I can't help but think this is sort of on par with clamping a major artery.
What are your thoughts?
Replace the (dot) with an actual . to see.
That was certainly my first thought...although i agree with Rochelle when she says that things must be considered. I understand that it may be good to bring electricity and stuff, but I wonder if there are options that are being overlooked to help line someone's pockets.
I'm OK with it as long as the glass spiders are safe
"I do not accept the Belo Monte dam," said the indigenous leader Mokuka Kayapó, who claimed the indigenous way of life would be destroyed. "The forest is our butcher. The river, with its fish, is our market. This is how we survive."
"Many residents of Altamira, a sleepy Amazonian city on the banks of the Xingu near the site of the planned dam, also fear social chaos with the influx of thousands of impoverished workers.
Antonia Melo, a local human rights activist from the Xingu Para Sempre movement, described the dam as a human rights violation. "We will all be affected by over 100,000 people who will arrive in the region as a result of Belo Monte. There will be violence, a lack of food, of sewage, of health services," she warned.
Local newspapers report that immigrants have already started arriving in the region from as far away as Rio de Janeiro and Brazil's deep south in search of business opportunities and work."
I think they have a legit reason to protest and fight to stop this from happening. They have a right to object to their world being socially turned up side down, and I couldn't find a single thing that made me think it was going to be money well spent to provide energy for Brazilian citizens, instead it looks like money being spent to help industry, like the consortium players who bid on the project, including a 'state-run' corporation that was part of the consortium that won.
The downstream impact to the ecology and environment would be permanent, as it is here in the USA around some of our dams, and in this progressive and enlightened world of alternative energy options -- they should wait another 30 years for a better idea and leave those 800 or more natives who choose to live from the bounty of the Xingu River alone, as they wish.
Yes, it's a really, really bad idea. How can they believe that there will be no impact on the animals, natives and fauna????!!! Haven't they watched "Up the Yangtze" where it was touted that there wouldn't be any negative impact? Look at what's happened there!!
Money = corruption = what they want = destruction of life
I don't know how they can say that, either.
It just doesn't make any sense though, Beth...if we destroy ourselves...then there's nothing left to be greedy about?! *sigh*
The earth would perpetuate riches and life if treated properly. Can't they see this?
This makes me really sad.
It's very disappointing considering how we understand the impact of economics versus ecological substantiability.
The ones who end up with fat bank accounts are only considering themselves, not the remainder of the population. You would think history, present data and current projects would prove that this will not be a viable alternative if they want to conserve the ecological balance of the forest.
Studies may have been done, but with many studies, the facts may have been presented in a fashion that benefits the consortium. You know the saying, stats don't lie, just they statitician. (no offense to those who are statiticians.)
I saw this spider, and almost cried! I hope common sense prevails.
We need water, but we do not need to destroy the ecology to get it!
It is probably a bad idea-- though a lot of complexities are involved. Economics are driving this, as in other cases. Economy is very important. Natural losses need consideration.
I'm sure none of these problems wee considered, in the least, when projects like Grand Coulee or Hoover (boulder) Dams were built. Even Hetch Hetchy-- which John Muir called second to Yosemite, was dammed to provide water for San Francisco.
In this case, there are fewer natural sites like this, that may be changed forever.
Major arteries have been clamped many times with better or lesser effects. All outcomes should be considered.
I agree that healthy economies are very important. But I would suggest that a healthy, sustainable economies are dependent on a healthy, sustained planet.
I'm not going to claim that I'm any expert on dams, either; it's just that this is not just any big river - this is THE big river. It just seems...somehow wrong to me to mess with it like that...The balance of ecological systems is so very delicate...and this is a HUGE change.
I simply can't see anyone being able to claim that it would have "no impact" with a straight face. I wonder what the locals think.
I wasn't that many years ago that the Nile was dammed at Aswan. You may remember that Aubu Simbal temple was raised stone by stone to preserve the archeological treasure, but many "lesser" treasures were flooded.
There have been problems there with the disruption of the normal flood cycle that replenishes the farmlands, as well as the silt buildup.-- They should at least take a good look at what the results were there.
Dams are bad for nature but good for people. They provide cheap electric power and control flooding.
Bad for nature = bad for people. We are part of nature.
I'm all for nature and the earth but humans come first. The world will not come to and end nor will the end be hastened by the construction of a dam. I for one am not going back to live in the 1800s so a four eyed spitting frog, of which there are only 3 left and all 3 are male, can have a habitat. Folks believe in evolution and survival of the fitest but when a species appears to be unable to make it on their own everybody panics. If the dam helps the people and the economy, build the dam.
Brazil is one of the worlds up and coming countries, and I am quite impressed that they are willing to spend money on a hydroelectric dam rather than a more polluting method of electricity generation.
The logistics amy seem bad, but when countries go through an economic growth spurt considerations often need to be made.
I don't know enough of the details to say whether this is an overall good, or bad, idea.
It's strange how many people say they want to fight global poverty, yet when it comes to doing something about it, all of a sudden it's a natural disaster. Humanity cannot exist without impact the environment in some way. Isn't it better to make that impact as limited as possible while also providing Third World nations what they need to grow out of poverty? Better they do this than open up coal burning or oil burning plants, right? Or would you rather see those people continue to live in abject poverty?
It's funny how people can get sarcastic and exaggerate what people have written when someone asks a simple question open for civilized discourse. It would be appreciated if people could refrain from being insulting.
Of course, I think it's a good idea to fight poverty, and of course I'm not so stupid as to think that we will have NO impact on the planet. But do you think it's possible to do these things in conjunction with the people who are already living there? Is gobbing up the world's largest river REALLY the only solution, or might it cause some problems on par with or worse than the ones that are there now? Shouldn't we at least examine those questions?
Now we're straying into issues of property rights. Of course the people who live there should have the right to determine how their land should be used. Unfortunately there is a penchant for governments to ignore niceties like property rights and use tricks like eminent domain to get what they want. Also there is this idea that certain things "belong to the world". They don't. The Amazon belongs to the people who live there and they should be allowed to develop it or not as they see fit.
In a society which protected property rights, there'd be all sorts of impact studies done by the parties involved so that we could tell with certainty what those impacts would be. Right now, by relying on government agencies and those businesses allied with government agencies, the true impact can be covered up and obscured.
I wasn't being sarcastic, there seems to be two opposing themes running through advanced nations. A desire to uplift all of humanity to enjoy modern life and another desire to treat the Earth as if it were to be swaddled in bubble wrap and protected from humanity. You can't have it both ways. The best you can do is find some compromise. I think Brazil is doing a much better job at this than, say, China, which is one of the most polluted nations on Earth.
We're not "straying" anywhere. In my opinion the dam is probably a bad idea for multiple reasons - it's a very open-ended thread. And people are welcome to their opinions.
I think there is a middle ground, as you suggested. I think civilized, intelligent people can and need to find it.
If China's the most-polluted place in the world, then everyone else is doing better than they are....it's not saying much.
Sometimes uplifting humanity means respecting them enough to find creative solutions.
I would love to know where the money is on this issue. Alas, I need to get some work done.
It all comes back to respecting property rights. Unless people are allowed to own property and dispose of it as they see fit, all they are are slaves. I'd argue that we can't say for sure if it's a good or bad thing because the Brasilia government will do what it wants and it seems to want to dam the Amazon.
One of the benefits of doing this from a property right perspective is that everyone affected gets a voice. From the upstream communities to the affected communities downstream would have input. If the dam could be built while satisfying all those concerned and still turn a profit, then by all means build it. If it turns out it would be too expensive to build, then it should not be built. Unfortunately what happens it that a firm will go to the government, pay a bribe and have the government issue a top-down decree that only benefits the politically connected. Not exactly the best way to do things.
In this particular question, this dam, there ought to be clear arguments available to read and judge in regard to why this dam is so critical to their future -- I could not find it, which tells me the need is not a clear and VITAL one.
So, just as I do not believe our own government should be trying to regulate our lives and tell us what we need, I also see nothing in what is readily available in regard to this dam and energy needs that shows me it is really necessary. And considering that -- it should not happen. I whole-heartedly hope that the protests will be successful in preventing it, with no loss of life.
As I said, give it another 30 years and look at another alternative, we have thoughtlessly done too much the world over in the interests of cash flow to corporations and governments -- and one of the primaries in the consortium that won the bid for this forced through project is State Owned.
by Mary Craig 9 years ago
Do you think its a good idea or bad idea to write about politics on HubPages?Politics, like religion, stirs up emotions in some people bringing out their, shall we say, darker qualities. Knowing this is it a good idea to rouse them with political hubs?
by Melvin Porter 11 years ago
Mexico is seeking new ways to end years of violence due to the illegal drug activities in the country. Mexico is waiting to see if Californians approve an initiative on Nov. 2 to legalize marijuana for recreational use in their state. If Californians vote yes on this Mexico may do the same...
by Henry Rice 10 years ago
The Omaha Assistant Principal shot in the school shooting has now died, and yet another teen kills himself after he shot the Pricipal and Asistant Prin. of his high school. OUR KIDS NEED PEACE!!!!!
by Dan Reed 10 years ago
Do you think it's a good or bad idea to write an opinionated hub on a "touchy" subject?I do not mean offensive, obscene, etc... just strongly opinionated.
by Christine Coulsen 5 months ago
I used to think this would really help people, but now I think it is a horrible idea. Especially for the economy and society in general. Covid has been a real eye opener. Paying people not to work, well, they then don't work, and they get lazy and don't go back to work. What are your thoughts on...
by Cindy Lawson 7 years ago
Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense or is this a bad idea?Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense, or do you think this is where parts of the world are going wrong and make a snowballing type problem?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|