Comments on: Resurrecting Rain Forests

By: annmarie

annmarie — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:39:27 +0000

TED also had a talk by Willie Smits on how he re-grew a rainforest in Borneo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vfuCPFb8wk

By: DOJ

DOJ — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:58:19 +0000

Everyone should note that nature only bounced back in this case because some humans helped it. This is not proof that logging without re-planting is sustainable.

@mmm – do you call it a “temperate jungle” or a “temperate rain forest”? (also, what other old un-PC terms have you kept/abandoned)
I don’t know if a racial connotation is the reason, but “rain forest” sure sounds like re-branding

By: saehn

saehn — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:54:10 +0000

@mmm: Two minutes on Wikipedia would have gotten you this…

Not all regions called “jungles” would qualify as “rain forests” because many would apply “jungle” to the forests of northern Thailand or southern Guangdong in China: but scientifically, these are “monsoon forests” or “tropical deciduous forests” but not “rain forests”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle

By: violet

violet — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:39:30 +0000

@mmm: I don’t think I understand why it matters. To each his own on this one, but I don’t get the outrage. Maybe the term rain forest is just a little more descriptive.

By: Johnny Cat

Johnny Cat — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:51:30 +0000

GREAT points, mmm!

By: mmm

mmm — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:17:36 +0000

When I was a student (in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s), there was no such term as “rain forest” — at least not among ordinary speakers of English. Instead EVERYONE (or almost everyone) in the English-speaking world used the perfectly good, perfectly normal, descriptive and much shorter term, “jungle,” as I will continue to do until the day I die — and as I will continue to try to persuade all of you and others to do.

Several years ago, I started noticing this “rain forest” garbage. The only thing I can guess is that it is a “politically correct” term, invented to replace “jungle.” Maybe the latter word always made some ultra-leftist whiners think of the phrase, “the jungles of darkest Africa,” conjuring up (in their sick minds) an idea of wild, pagan, dark-skinned cannibals. But we can’t have that, you see …!

By: just_arty

just_arty — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:45:13 +0000

Agreed Violet, but there are some who has a hard time believing that nature can bounce back unless a study is published, which is somewhat silly. Plus, it’s nice to know we can do something to help nature bounce back even faster.

Saehn– I agree with you, especially concerning rare species, but still, at least trying to restore the rain forest is better than doing nothing.

By: saehn

saehn — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:28:24 +0000

This isn’t all that surprising, like Violet said… but I think the real concern here is that there are unique and UNRECOVERABLE species that can become extinct with the loss of rain forest areas as well. Think about it… say a plant that serves as a basis for a cancer treatment drug grows in one valley where the environmental/soil conditions are very specific. When that valley’s gone, so is that plant.

By: Sue Dunham

Sue Dunham — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:48:37 +0000

Right on Violet.
I’ve always thought it’s human hubris to imagine mankind’s impact on nature as irreversible. This goes for climate change too.

By: LisaL

LisaL — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:15:55 +0000

True true violet.
Good article though.

By: violet

violet — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:56:54 +0000

While destruction of rainforests is terrible, I don’t quite understand “surprise” at an example of nature bouncing back when given the room. Have you met Nature? Pushing and adapting and getting in through cracks and being resilient and generally nature-y is sort of its stock in trade.

I mean, we’re doing our best to trample it, but does anybody doubt that within a couple hundred years of humanity’s extinction, nature will be all, “Who?”

By: Johnny Cat

Johnny Cat — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:53:11 +0000

Nice post! We could all use some good news.

By: Oomi

Oomi — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:33:09 +0000

Sure, you can replace some of the trees.. but what about the other flora and fauna that was initially lost?

Atleast someone is trying to do something. :/