From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif)
Subject: Re: To all you weenies....
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:03:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.173942.4626@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> chuah@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (DanC) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.194329.1683@athena.mit.edu> zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) writes:
>
>>>This is the same ignorance as that exhibited by the PM in his speech.
>>>The main topic seems to be global warming due to CO2 etc.  However,
>>>the real issue here is the loss of the rain forrest.
>>
>>	You have shown your naiveness by the above statement. 
>
>What naiveness.  I don't care if the whole world says we should
>or should not cut down out forests.  I say we shouldn't.  This
>is solely my opinion.  It has been my opinion and what the rest
>of the world says will not effect it.  So don't drag the issue 
>to the world against the Malaysian govt. issue here.  The issue is 
>here is the rain forest is precious and ought to be preserved.
>
>May be I haven't spelled out the importance of the rain forest.  Here
>goes:
>
>a) It produces oxygen and absorbes CO2

	Photosynthesis is not limited to just rain-forests.  Other
plants will be able to do the job even if we don't have any
rain-forest.  Also, as long as we have the ocean, which is a better
ecosystem and a much effective one in recycling CO2 into oxygen, we
will never be affected by the loss of our rain-forest.  In addition to
this, the CO2 question can be tackled much more effectively if other
countries reduce the CO2 emissions.

	We solve the issue by eliminating the sources.  In this case
it is the CO2 emissions.

>b) It is like a spongue, soaking up the moisture, causing us to
>   have tropical climate.  Without the rain forest, we would turn
>   firstly in to grassland, the desert.

	We will always have tropical climate with or without our
rain-forest.  Singapore has been without any significant rain forest
for a long time, you don't see it changing into a desert.

>c) The roots of the trees provide a good support against soil erosion

	That's what replanting supposed to do...

>d) It contasins *A LOT* of species which may be of use to mankind
	
	I don't see any reason for saving the animal species if it
means restricting the country of its possible income...

>e) It is a source of food.

	The country is not on the brink of starvation.  We have enough
agribusiness to handle the 18m population in Malaysia.

>The list goes on and on...

>For whom.  Who gets the money?  The poor people?  Not on your
>life.  The rich are robbing the poor.  The people who depend on the
>forest then suffer.  When the forest is gone, soil erosion will
>be rampant.  Soil washed into the river kills the fish, depriving
>the local people of a rich source of protein.  Get you facts 
>straight first before.  The loss of the rain forest is a loss
>every Malaysian.  Don't give me this animals vs humans crap.

	The money could be used for further development in our
country, and as a developing country, we can use every bit of money
that we can acquire.  

>>	Yes, but the government is not wrong on this logging issue.
>>We are within our rights to cut whatever trees we want because those
>>are our trees.  
>
>The govt. is the people's representative.  It we, the people, think
>that the govt. should stop logging, it should.  The only right
>thing for a govt. to do is to listen to its people.  This, however,
>is lacking in the Malaysian govt.

	There have not been any referendums taken on this issue; so I
guess the practise should go on until such a time that the majority
wishes to stop it...

===------ 
NorAazizam MohdAAsif	 
The white man made many promises to us but they never kept but one; they
promised to take our land and they took it.
                                                        Red Cloud
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean