jeoeker531

jeoeker531 t1_iui40bf wrote

Yes companies just want profit, but in capitalism, for companies to make profit and remain competitive they have to have quality and adhere to some degree to what customers want. If people don’t like what a company is doing the company will lose money. Unfortunately when the government gets involved it corrupts and degrades the free market and capitalism

2

jeoeker531 t1_iuhmfwx wrote

Yep, but you have to find specific examples of this not working. It can and does work… finding exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean it doesn’t work

2

jeoeker531 t1_iudhs1j wrote

Trees don’t make 30% of oxygen either. The corn belt in the USA at its height of the year makes more oxygen then the Amazon. And nobodies cutting down all trees not even close. In fact there there are more trees in the US now then there were 100 years ago.

2

jeoeker531 t1_iudh31g wrote

I mean clear cutting trees isn’t inherently bad either. Again, they’re reusable and can be planted elsewhere. Clear cutting in certain areas isn’t bad. Indiscriminately clear cutting everywhere would be bad

−2

jeoeker531 t1_iudgt54 wrote

Not so severe when you can replace it. Trees are replaceable. And supplies of one thing aren’t as vital as supplies as others. So fucking up 30% of something might not always be a big deal. Trees are reusable and don’t provide the majority of oxygen

0

jeoeker531 t1_iud9q4z wrote

Ok I never said it was the only benefit of forests. I’m just saying, again, that cutting down trees isn’t bad when done responsibly. It’s a reusable resource

−12

jeoeker531 t1_iud01a4 wrote

That’s not what I said… I’m just saying that it’s not so harmful or detrimental that trees are cut down responsibly. They are a reusable resource. Also the corn belt in the USA in season provides more oxygen than the Amazon too

−14