Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Why the US Army electrifies this water" video.

I mean, you used to be able to set some rivers in the US on fire due to the polution so that's not an unreasonable guess.
26
@andregon4366 I agree with both points, but rainforests are largely being cleared for livestock and the feed needed for them (which tends to be 10-20x the calories you get from said livestock). Beef is a particurally bad case.
4
@mckstellar1005 make boats with nets out of the water, get the fish to jump, and catch them in the air. No native fish caught.
4
@andregon4366 so you saw a single anecdote that may have been growing it for animal feed? What's your point?
3
@andregon4366 did it talk about how much/most soy farming in the area is soy farmers buying up used up pasture land and then selling the soy as feed to the cattle industry or just imply that all/most of the soy was for dirrect human consumption?
3
@andregon4366 yes, I do think they are accounted for. The illegal farming is fairly well documented as are the markets for soybeans (being bought for both animal feed and dirrect human consumption). The amount of soy used as animal feed and how many pounds of feed are needed to make a pound of meat means that as meat-eaters, we are both involved in this whether we dirrectly consume soy or not (and that's even ignoring the deforestation done by ranchers which appears to be the large majority of it and that the deforestation affects, and therefor should concern, every human on Earth). If the documentary you watched didn't touch on any of this, I have to assume it was heavily-biased propaganda giving only half-truths.
3
@andregon4366 no, IF what you watched was so hyper-focused on a small component of a large complex problem that it gave the impression that it was the vast majority or entirety of it by completely ignoring multiple other hugely influential factors THEN you should be concerned because it is at least bordering on lying to you by omission. What I've said so far has been incredibly banal, measured, and moderate (leaning almost as apolicial as possible for the subject matter). Your acting defensively to that should also be a red flag that the things you have been watching are more about emotional manipulation than informing you. Note: I have not in any way said that simply having a different view to mine is inherently biased, nor denied that some portion of the land on cleared forests is going right to soy production before use for herding cattle or denied that some of that soy production is being used for dirrect human consumption (as opposed to indirrect via eating animals fed soybeans).
3
@andregon4366 the only one dismissing information that doesn't fit their narrative is you, and it's clear your unwilling to do any listening or reflection on either yourself or the information you've seen so there's not really any point talking to you is there?
3
@Jonathan Motl if the problem is the polution, fix that problem and you can easily solve the fish problem.
1
I'm sure people have heard of fish sticks, though.
1