bunch of hydro projects in the largest healthy rain forest on the planet in an area with one of the lowest population densities per square mile than any other place on the planet.

Yes, I would say you are right that you are not sure what this discussion is about or decided to play troll.

Actually, I do think Jon is right about stating the people who live there are entitled to have electricity as well. However, as far as I know, they rather have a live, in the forest, then electricity.

So I think I should disagree with Jon, even though he did bring a valuable argument: ask the people involved

Well in a way, this has had something to do with development and there are many corporations that support the fullest development of the rain forest to its highest use. Indeed, archeological evidence has shown that the prehistoric population of Amazonia was something like 3 times what it is now.
Seems strange that any aquarist would support paving over paradise over preservation of as much of Amazonia as is possible. But fish don't have much value. Can't not exploit ever drop of oil, refine that oil and use the waste asphalt to pave the jungle, mine every ounce of gold and give over what is left to monoculture soybeans. All the great desert monotheistic traditions reveal the planet was created for us to exploit every possible resource and be fruitful and multiply.
What was I thinking? Conservation? Foolish me.

Matt presented a vision that is the most realistic. Makes me glad to be too old to see this dream come true.

i would much prefer a large revamp of the brazilian electrical grid such that more people can gain access to electricity with less hassle and at a lower cost

I don't agree, but it is a valid argument to state that the people of the region have a say in all this.

They may well "need" reliable power in order to make the transition to a "first world" economic region, but who will benefit from this energy?

Multinational companies perhaps, who can then irrigate more soy crops and harvest the mineral resources more efficiently. Will local ribierinhos and indigenous peoples benefit? Certainly not, and they have been vociferous in their opposition. The sheer animosity of locals towards the Xingu dam was depicted powerfully in Bruce Parry's excellent "Amazon" series on the BBC. Read about it here.

How energy is created is a matter of debate. I personally would rather see nuclear power stations in the middle of the Amazon - not an ideal solution by any means, but they do generate low carbon energy with minimal biodiversity loss. The land surrounding Chernobyl is now teeming with wildlife, unmolested by mankind.

I'm sure there are other technologies that would be more appropriate though. Matt probably knows more about this than me.

Do they really need to become "first world" though? Do plasma TVs, BlackBerrys, leather sofas and smoothie makers really make us happy? Probably not....

Another factor to consider is not just the GDP value of Amazon exports and development, but the value of the intact forests and rivers; I don't just mean intrinsic value - we are only just beginning to be able to place financial value upon ecosystem services, such as clean water, carbon capture, food supply, biological pest control, pollination and nutrient cycling.

These forests and rivers are worth more to humanity intact.

Jon wrote:to be quite honest, i would much prefer a large revamp of the brazilian electrical grid such that more people can gain access to electricity with less hassle and at a lower cost, than scrap this just to save a few good looking fish. not sure if this is what this topic addresses, but oh well, right?

racoll wrote:I don't agree, but it is a valid argument to state that the people of the region have a say in all this.

The majority of the people living in these area, Xingu and Tapajos don't want any powerplants or dams, when it comes to Rio Madeira with tributaries is the native people in minority and the forces so strong from the soycrop farmers that want to use the benefits not only from electricity also because it will make new land available.

The main reason to dam Xingu is for that region is rich in bauxit and behind is a multinational company, the building of the dams around Altamira and Belo Monte have not started yet and people here think it will take several more years before there will be any dams if ever... the final words is not yet spoked.

Janne

Racoll:

How energy is created is a matter of debate. I personally would rather see nuclear power stations in the middle of the Amazon - not an ideal solution by any means, but they do generate low carbon energy with minimal biodiversity loss. The land surrounding Chernobyl is now teeming with wildlife, unmolested by mankind.

I agree entirely with this statement.

Janne, to me it does matter, alot, to everyone involved in this discussion it matters alot. To the guy next door to me it matters nothing (in his head not reality) and the guy that lives next to him, and next to him,and next to him............they really are that "stoopid"

This is what you are up against.

Janne:

The majority of the people living in these area, Xingu and Tapajos don't want any powerplants or dams, when it comes to Rio Madeira with tributaries is the native people in minority and the forces so strong from the soycrop farmers that want to use the benefits not only from electricity also because it will make new land available.

The main reason to dam Xingu is for that region is rich in bauxit and behind is a multinational company, the building of the dams around Altamira and Belo Monte have not started yet and people here think it will take several more years before there will be any dams if ever... the final words is not yet spoked.

Exactly. Food shortages are inevitable, globally.

Racoll:

Another factor to consider is not just the GDP value of Amazon exports and development, but the value of the intact forests and rivers; I don't just mean intrinsic value - we are only just beginning to be able to place financial value upon ecosystem services, such as clean water, carbon capture, food supply, biological pest control, pollination and nutrient cycling.

These forests and rivers are worth more to humanity intact.

Could you elaborate on this please Racoll.

Like I said before.

Who is going to stop this from happening?
In real terms.

Matt

[Mod edit: Fix up tags --Mats]

Matt,

I think a lot of people are indeed stupid, but what you are referring to with regards to your neighbours etc is rather what we should be calling ignorance (not knowing) rather than stupid (not being intelligent/not having the ability to learn). The reason I make a difference between these is that ignorance is (a little bit) easier to solve than the stupid problem - to solve ignorance, we need to give people information. To make people "not stupid", you need to pick the right parents and start far too early in life with the right sort of "brain training" (and I don't mean Nintendo DS games).

I am by no means trivializing the problem, but I think it CAN be solved. Education, education, education as some politician said.

Of course, making people here care is not the same as making the Brazilian government change it's mind!

There was a programme last night on BBC1 at 9pm - I recorded it, so haven't seen it yet - about Guyana, and I know that the government there has offered UK to "buy some of the land for conservation" (that's my term of the offer, I'm sure that it's got fancier name in the actual offer). They did a similar programme last year - Land of the Jaguar or some such. Similar schemes of either trading ("We give you [e.g. nuclear] power plants, you do not destroy natural habitat") or plain selling would probably work for Brazil as well. This may even help the UK economy.

--
Mats

The more abstract economic value of a maximally preserved Amazonia include but are not limited to the following partial list.
1. Vast carbon sink, This is an asset to Brazil whenever any carbon cap and trade regimes become formalized.
2. The medical benefits of preserving the biodiversity is potentially of incalculable value to mankind.
Quinine, used for Malaria treatment, was one of the earliest examples even though it has become less effective on resistant strains, it has saved perhaps a few million lives. Cuare' was developed into an important muscle relaxant drug used during some surgical procedures is another well known product of the rain forest.

The venom of many species or poisonous species of plants and some frogs are incredibly rich sources of complex chemicals which have evolved to have quite specific effects on nerve function, cellular destruction and many more subtle effects. They have the potential to develop more effective, non-narcotic pain relievers, show promise in the field of cancer treatment and uses undreamed of yet.
There are almost certainly undiscovered fungi which will lead to the development of new antibiotics; very important as older antibiotic are beginning to become ineffective on newer more drug resistant strains of disease causing bacteria.

3. Planetary climate stability. Different from the man-made carbon problem. The intact rain forest of Amazonia has a major influence on moderating planetary climatic extremes that would exist if the rain forest is substantially reduced or replaced by agricultural monoculture and increased cattle grazing uses.
These are only the tip of the discoveries that are sure to have high economic value to come.

RE: Jaguar Project.
The populations of jaguars throughout the neotropics have become increasingly endangered and isolated into disconnected "island" populations by the fencing off of large ranches or monotonous uniform monoculture. There are efforts to keep connected or reconnect these isolated jaguar populations by providing connecting corridors between these isolated areas. This has largely been accomplished through cooperation and negotiations between the property owners, the Brazilian government which hold the largest undisturbed contiguous parts of their range and environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy. Keeping corridors at least allows some gene flow between isolated population pockets. This project has been somewhat unique because of the degree of agreement and cooperation that has been achieved without requiring large pay outs for the creation and maintenance of the corridors has been more successful than might have been anticipated for a continent spanning project.

Firstly, I can see how, given that this is a hobbyist website, that this is an unpopular viewpoint to take, but man, chill the hell out people--mostly Larry, but also like the three other people that PMed me with scathing messages.

Anyways, I may be misinformed, but won't the aforementioned natives not be provided with cheaper, more efficient power? I do not understand. If the situation is as they say, and all benefits will be clutched by the big bad fist of industrial corporation, then I am at a loss.

"Do they really need to become "first world" though? Do plasma TVs, BlackBerrys, leather sofas and smoothie makers really make us happy? Probably not...."

Firstly, I'm talking about just obtaining basic electricity, not getting a home entertainment system. If it'll improve their means standard of living, it should be available to them, and hell, if they want to get a BlackBerry, they should have the right to do so. If you have the option, why shouldn't they?

"Seems strange that any aquarist would support paving over paradise over preservation of as much of Amazonia as is possible."

Funny how you sound so weathered and jaded, yet probably are, right now, as you type this, reclining on some fine leather upholdstery, typing on your fancy new age computer complete with internet, and probably a refrigerator chilled drink in hand to boot. Tell me the next time you'd be willing to sacrifice all things within your reach which have had some reasonable major ecological impact, much less just electricity in itself to save a small tract of rainforest, and I'll rescind my argument. Yeah, that's what I thought. That is always the inherent hypocrisy with this train of thought. What right do you have to maintain the final say in whether or not the dam should or should not be built? All day, you bolster your life with the benefits of the electricity you seem so opposed to. You say it best yourself; you're surprised that any aquarist would foster this mindset--when I wrote this, I was not speaking as an aquarist, but rather as someone who values the welfare of his fellow man more than he does the zebra pleco (man, I hate doing third person dialogue--sorry about that). I have no shame in admitting this.

Firstly, one must understand--I am ALL FOR the preservation of nature. I am currently doing work with california fisheries and maintaining native salmonid runs. I recycle, bicycle, eat exclusively farmed fish--all that good green hippy bullcrap. If there is a more feasible way for these folks to get electricity fast without having to screw up the immediately adjacent region, I'm all ears. All I am saying is that, if it came down to it, I would stand by improving the livelihood of humanity ten out of ten times.

Barring that, my main point is that, who are any of you? This isn't your country, and it should be up to what the people of the region want as a collective whole, not some biased aquarist living millions of miles away, whose motives are deeply marred by their desire to see more fish on the market. If the native people, like racoll said, are for the ablation of the bridge, I applaud their environmentalist sentiment. I would much rather see these fish alive than dead. But, at the same time, if they feel that they would be best served by the project, then all we can really do is present them with objective, relevant data regarding its' ecological impact and let them decide for themselves. And hey, if they still want to go through with it--screw it. It's their land. What we should not be doing is marching to IBAMA and bitch and moan, and demand the removal of the dam, as many of you have suggested.

Jon,
Just to be perfectly clear, I never sent you any pm regarding this subject. Some might incorrectly interpret your comment to mean I sent you one.
Jon wrote:
"Firstly, I can see how, given that this is a hobbyist website, that this is an unpopular viewpoint to take, but man, chill the hell out people--mostly Larry, but also like the three other people that PMed me with scathing messages."

If you read this thread carefully, then you would have seen that early on I said Brazil has every right to do with it's resources as it chooses as a sovereign country.

You went on to quote me:
"Seems strange that any aquarist would support paving over paradise over preservation of as much of Amazonia as is possible."


Then you wrote the following:
"Funny how you sound so weathered and jaded, yet probably are, right now, as you type this, reclining on some fine leather upholdstery, typing on your fancy new age computer complete with internet, and probably a refrigerator chilled drink in hand to boot. Tell me the next time you'd be willing to sacrifice all things within your reach which have had some reasonable major ecological impact, much less just electricity in itself to save a small tract of rainforest, and I'll rescind my argument. Yeah, that's what I thought. That is always the inherent hypocrisy with this train of thought. What right do you have to maintain the final say in whether or not the dam should or should not be built? All day, you bolster your life with the benefits of the electricity you seem so opposed to. You say it best yourself; you're surprised that any aquarist would foster this mindset--when I wrote this, I was not speaking as an aquarist, but rather as someone who values the welfare of his fellow man more than he does the zebra pl*co (man, I hate doing third person dialogue--sorry about that). I have no shame in admitting this."

You have no clue what my situation is.

This is a hobbyist forum and not the United Nations. We are only discussing these issues in the context as tropical fish hobbyists
with a particular interest in Brazilian Hypancistrus species and other Brazilian aquarium fish fish. It should come as no surprise that we would regret the loss of species of interest to us that would be associated with intensive Hydroelectric Dam development on the river systems which in many cases, hold unique endemic species that we are particularly interested in.
It is impossible to discuss these fish and these hydroelectric dam projects and not stray into related areas of broader world concern.
That does not make us Luddites.

I personally thank you for taking an interest in this thread and presenting your alternate views. However, if you or anyone else participating in this thread wants to indulge in personal attacks, then use the PM system and spare the rest of us of any rancor.
For my part, I personally apologize for describing you earlier as a troll. That comment was unwarranted and too soon, then.

Jon,
I do understand your view and thats human, the problem with the dam's is not that native not have electricity... they do have and almost all of them have a refrigirator and a tv, access to internet in Brazil is probably more developed then it's in USA or equal. You can travel the whole Rio xingu and stop when you want a cold beer. The majority of the people don't want any dam's or hydroelectric plant at all because they think they already have what they need, all the indigenous tribes in all these areas highest wish is to be left alone... they don't want any "white man" in their territories at all and some use vioelent if you are trasspassing without their permission.

What the government plan's, is to create new industries in these areas, to creat a new water highway to Peru through Bolivia, when that is a fact they can persuade poor people living in the large cities to move to these areas offering a new future etc. That would be the end of the Amazonia, they think in short terms for profit and nothing else.

Janne

Good stuff,

I think it's my fault this thread has strayed from the main subject which is what WE can do about the situation.
Call it damage limitation if you will.
Has anyone worked out any figures for such a scheme of breeding for species conservation?
What about logistics, anyone been thinking about that.
Like has been mentioned Kilifish lovers or Kiliphiles have a system going on, any more details on how that works/successful that is.
Didn't some fish get reintroduced after that giant tsunami from aquarium bred stock?
Or did I dream that? I sometimes have funny dreams, mostly involving Lucy Pinder but that's another story.

I for one am glad this thread has gotten a bit niody, helps people keep passionate about things.

Shall we go back to the original topic?

What say ye?

Matt

Janne wrote:Jon,
I do understand your view and thats human, the problem with the dam's is not that native not have electricity... they do have and almost all of them have a refrigirator and a tv, access to internet in Brazil is probably more developed then it's in USA or equal. You can travel the whole Rio xingu and stop when you want a cold beer. The majority of the people don't want any dam's or hydroelectric plant at all because they think they already have what they need, all the indigenous tribes in all these areas highest wish is to be left alone... they don't want any "white man" in their territories at all and some use vioelent if you are trasspassing without their permission.

What the government plan's, is to create new industries in these areas, to creat a new water highway to Peru through Bolivia, when that is a fact they can persuade poor people living in the large cities to move to these areas offering a new future etc. That would be the end of the Amazonia, they think in short terms for profit and nothing else.

Janne

That is very worrying and in fact exactly what I am talking about.

Matt

I am well aware, Larry, that you have no sent me any PMs. I believe I made it perfectly clear that you and those individuals are separate entities. Keep in mind my posting is not directed exclusively towards you.

“You have no clue what my situation is.”

I know it enough such that you have access to the internet, which seems like more than can be said about a great multitude of the peoples within the range of the dam. Perhaps my view of the situation in Brazil is incorrect, as Janne pointed out, though.

It would be incorrect to say that we’re just discussing this in terms of the hobby, because 1)this is speak easy and 2)it is impossible to view this issue in such a limited scope, as you get an incomprehensive view of the situation.

“However, if you or anyone else participating in this thread wants to indulge in personal attacks, then use the PM system and spare the rest of us of any rancor.”

What rancor? What personal attacks? I hardly think that calling you jaded or saying that you enjoy the benefits of modern technology references to any manner of slander. I’ve been pretty level headed here, if I do say so myself.

As for Janne, I do think that I might be ill-informed on what is actually going on in Brazil. But like I said, if that is how the indigenous people feel about the dam being made, I appreciate their efforts to stick to cultural traditions and keep the biodiversity of the area healthy and thriving. So, if you can educate me, what constituent groups do you think are going to make the most of the hydroelectricity brought forth by the dam? Also, what is the focal goal of the dam project. Thanks in advance for any help.

Mountain of bauxite + cheap electricity = cheaply produced aluminum.

Jon wrote:As for Janne, I do think that I might be ill-informed on what is actually going on in Brazil. But like I said, if that is how the indigenous people feel about the dam being made, I appreciate their efforts to stick to cultural traditions and keep the biodiversity of the area healthy and thriving.

That is exactly what the indigenous people want and they dont want any intruders.

Jon wrote:So, if you can educate me, what constituent groups do you think are going to make the most of the hydroelectricity brought forth by the dam?

Large international companies, using and abusing the poor people.

Jon wrote:Also, what is the focal goal of the dam project.

Rio Xingu.

Larry wrote:Mountain of bauxite + cheap electricity = cheaply produced aluminum.

Janne wrote:The main reason to dam Xingu is for that region is rich in bauxit and behind is a multinational company

Rio Madeira.
To create a new water way + highway crossing south america from the east coast to the west coast, today all the soycrops is transported from Mato Grosso to Rio Tapajos or Rio Madeira downstream and from there shipped out to the world through the amazon river and the east coast. If they build the new water way they can ship much cheaper to Asia and to US west coast instead to take the long extra way up or down the south american continent. Behind this project is more or less one person, he is the richest man in Brazil and the governour in Mato Grosso... he wants to be president.

Janne

Matt wrote:I think it's my fault this thread has strayed from the main subject which is what WE can do about the situation.

Janne wrote:There are already a project like this saving the Hypancistrus species through a breeding program in the german spoked countries with Ingo Seidel as a front figure... you should make a global contact.

http://www.l-wels-tage.de/en/ag-l-welse/

Janne

Edit: I split this thread and made a new topic where philosify and dictionary can be discussed, it's quite fare away from the subject discussed here.

Thank you for the information, Janne.

Cool and the gang.

Matt

And nice to have the gang back.

racoll wrote: Another factor to consider is not just the GDP value of Amazon exports and development, but the value of the intact forests and rivers; I don't just mean intrinsic value - we are only just beginning to be able to place financial value upon ecosystem services, such as clean water, carbon capture, food supply, biological pest control, pollination and nutrient cycling.

grokefish wrote:Could you elaborate on this please Racoll.

Certainly.

Take pollination as a good example; bees provide the majority of the pollination services to all of our food crops, free of charge.

Just imagine if you remove all the bee nesting habitats and other things bees need, and the bees are then no longer able to provide this service.

We would have to then pollinate every crop plant by hand with a paintbrush, and this would take thousands and thousands of people and labour hours.

The cost of food would be astronomical as a result.

The current state of bee conservation in not good......... We do not give the bees what they need to "help" us.