All of these articles are current, within the past ten years, and have credible sources. Some even appear together in the same text. All are relevant except article five which is proven so by its context. On the surface most of the articles appear to have a similar scientific ethic of attempted neutrality. Articles one through four adopt this method while five and six make no attempt to stay neutral. , however upon closer analysis one finds that they have a deeper ethic than scientific neutrality.
Article one says that it is in human nature to be weak and do the easiest thing.
This is coyly stated that no matter what people will break laws if it is profitable, the force of law has not generally been as strong as the drive for peasant farmholds or forest products. Such weakness occurs when people burn the forests illegally to make money or obtain land. Article two takes a less accusing tone and merely states that people might destroy the forests. This becomes apparent form the text, Many ecologists fear that the push into the Amazon will eventually destroy the trees and the irreplaceable ecology of the rain forest. This text seems less accusing but also serves as a warning as to what could happen.