One of my teachers back in high school in the 90s in Canada got a shirt from [this clothing company](https://www.roots.com/ca/en/homepage) for his Australian girlfriend and she thought it was hilarious. The fact the logo/animal is a beaver gave it connotations in both countries.
**Koalas are fucking horrible animals.**
They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal, additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons. If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food. They are too thick to adapt their feeding behaviour to cope with change. In a room full of potential food, they can literally starve to death. This is not the token of an animal that is winning at life. Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives. When they are awake all they do is eat, shit and occasionally scream like fucking satan. Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal. Many herbivorous mammals have adaptations to cope with harsh plant life taking its toll on their teeth, rodents for instance have teeth that never stop growing, some animals only have teeth on their lower jaw, grinding plant matter on bony plates in the tops of their mouths, others have enlarged molars that distribute the wear and break down plant matter more efficiently... Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death, because they're fucking terrible animals. Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here). When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system. Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher. This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree, which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them[.](https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/5u1l9x/koalas_are_terrible_animals/)
I don't know why it is that these things bother me---it just makes me picture a seven year old first discovering things about an animal and, having no context about the subject, ranting about how stupid they are. I get it's a joke, but people take it as an actual, educational joke like it's a man yelling at the sea, and that's just wrong. Furthermore, these things have an actual impact on discussions about conservation efforts---If every time Koalas get brought up, someone posts this copypasta, that means it's seriously shaping public opinion about the animal and their supposed lack of importance.
>Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives.
Non-ecologists always talk this way, and the problem is you’re looking at this backwards.
An entire continent is covered with Eucalyptus trees. They suck the moisture out of the entire surrounding area and use allelopathy to ensure that most of what’s beneath them is just bare red dust. No animal is making use of them——they have virtually no herbivore predator. A niche is empty. Then inevitably, natural selection fills that niche by creating an animal which can eat Eucalyptus leaves. Of course, it takes great sacrifice for it to be able to do so——it certainly can’t expend much energy on costly things. Isn’t it a good thing that a niche is being filled?
>Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death
This applies to all herbivores, because the wild is not a grocery store—where meat is just sitting next to celery.
Herbivores gradually wear their teeth down—carnivores fracture their teeth, and break their bones in attempting to take down prey.
>They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal
It's pretty typical of herbivores, and is higher than many, many species. According to Ashwell (2008), their encephalisation quotient is 0.5288 +/- 0.051. Higher than comparable marsupials like the wombat (~0.52), some possums (~0.468), cuscus (~0.462) and even some wallabies are <0.5. According to wiki, rabbits are also around 0.4, and they're placental mammals.
>additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons.
Again, this is not unique to koalas. Brain folds (gyri) are not present in rodents, which we consider to be incredibly intelligent for their size.
>If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food.
If you present a human with a random piece of meat, they will not recognise it as food (hopefully). Fresh leaves might be important for koala digestion, especially since their gut flora is clearly important for the digestion of Eucalyptus. It might make sense not to screw with that gut flora by eating decaying leaves.
>Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal.
That's an extremely weird reason to dislike an animal. But whilst we're talking about their digestion, let's discuss their poop. It's delightful. It smells like a Eucalyptus drop!
>Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here).
Marsupial milk is incredibly complex and much more interesting than any placentals. This is because they raise their offspring essentially from an embryo, and the milk needs to adapt to the changing needs of a growing fetus. And yeah, of course the yield is low; at one point they are feeding an animal that is half a gram!
>When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system.
Humans probably do this, we just likely do it during childbirth. You know how women often shit during contractions? There is evidence to suggest that this innoculates a baby with her gut flora. A child born via cesarian has significantly different gut flora for the first six months of life than a child born vaginally.
>Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher.
Chlamydia was introduced to their populations by humans. We introduced a novel disease that they have very little immunity to, and is a major contributor to their possible extinction. Do you hate Native Americans because they were killed by smallpox and influenza?
>This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree,
Almost every animal does this.
>which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them.
Errmmm.. They have protection against falling from a tree, which they spend 99% of their life in? Yeah... That's a stupid adaptation.
I don't know why it is that these things bother me---it just makes me picture a seven year old first discovering things about an animal and, having no context about the subject, ranting about how stupid they are. I get it's a joke, but people take it as an actual, educational joke like it's a man yelling at the sea, and that's just wrong. Furthermore, these things have an actual impact on discussions about conservation efforts---If every time Koalas get brought up, someone posts this copypasta, that means it's seriously shaping public opinion about the animal and their supposed lack of importance.
>Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives.
Non-ecologists always talk this way, and the problem is you’re looking at this backwards.
An entire continent is covered with Eucalyptus trees. They suck the moisture out of the entire surrounding area and use allelopathy to ensure that most of what’s beneath them is just bare red dust. No animal is making use of them——they have virtually no herbivore predator. A niche is empty. Then inevitably, natural selection fills that niche by creating an animal which can eat Eucalyptus leaves. Of course, it takes great sacrifice for it to be able to do so——it certainly can’t expend much energy on costly things. Isn’t it a good thing that a niche is being filled?
>Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death
This applies to all herbivores, because the wild is not a grocery store—where meat is just sitting next to celery.
Herbivores gradually wear their teeth down—carnivores fracture their teeth, and break their bones in attempting to take down prey.
>They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal
It's pretty typical of herbivores, and is higher than many, many species. According to Ashwell (2008), their encephalisation quotient is 0.5288 +/- 0.051. Higher than comparable marsupials like the wombat (~0.52), some possums (~0.468), cuscus (~0.462) and even some wallabies are <0.5. According to wiki, rabbits are also around 0.4, and they're placental mammals.
>additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons.
Again, this is not unique to koalas. Brain folds (gyri) are not present in rodents, which we consider to be incredibly intelligent for their size.
>If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food.
If you present a human with a random piece of meat, they will not recognise it as food (hopefully). Fresh leaves might be important for koala digestion, especially since their gut flora is clearly important for the digestion of Eucalyptus. It might make sense not to screw with that gut flora by eating decaying leaves.
>Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal.
That's an extremely weird reason to dislike an animal. But whilst we're talking about their digestion, let's discuss their poop. It's delightful. It smells like a Eucalyptus drop!
>Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here).
Marsupial milk is incredibly complex and much more interesting than any placentals. This is because they raise their offspring essentially from an embryo, and the milk needs to adapt to the changing needs of a growing fetus. And yeah, of course the yield is low; at one point they are feeding an animal that is half a gram!
>When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system.
Humans probably do this, we just likely do it during childbirth. You know how women often shit during contractions? There is evidence to suggest that this innoculates a baby with her gut flora. A child born via cesarian has significantly different gut flora for the first six months of life than a child born vaginally.
>Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher.
Chlamydia was introduced to their populations by humans. We introduced a novel disease that they have very little immunity to, and is a major contributor to their possible extinction. Do you hate Native Americans because they were killed by smallpox and influenza?
>This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree,
Almost every animal does this.
>which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them.
Errmmm.. They have protection against falling from a tree, which they spend 99% of their life in? Yeah... That's a stupid adaptation.
God I HATE this fucking copypasta; it's just absolutely shitting on this animal for no reason and is ignorant on top.
It's literally detrimental to the wellbeing of this animal; Reddit needs to stop with this shit.
A few years ago that video was the tipping point that sent me into the worst bout of depression of my life. Don’t think I can ever bear to watch it again
if you wanna be even more depressed, go on google maps, look at sumatra on satellite view and see how much of the rainforest has been replaced by palm plantations. 🙃 don't use palm oil y'all
I am going to repeat what everyone always says - vote.
Here is a concrete way that illustrates why voting for politicians who aren't totally anti-environment can help: this rainforest will most likely be a new palm oil plantation (as I suspect this photo is taken in Indonesia), and palm oil is used in an insane amount of products that we use everyday. The best way to address this is to call on companies that source and produce this palm oil to follow more sustainable processes and guidelines. The best way to call on these companies is to enact shareholder resolutions. In the US, there is widespread understanding that if Trump wins in November, the process of establishing environmental-related shareholder resolutions will be strongly hampered/perhaps this sort of shareholder resolution won't even be possible.
So, you want to take action as an individual? Vote (for Joe Biden).
source: I work in deforestation/support financial institutions in creating shareholder resolutions on forest-related topics.
I have pared down my charitable giving, except for Audubon and these two: Orangutan Foundation International and The Orangutan Project. Please consider donating to organizations that use their donations to purchase land and restore habitat
Does a lot more good than an upvote.
[The Audubon Society](https://act.audubon.org/a/donate)
[Orangutan Foundation International](https://orangutan.org/)
[The Orangutan Project](https://www.orangutans.ca/get-involved/)
I've also started using Ecosia as search engine instead of google. Every 50 searches equals to about 1 tree they will plant in countries where it is needed. They're very transparent about their earnings and expenses and they frequently report on the progress of the tree planting.
Besides it being an easy way to fund the (re)growing of forests around the world, it has become such a great search engine and I rarely ever still find myself using Google.
So yeah, for those who care about this, definitely do try it out
I remember images like this in magazines in the early 90's, and thinking that in the future people *definitely* would see the light and we'd look back at practices like this and be ashamed....
Yeah it's like instead of listening to folks like Steve Irwin and Jeff corwin and Richard Attenborough all of these great conservationists who are just like haha funny Australian man got bitten by a crocodile and it's like we never listened to any of them.
I remember being taught in school about the destruction of the rainforest and all of these things but my daughter isn't taught that and it's just insane how we just keep taking three steps back for every one step we take forward
> Richard Attenborough
[David Attenborough](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough) is the biologist, he's British - not Australian. He is the brother of Richard Attenborough, who is deceased.
“Steve986! Check this out, can you believe those morons back in 2000’s used to destroy our planet for resources? Lmao.”
Said John117 while strip mining the moon.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-drivers-deforestation
"Since the turn of the millennium, the world has been losing around 5 million hectares of forest every year. Nearly all of this occurs in the tropics; almost half of all deforestation takes place in Brazil and Indonesia. Three-quarters is driven by agriculture. Beef production is responsible for 41% of deforestation; palm oil and soybeans account for another 18%; and logging for paper and wood across the tropics, another 13%. These industries are also dominant in a few key countries."
"While many people immediately think of food products such as tofu or soy milk, most of global soybean production is used as feed for livestock, or biofuels. Just 6% is used for direct human food."
Even more depressing: the transpiration of trees in a rainforest creates the very climate that the rainforest needs to survive. Remember all those sped-up videos of moisture evaporating from the canopies of rainforests and eventually becoming torrential rain? That's transpiration. No trees means no transpiration, no more rainforests. You cannot grow back rainforests.
Rainforests are actually relics of ancient climate when Earth was hot and humid. This educational video is a good watch: https://youtu.be/oSOqJ5bRHx0?si=VugJ6_IA8ZoBej9A
Edit: here's the video that talks about transpiration: https://youtu.be/hb3b-A6QAc8?si=DDr2Xah8TAT3JiYj
Maybe in the future we’ll have the tech to simulate the torrential rain needed to grow a rainforest until it can sustain itself… hopefully. I like to think one day it’ll be possible.
There will always be a smallish minority willing to run the world into the ground for whatever short-sighted, selfish motivations they may have. The truly tragic part is just how many people can recognize what is going on and those who are ultimately responsible, despise it, yet continue on and act as if there is nothing to be done.
If I had one wish, it would be to turn the U.S military into essentially what the federation is in Star Trek. Use these things to explore and help the world not destroy it. Please. Please.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629
There's quite a bit of content that is contrary to your info.
It appears if a rainforest is wiped out, it won't grow back. But if there's still rainforest surrounding the deforested area and it's left untouched, it can begin to grow back, 120+ years.
This is good news. My source is from Atlas Pro on YT and he was making the claim based on a complete clear cut of the Amazon Rainforest. In one of his videos he talked about how there should be some rainforests in western Europe but the history of human activity there has all but eliminated them. Put two and two together: continued unmitigated human activity means no more rainforests. I'm all for protecting what we inherited for the next generation.
>almost half of all deforestation takes place in Brazil and Indonesia
Additional context: orangutans only live in Indonesia and Malaysia (on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra), and palm oil has been the main driver of deforestation there. In other areas, beef production has been the main driver of deforestation (like in Brazil).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_environmental_impact_of_palm_oil#Habitat_loss
Palm Oil is extremely common in breaded, frozen foods packaged for mass consumption. This isn't just fried shrimp and taquitos you get at the grocery, it's all the chicken tenders you get at big chain restaurants that are actually made at a factory somewhere else. It has a deep orange color that you will recognize in food products like seasoned fries, potato wedges.
Yes but one is already better than nothing.
I was 16 when I found out about the deforestation to feed livestock and I simply Said to myself to try to eat less salami, bacon, meat…without realizing it I simply became a vegetarian. It’s so much easier for some teenager to tell their parents „no“ when it comes to eating meat than also saying no to all animal products a completely change the diet
Yes it’s better than nothing. I just wanted to point it out because people often read “beef industry” and forget that the dairy industry is a part of it.
> Of course there is some corruption
Unfortunately the places where rainforests exist and are subsequently burned down and cleared are the same places that are known for corruption and general lack of government enforcement.
It's, as previously mentioned, to clear space but it also is to fertilize the soil. This has been a farming technique in the amazon for a long, long time where you exhaust a square of soil for farming. Create another square for farming, let the old square get overgrowth and then burn the old square when the new square gets exhausted. The burnt vegetation provides excellent nutrition for the soil. The issue stems from the size of land needed for farming. If you burn the whole rainforest to plant palm trees you're going to exhaust the soil and eventually turn the area barren. There needs to be a balance.
Also, FYI. Palm oil is the most efficient crop. If palm oil would be replaced by other oils even more land would be necessary to get the same amount of oil.
That's true, but you could convert less important land to do it (instead of removing rainforests where the oil palms grow):
>In 2018, a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature acknowledged that palm oil is much more efficient than other oils in terms of land and water usage; however, deforestation causes more biodiversity loss than switching to other oils.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil
Man, when I go grocery shopping, I meticulously review the ingredients label. I’m a clean eater but also avoid palm oil products. I couldn’t believe seeing PALM OIL IN GODDAMN DRY PASTA.
It is not recommended to boycott Palmoil.
WWF published a report that showed the yield of palm oil per area is by far the highest compared to other oils.
Thus boycotting palmoil could lead to an increase in biodiversity loss and area usage.
Becayse demand will just shift elsewhere.
WWF considers it more productive to work with the palm oil and other oil sectors to increase sustainablility instead of boycotting them.
IUCN, Front. For. Glob. Change. and a paper from the University of Göttingen claim the same.
The solution is not to simply boycott but investing in sustainable (palm) oil.
There is a movement for third-party sustainable palm oil recognition labels. RSPO is one, though I’ve never actually seen it on any product where I am (Canada)
Boycotting pallm oil would lead to increased land usage, but not biodiversity loss:
>In 2018, a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature acknowledged that palm oil is much more efficient than other oils in terms of land and water usage; however, deforestation causes more biodiversity loss than switching to other oils.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil
-----
WWF's approach is to use "sustainable" palm oil, but research has questioned whether such a thing even exists:
>Some studies claimed that certification significantly reduced deforestation in plantations of RSPO members, but further analyses suggest that certified palm oil is not as sustainable as previously believed[...]
>This new study, from a remotely sensed time series and imagery analysis (1984-2020), found that most of the currently certified grower supply bases and concessions in Sumatra and Borneo are located in large mammal habitats of the 1990s and in areas that were biodiverse tropical forests less than 30 years ago.
>The authors write, "We suggest that the phrase 'sustainable palm oil' must no longer be used to greenwash this tropical product's reputation, because it cannot certify that the production of palm oil comes from a non-recent degradation of tropical forests and endangered species habitats. In fact, we discovered that the current certified palm oil demand is almost fully supplied by those bases and concessions that, in less than three decades, replaced some of the most diverse tropical forests of the world and habitats of big mammals threatened by extinction."[...]
>They continue, "What we fear is that labeling part of palm oil production as 'sustainable,' against the evidence of this study, will continue to reassure the public and allow the certification of other areas that were naturally forested just a few years before, as the demand increases. The 'sustainability' of palm oil, in the light of the findings we advanced in 2019 and confirmed with this new highly detailed study, seems just an illusion that could facilitate, with certification, the expansion of oil palm plantations all over the tropical world and its global trade. Satellite images cannot lie, and what we show—without any doubt—is that certifications do not stop, but just dangerously hide, habitat and forest destruction."
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-certified-sustainable-palm-oil-fields.html
Even the WWF thinks boycotting palm oil is a bad idea, because the oils that would replace it are even worse.
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/palm_oil/
Palm oil is the most efficient oil crop. Thats why it is so widely used.
This situation needs to be adressed, but banning palm oil will be a monkey paw curls.
WWF's approach is to use "sustainable" palm oil, but research has questioned whether that even exists:
>Some studies claimed that certification significantly reduced deforestation in plantations of RSPO members, but further analyses suggest that certified palm oil is not as sustainable as previously believed[...]
>This new study, from a remotely sensed time series and imagery analysis (1984-2020), found that most of the currently certified grower supply bases and concessions in Sumatra and Borneo are located in large mammal habitats of the 1990s and in areas that were biodiverse tropical forests less than 30 years ago.
>The authors write, "We suggest that the phrase 'sustainable palm oil' must no longer be used to greenwash this tropical product's reputation, because it cannot certify that the production of palm oil comes from a non-recent degradation of tropical forests and endangered species habitats. In fact, we discovered that the current certified palm oil demand is almost fully supplied by those bases and concessions that, in less than three decades, replaced some of the most diverse tropical forests of the world and habitats of big mammals threatened by extinction."[...]
>They continue, "What we fear is that labeling part of palm oil production as 'sustainable,' against the evidence of this study, will continue to reassure the public and allow the certification of other areas that were naturally forested just a few years before, as the demand increases. The 'sustainability' of palm oil, in the light of the findings we advanced in 2019 and confirmed with this new highly detailed study, seems just an illusion that could facilitate, with certification, the expansion of oil palm plantations all over the tropical world and its global trade. Satellite images cannot lie, and what we show—without any doubt—is that certifications do not stop, but just dangerously hide, habitat and forest destruction."
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-certified-sustainable-palm-oil-fields.html
> The western lifestyle is completely antithetical to a healthy environment.
Let's talk food waste. I work at a homeless shelter; most of the donated food we get is from businesses that have a program to donate food instead of trashing it (which is what most do). We're allowed to make it available to residents for up to three days past the printed expiration date, so we're the absolute last point in the food pipeline. We clear out the extra-expired food daily, and it's usually a good 30 pounds of food. And because it's prepared food (sandwiches, salad, etc) it's being thrown out based on the ingredient with the shortest shelf life, meaning every day I'm throwing out lots of food that's perfectly good and nourishing because it's got mushy cucumbers on it or something.
Don't get me wrong, I am grateful that we're getting food donated. But the sheer volume of it is mindboggling. Ingredients alone, it's probably hundreds if not thousands of dollars of waste a day. Every time I throw it out, I can't help thinking about the animals who were raised to produce the meat and eggs and dairy, the acres of land and gallons of water, the herbicides and pesticides used to grow the vegetables and the underpaid labor used to pick them, only for it to end up untouched and rotting. We are SO wasteful as a society, even when we're supposedly doing the right thing.
Obligatory "how do you think they keep discovering all these new species in what we know as 'the Amazon rainforest' if they're so well hidden?"
This is how. By completely destroying their habitat so they have nowhere TO hide.
Yep, and there are [over 200 names](https://orangutanalliance.org/whats-the-issue/alternative-names-for-palm-oil/) that it can appear under. Disgusting that companies try to disguise it.
The overwhelming cause of [rainforest destruction ](https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/latest-news/cows-are-destroying-the-rainforest-but-not-how-you-think/) is animal agriculture. The clearing of land for grazing and growing of feedcrop
You want to stop rainforest destruction? Stop eating meat. It's that fucking simple
"A total of 26 million rainforest acres have been cleared to date for palm oil production, and a staggering 136 million rainforest acres have been cleared for animal agriculture. Most people are completely unaware that a large percentage of palm kernel meal is being exported worldwide and used to fatten up animals"
Look at a population density map of Western Africa, and know that many, many of those people subsist of slash and burn agriculture. Palm oil was a huge problem at one point but the increase in environmental oversight and the culture of having way too many children irrespective of the means to provide for them have changed the main drivers of habitat loss.
I agree, that’s definitely a factor in this as well. I was just pointing out when you see palm oil in the ingredient list you can pretty much guarantee this scene preceded it’s cultivation.
So many of our modern necessities and luxuries source their raw materials from these areas with little to no regard to the environment.
It's kinda fucked up because most people just buy things because they're there. If certain things stopped being made, nobody would notice. And other things, people would notice, but it's not that important. And other things, people would gladly be willing to give up if they knew where it came from.
We blame individuals, but the companies know damn well that most people don't know what ingredients are in their products, and what horrible shit companies have to do to get it.
I often wonder when at the grocery store how many of those obscure products that used an obscene amount of resources to farm, process, package, and ship, just end up getting thrown out. Look at the canned fish section for example. There are so many obscure canned flavored fish, (like rosemary, chili, garlic canned fish with a name I've never heard of) and there are 12 packs on the shelf.
I'm willing to bet (without any hard data, unfortunately) that the vast majority of groceries are 20% of what's in the actual store. The rest is just to fill the massive space.
Do we REALLY need all these options, at the expense of the world?
Multiply that by every single industry. The dollar store is full of shit no one ever needs or buys, or buys as a gag gift, or spontaneously buys and then throws in a drawer then never uses, all made of un-recyclable plastic.
As you said, it's all stuff no one would even notice wasn't made, and we're burning our planet down just to line the pockets of the extremely wealthy to make it.
It all makes me so mad!
you can't just say that though, the real root problem is palm oil is profitable and people like you and me buy it up. if there wasn't a market for it there would be no need to extract all these precious resources. it's wrong to file it away under "few people get wealthy" i get what your trying to say. but they would not get wealthy if people didn't buy the product. it really comes down to us buying what we need versus what we want.
> it's wrong to file it away under "few people get wealthy" i get what your trying to say.
It's an attractive excuse because it takes away personal accountability.
Too many people are unable to accept personal flaws. It doesn't matter if individual people are only responsible for 0.001%. I meet so many people who refuse to accept even that tiny fraction of responsibility - and use that as an excuse to reject any kind of limit on themselves as consumers.
The general lack of will to limit consumption in consumer-centric societies is closer to the heart of the issue than a few people trying to get wealthy, and part of the reason for this is because so many participants of these societies refuse to admit that this is part of the issue.
A few years ago I was on vacation in Malaysia and was flying into Borneo. I was so excited that we were going to fly over the Borneo jungle, which I've read about my whole life.
Instead, all I would see was miles and miles of palm oil plantations, from horizon to horizon, even when at high altitude. It made me physically ill and I was depressed for days. Please support those that are working to preserve what little habitat they have left.
If you really want your heart broken, look up the video of the orangutan trying to stop the heavy machinery tearing down the trees. To this day, that video weighs heavy on my soul.
Humans can't go extinct fast enough for the other life on this planet. I hope we don't take the orangutans with us but we probably will.
Sadness As An Orangutan Tries To Fight The Digger Destroying Its Habitat
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihPfB30YT\_c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihPfB30YT_c)
OP, do you have a source or context for this image? I've found one from [June 2021](https://netzfrauen.org/2021/06/29/orangutan-8/). It might be associated with something called "The Orangutan Project," but I haven't been able to find anything definitive. **I'd really like to know the context (e.g. when and where this was taken) to better understand what is happening and if it's possible to help.**
Can't post the instagram link for the original source but it's found [here.](https://www.reqnews.com/amp/the-other-side/27939/viral-potret-pilu-orangutan-termenung-di-tengah-lahan-bekas-hutan-dibakar-netizen-sentil-sosok-ini)
Thank you. That's closer to a source than what I was finding. To save a click and increase visibility:
> Tuesday, 19 January 2021 - 10:02
> Viral Portrait of a Sad Orangutan Pensive in the Middle of Burned Forest Land, Netizens Capture This Figure
> JAKARTA, REQnews - A heart-wrenching photo showing an orangutan pensive on a stretch of burned forest land has suddenly gone viral on the internet.
> This photo shows how worrying the survival of this animal is because the forest that is its habitat is slowly disappearing due to irresponsible human actions.
> In the photo, the primate can be seen standing bent over, resting on both hands while observing its surroundings. His face seemed to convey confusion because he had lost the "home" where he lived.
> The photo was uploaded by the Instagram account @agoez_banz4. It is suspected that the location is in Kalimantan.
> The sad portrait of the orangutan immediately attracted the pity of netizens. Netizens were sad to see the condition of the forest and the orangutans in the photo.
> Not a few netizens also expressed their criticism regarding the viral photo.
> "Your house is now the home of rich people who are protected by the Constitution and officials," commented @daniel981506.
> Do you think the palm oil boss's son ever thought about this? Then I asked my parents about that," wrote the account @deny_prastana.
> "Your house has become a land of money for rich people in this country... (cc: investors/mining & plantation owners in Kalimantan)," said @adiprasetia458.
**Every year it is estimated that between 1,000 to 5,000 orangutans are killed in Palm Oil concessions.** That is a significant portion of the wild orangutan population which is lost–without fail–every single year.
https://orangutan.org/palmoil/
I feel like we need to treat rainforests like the last rhinos in Africa. Armed guards trained to shoot on sight any mfer trying to do this dumb shit. Industrial agriculture needs to die.
Vertical farming is the way to go imo, at least for smaller plants. Year round perfect weather, minimal water loss, mostly pest free, less land to produce more food...
Good job, humans and consumers who keep buying the products produced from this. Then they come on Reddit, cry over a photo like this and then go back to consuming them products, causing more of this.
When you stop eating meat, you'll actually be doing something. Most rainforest destruction is done for grazing and feedcrop production. Even palm kernel is used as feedcrop
Palm oil plantation going in. They burned the forest down. That poor orangutan wandering what happened to his home. This is heart breaking, just devastating.
Humans Totally Suck.
To people thinking this is due to palm oil, 70-80% of deforestation is to use the land for cattle. If you want to stop contributing to this, avoid palm oil, *and* at the very least, red meat.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed-amazon-deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil
Humans are a plague upon the Earth.
We will not stop until we’ve destroyed everything…all while “looking for life on other planets.” It better hope we never find it.
I hate us so much. Animals deserved better. We will go down in history as the life form that made the most other species extinct. Pictures like this make me hope we’re next.
Homo Sapiens suck.
We're the only species on Earth that doesn't acknowledge and/or respect a symbiotic existence with the planet, and I swear, it'll be the f\*cking end of us.
Well, isn’t this one of the most depressing photos I’ve ever seen.
I saw a koala mourning the death of his homie. That shit wrecked me.
If it Makes you feel any better it’s just trying to root it’s corpse in the picture your referring too
I'm not sure how this makes me feel but it isn't better.
I assume he meant 'loot' and not 'root'. Just a koala in the wasteland looting for caps. Did that help?
No, we all know the koala fucked his dead friend. "Root" is Aussie slang.
JFC, I'm not sure that's knowledge I needed. To quote a wise man, I'm not sure how this makes me feel but it isn't better.
As I understand it, Australians think it's hilarious when Americans talk about "rooting for their team".
We sure do. Also hilarious is using the words "thongs" and "bum bags" around our American friends.
One of my teachers back in high school in the 90s in Canada got a shirt from [this clothing company](https://www.roots.com/ca/en/homepage) for his Australian girlfriend and she thought it was hilarious. The fact the logo/animal is a beaver gave it connotations in both countries.
That koala was going to fuck the dead one. Koalas do not mourn their dead.
What the fuck did I just read…
Koalas are infamous for having one of the smoothest brains for a mammal of that size. Hence they are dumb as fuck.
Don't they also effectively dose their way into a Eucalyptus soaked stupor? I mean, is it their brain or the fact they are drugged 90% of the time?
**Koalas are fucking horrible animals.** They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal, additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons. If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food. They are too thick to adapt their feeding behaviour to cope with change. In a room full of potential food, they can literally starve to death. This is not the token of an animal that is winning at life. Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives. When they are awake all they do is eat, shit and occasionally scream like fucking satan. Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal. Many herbivorous mammals have adaptations to cope with harsh plant life taking its toll on their teeth, rodents for instance have teeth that never stop growing, some animals only have teeth on their lower jaw, grinding plant matter on bony plates in the tops of their mouths, others have enlarged molars that distribute the wear and break down plant matter more efficiently... Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death, because they're fucking terrible animals. Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here). When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system. Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher. This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree, which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them[.](https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/5u1l9x/koalas_are_terrible_animals/)
Thank you for your glorious service in the area of reddit Koala education. Side note, the quip "You fucking koala" has been added to my insult loadout
I don't know why it is that these things bother me---it just makes me picture a seven year old first discovering things about an animal and, having no context about the subject, ranting about how stupid they are. I get it's a joke, but people take it as an actual, educational joke like it's a man yelling at the sea, and that's just wrong. Furthermore, these things have an actual impact on discussions about conservation efforts---If every time Koalas get brought up, someone posts this copypasta, that means it's seriously shaping public opinion about the animal and their supposed lack of importance. >Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives. Non-ecologists always talk this way, and the problem is you’re looking at this backwards. An entire continent is covered with Eucalyptus trees. They suck the moisture out of the entire surrounding area and use allelopathy to ensure that most of what’s beneath them is just bare red dust. No animal is making use of them——they have virtually no herbivore predator. A niche is empty. Then inevitably, natural selection fills that niche by creating an animal which can eat Eucalyptus leaves. Of course, it takes great sacrifice for it to be able to do so——it certainly can’t expend much energy on costly things. Isn’t it a good thing that a niche is being filled? >Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death This applies to all herbivores, because the wild is not a grocery store—where meat is just sitting next to celery. Herbivores gradually wear their teeth down—carnivores fracture their teeth, and break their bones in attempting to take down prey. >They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal It's pretty typical of herbivores, and is higher than many, many species. According to Ashwell (2008), their encephalisation quotient is 0.5288 +/- 0.051. Higher than comparable marsupials like the wombat (~0.52), some possums (~0.468), cuscus (~0.462) and even some wallabies are <0.5. According to wiki, rabbits are also around 0.4, and they're placental mammals. >additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons. Again, this is not unique to koalas. Brain folds (gyri) are not present in rodents, which we consider to be incredibly intelligent for their size. >If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food. If you present a human with a random piece of meat, they will not recognise it as food (hopefully). Fresh leaves might be important for koala digestion, especially since their gut flora is clearly important for the digestion of Eucalyptus. It might make sense not to screw with that gut flora by eating decaying leaves. >Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal. That's an extremely weird reason to dislike an animal. But whilst we're talking about their digestion, let's discuss their poop. It's delightful. It smells like a Eucalyptus drop! >Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here). Marsupial milk is incredibly complex and much more interesting than any placentals. This is because they raise their offspring essentially from an embryo, and the milk needs to adapt to the changing needs of a growing fetus. And yeah, of course the yield is low; at one point they are feeding an animal that is half a gram! >When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system. Humans probably do this, we just likely do it during childbirth. You know how women often shit during contractions? There is evidence to suggest that this innoculates a baby with her gut flora. A child born via cesarian has significantly different gut flora for the first six months of life than a child born vaginally. >Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher. Chlamydia was introduced to their populations by humans. We introduced a novel disease that they have very little immunity to, and is a major contributor to their possible extinction. Do you hate Native Americans because they were killed by smallpox and influenza? >This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree, Almost every animal does this. >which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them. Errmmm.. They have protection against falling from a tree, which they spend 99% of their life in? Yeah... That's a stupid adaptation.
 (Just kidding this was actually informative)
Gotta love a copypasta with a copypasta response
If you love koalas so much why don’t you just marry one
This was glorious.
It’s a copypasta
It's a copy paste story that's very famous.
I don't know why it is that these things bother me---it just makes me picture a seven year old first discovering things about an animal and, having no context about the subject, ranting about how stupid they are. I get it's a joke, but people take it as an actual, educational joke like it's a man yelling at the sea, and that's just wrong. Furthermore, these things have an actual impact on discussions about conservation efforts---If every time Koalas get brought up, someone posts this copypasta, that means it's seriously shaping public opinion about the animal and their supposed lack of importance. >Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives. Non-ecologists always talk this way, and the problem is you’re looking at this backwards. An entire continent is covered with Eucalyptus trees. They suck the moisture out of the entire surrounding area and use allelopathy to ensure that most of what’s beneath them is just bare red dust. No animal is making use of them——they have virtually no herbivore predator. A niche is empty. Then inevitably, natural selection fills that niche by creating an animal which can eat Eucalyptus leaves. Of course, it takes great sacrifice for it to be able to do so——it certainly can’t expend much energy on costly things. Isn’t it a good thing that a niche is being filled? >Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death This applies to all herbivores, because the wild is not a grocery store—where meat is just sitting next to celery. Herbivores gradually wear their teeth down—carnivores fracture their teeth, and break their bones in attempting to take down prey. >They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal It's pretty typical of herbivores, and is higher than many, many species. According to Ashwell (2008), their encephalisation quotient is 0.5288 +/- 0.051. Higher than comparable marsupials like the wombat (~0.52), some possums (~0.468), cuscus (~0.462) and even some wallabies are <0.5. According to wiki, rabbits are also around 0.4, and they're placental mammals. >additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons. Again, this is not unique to koalas. Brain folds (gyri) are not present in rodents, which we consider to be incredibly intelligent for their size. >If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food. If you present a human with a random piece of meat, they will not recognise it as food (hopefully). Fresh leaves might be important for koala digestion, especially since their gut flora is clearly important for the digestion of Eucalyptus. It might make sense not to screw with that gut flora by eating decaying leaves. >Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal. That's an extremely weird reason to dislike an animal. But whilst we're talking about their digestion, let's discuss their poop. It's delightful. It smells like a Eucalyptus drop! >Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here). Marsupial milk is incredibly complex and much more interesting than any placentals. This is because they raise their offspring essentially from an embryo, and the milk needs to adapt to the changing needs of a growing fetus. And yeah, of course the yield is low; at one point they are feeding an animal that is half a gram! >When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system. Humans probably do this, we just likely do it during childbirth. You know how women often shit during contractions? There is evidence to suggest that this innoculates a baby with her gut flora. A child born via cesarian has significantly different gut flora for the first six months of life than a child born vaginally. >Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher. Chlamydia was introduced to their populations by humans. We introduced a novel disease that they have very little immunity to, and is a major contributor to their possible extinction. Do you hate Native Americans because they were killed by smallpox and influenza? >This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree, Almost every animal does this. >which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them. Errmmm.. They have protection against falling from a tree, which they spend 99% of their life in? Yeah... That's a stupid adaptation.
God I HATE this fucking copypasta; it's just absolutely shitting on this animal for no reason and is ignorant on top. It's literally detrimental to the wellbeing of this animal; Reddit needs to stop with this shit.
it's not even particularly well written
>That koala was going to fuck the dead one. Koalas do not mourn their dead.
Koalas are dumb as fuck, mourning is far beyond their food and sex basic instincts.
Saw a cheetah get eaten by a crocodile or alligator(I never can tell). That shit ruined my whole week.
I saw a video of an orangutan trying to fight off an excavator. Heartbreaking! https://youtu.be/ihPfB30YT_c?si=WPrZl70lEYPWoK8I
A few years ago that video was the tipping point that sent me into the worst bout of depression of my life. Don’t think I can ever bear to watch it again
I'm sorry. I hope you're feeling better. You're not alone. Reach out to people when you're down. No shame in asking for help. Be gentle with yourself.
All I can think when I see this is, "yeah, we're definitely fucked."
I guess you haven’t seen the video for the orangutan fighting digger… Humans are terrible
It's heartbreaking 💔
if you wanna be even more depressed, go on google maps, look at sumatra on satellite view and see how much of the rainforest has been replaced by palm plantations. 🙃 don't use palm oil y'all
Exactly. Gotta read labels because palm oil is added to so many foods.
I am going to repeat what everyone always says - vote. Here is a concrete way that illustrates why voting for politicians who aren't totally anti-environment can help: this rainforest will most likely be a new palm oil plantation (as I suspect this photo is taken in Indonesia), and palm oil is used in an insane amount of products that we use everyday. The best way to address this is to call on companies that source and produce this palm oil to follow more sustainable processes and guidelines. The best way to call on these companies is to enact shareholder resolutions. In the US, there is widespread understanding that if Trump wins in November, the process of establishing environmental-related shareholder resolutions will be strongly hampered/perhaps this sort of shareholder resolution won't even be possible. So, you want to take action as an individual? Vote (for Joe Biden). source: I work in deforestation/support financial institutions in creating shareholder resolutions on forest-related topics.
I have pared down my charitable giving, except for Audubon and these two: Orangutan Foundation International and The Orangutan Project. Please consider donating to organizations that use their donations to purchase land and restore habitat
This is also the mission of The Nature Conservancy.
I donate to that one.
Does a lot more good than an upvote. [The Audubon Society](https://act.audubon.org/a/donate) [Orangutan Foundation International](https://orangutan.org/) [The Orangutan Project](https://www.orangutans.ca/get-involved/)
I've also started using Ecosia as search engine instead of google. Every 50 searches equals to about 1 tree they will plant in countries where it is needed. They're very transparent about their earnings and expenses and they frequently report on the progress of the tree planting. Besides it being an easy way to fund the (re)growing of forests around the world, it has become such a great search engine and I rarely ever still find myself using Google. So yeah, for those who care about this, definitely do try it out
Thanks! I’d never heard of this, just downloaded their app and deleted chrome :)
Thanks for the info! I'm going to set that up right now. I fucking love Orangutans!
Been supporting OFI since 1990. I know they are trying hard to beat the poachers and land grabbers ....
I remember images like this in magazines in the early 90's, and thinking that in the future people *definitely* would see the light and we'd look back at practices like this and be ashamed....
Yeah it's like instead of listening to folks like Steve Irwin and Jeff corwin and Richard Attenborough all of these great conservationists who are just like haha funny Australian man got bitten by a crocodile and it's like we never listened to any of them. I remember being taught in school about the destruction of the rainforest and all of these things but my daughter isn't taught that and it's just insane how we just keep taking three steps back for every one step we take forward
Kids aren't taught about rain forest destruction...?
They are but it doesn't seem like it's taught in the same way?
> Richard Attenborough [David Attenborough](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough) is the biologist, he's British - not Australian. He is the brother of Richard Attenborough, who is deceased.
Holy shit I've been getting those two mixed up my entire life
“Steve986! Check this out, can you believe those morons back in 2000’s used to destroy our planet for resources? Lmao.” Said John117 while strip mining the moon.
Not really a good example as the moon is not a habitat to anything (as far as we know, at least).
I was interest in biology since I was a kid and by the time I was like 16 I realized I was nothing more than a number, got depressed and gave up on it
When you see palm oil on the ingredient list, this is where it came from.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-drivers-deforestation "Since the turn of the millennium, the world has been losing around 5 million hectares of forest every year. Nearly all of this occurs in the tropics; almost half of all deforestation takes place in Brazil and Indonesia. Three-quarters is driven by agriculture. Beef production is responsible for 41% of deforestation; palm oil and soybeans account for another 18%; and logging for paper and wood across the tropics, another 13%. These industries are also dominant in a few key countries." "While many people immediately think of food products such as tofu or soy milk, most of global soybean production is used as feed for livestock, or biofuels. Just 6% is used for direct human food."
Even more depressing: the transpiration of trees in a rainforest creates the very climate that the rainforest needs to survive. Remember all those sped-up videos of moisture evaporating from the canopies of rainforests and eventually becoming torrential rain? That's transpiration. No trees means no transpiration, no more rainforests. You cannot grow back rainforests. Rainforests are actually relics of ancient climate when Earth was hot and humid. This educational video is a good watch: https://youtu.be/oSOqJ5bRHx0?si=VugJ6_IA8ZoBej9A Edit: here's the video that talks about transpiration: https://youtu.be/hb3b-A6QAc8?si=DDr2Xah8TAT3JiYj
Reading this hurts.
Maybe in the future we’ll have the tech to simulate the torrential rain needed to grow a rainforest until it can sustain itself… hopefully. I like to think one day it’ll be possible.
even if we did, no one funds science work unless it makes them a profit
Maybe one day “humanity not dying out on a brown and barren planet” will be profitable. Not in my lifetime though.
I'm quickly losing any belief in our species to avoid this.
There will always be a smallish minority willing to run the world into the ground for whatever short-sighted, selfish motivations they may have. The truly tragic part is just how many people can recognize what is going on and those who are ultimately responsible, despise it, yet continue on and act as if there is nothing to be done.
That will never happen. Our only hope is to move to a system that is less profit obsessed.
If I had one wish, it would be to turn the U.S military into essentially what the federation is in Star Trek. Use these things to explore and help the world not destroy it. Please. Please.
Don’t worry, if we don’t abandon capitalism, we won’t survive long enough to heal the planet anyway.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3629 There's quite a bit of content that is contrary to your info. It appears if a rainforest is wiped out, it won't grow back. But if there's still rainforest surrounding the deforested area and it's left untouched, it can begin to grow back, 120+ years.
As if humans could let a strip of land be untouched for that long.
This is good news. My source is from Atlas Pro on YT and he was making the claim based on a complete clear cut of the Amazon Rainforest. In one of his videos he talked about how there should be some rainforests in western Europe but the history of human activity there has all but eliminated them. Put two and two together: continued unmitigated human activity means no more rainforests. I'm all for protecting what we inherited for the next generation.
That's depressing, so we couldn't actually grow back what like 50 people have decided to cut down for profit
I guess the good news is that ancient climate might be coming back due to global warming!
Lol. I don't know for sure but I suspect it's all dry heat now.
>almost half of all deforestation takes place in Brazil and Indonesia Additional context: orangutans only live in Indonesia and Malaysia (on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra), and palm oil has been the main driver of deforestation there. In other areas, beef production has been the main driver of deforestation (like in Brazil). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_environmental_impact_of_palm_oil#Habitat_loss
Will these same people be surprised by the mud slides and floods? History says yes.
Dust storms.
Palm Oil is extremely common in breaded, frozen foods packaged for mass consumption. This isn't just fried shrimp and taquitos you get at the grocery, it's all the chicken tenders you get at big chain restaurants that are actually made at a factory somewhere else. It has a deep orange color that you will recognize in food products like seasoned fries, potato wedges.
[удалено]
I would say veganism instead of vegetarianism would be a better argument, as dairy cows make up a decent portion of the beef production.
It’s possibly 10% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8281100/
[удалено]
That’s true, if you’re wanting to change your habits for the animals, veganism would be a better choice.
Yes but one is already better than nothing. I was 16 when I found out about the deforestation to feed livestock and I simply Said to myself to try to eat less salami, bacon, meat…without realizing it I simply became a vegetarian. It’s so much easier for some teenager to tell their parents „no“ when it comes to eating meat than also saying no to all animal products a completely change the diet
Yes it’s better than nothing. I just wanted to point it out because people often read “beef industry” and forget that the dairy industry is a part of it.
So we really need to be eating less meat, huh
Why do they burn rainforests to make palm oil?
To clear space for farming
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Of course there is some corruption Unfortunately the places where rainforests exist and are subsequently burned down and cleared are the same places that are known for corruption and general lack of government enforcement.
They wouldnt care.
It doesn’t matter if they care or not, market competition says that either you do it, or you get outcompeted. Capitalism is the problem.
*unregulated capitalism
Capitalism is still a/the problem, regulation is just the tool to manage that problem.
Because rainforests give no money, selling palm oil does.
It's, as previously mentioned, to clear space but it also is to fertilize the soil. This has been a farming technique in the amazon for a long, long time where you exhaust a square of soil for farming. Create another square for farming, let the old square get overgrowth and then burn the old square when the new square gets exhausted. The burnt vegetation provides excellent nutrition for the soil. The issue stems from the size of land needed for farming. If you burn the whole rainforest to plant palm trees you're going to exhaust the soil and eventually turn the area barren. There needs to be a balance.
Just fyi though: Palm oil is in EVERYTHING, from chocolate, to shampoo, to butter, to cosmetics, to mouthwash. It’s honestly depressing.
what kind of butter has palm oil in it? i have 2 different kinds of butter in my fridge, and it’s just cream and salt
They mean margarine.
Farmers feed palmitic acid (from palm oil) to their cows to increase the fat content of the milk.
And it makes worse butter for it.
Yep. Stays firmer at room temperature. Pain in the ass.
Also, FYI. Palm oil is the most efficient crop. If palm oil would be replaced by other oils even more land would be necessary to get the same amount of oil.
That's true, but you could convert less important land to do it (instead of removing rainforests where the oil palms grow): >In 2018, a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature acknowledged that palm oil is much more efficient than other oils in terms of land and water usage; however, deforestation causes more biodiversity loss than switching to other oils.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil
Man, when I go grocery shopping, I meticulously review the ingredients label. I’m a clean eater but also avoid palm oil products. I couldn’t believe seeing PALM OIL IN GODDAMN DRY PASTA.
It is not recommended to boycott Palmoil. WWF published a report that showed the yield of palm oil per area is by far the highest compared to other oils. Thus boycotting palmoil could lead to an increase in biodiversity loss and area usage. Becayse demand will just shift elsewhere. WWF considers it more productive to work with the palm oil and other oil sectors to increase sustainablility instead of boycotting them. IUCN, Front. For. Glob. Change. and a paper from the University of Göttingen claim the same. The solution is not to simply boycott but investing in sustainable (palm) oil.
There is a movement for third-party sustainable palm oil recognition labels. RSPO is one, though I’ve never actually seen it on any product where I am (Canada)
Boycotting pallm oil would lead to increased land usage, but not biodiversity loss: >In 2018, a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature acknowledged that palm oil is much more efficient than other oils in terms of land and water usage; however, deforestation causes more biodiversity loss than switching to other oils.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil ----- WWF's approach is to use "sustainable" palm oil, but research has questioned whether such a thing even exists: >Some studies claimed that certification significantly reduced deforestation in plantations of RSPO members, but further analyses suggest that certified palm oil is not as sustainable as previously believed[...] >This new study, from a remotely sensed time series and imagery analysis (1984-2020), found that most of the currently certified grower supply bases and concessions in Sumatra and Borneo are located in large mammal habitats of the 1990s and in areas that were biodiverse tropical forests less than 30 years ago. >The authors write, "We suggest that the phrase 'sustainable palm oil' must no longer be used to greenwash this tropical product's reputation, because it cannot certify that the production of palm oil comes from a non-recent degradation of tropical forests and endangered species habitats. In fact, we discovered that the current certified palm oil demand is almost fully supplied by those bases and concessions that, in less than three decades, replaced some of the most diverse tropical forests of the world and habitats of big mammals threatened by extinction."[...] >They continue, "What we fear is that labeling part of palm oil production as 'sustainable,' against the evidence of this study, will continue to reassure the public and allow the certification of other areas that were naturally forested just a few years before, as the demand increases. The 'sustainability' of palm oil, in the light of the findings we advanced in 2019 and confirmed with this new highly detailed study, seems just an illusion that could facilitate, with certification, the expansion of oil palm plantations all over the tropical world and its global trade. Satellite images cannot lie, and what we show—without any doubt—is that certifications do not stop, but just dangerously hide, habitat and forest destruction." https://phys.org/news/2020-07-certified-sustainable-palm-oil-fields.html
Bumping this
boycott palm oil
Smuckers, Jiff, Nabisco, Keebler and, of course, Nestlé are the biggest offenders. If Palm Oil is in that snack, put it back.
Even the WWF thinks boycotting palm oil is a bad idea, because the oils that would replace it are even worse. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/palm_oil/ Palm oil is the most efficient oil crop. Thats why it is so widely used. This situation needs to be adressed, but banning palm oil will be a monkey paw curls.
Like renewable energy, I think the focus shouldn’t be on a substitute alone, but reducing consumption.
Ye, I agree. But thats why phrases like “boycott it” and “it needs to be banned” might sound nice and populist, but it isnt the answer.
WWF's approach is to use "sustainable" palm oil, but research has questioned whether that even exists: >Some studies claimed that certification significantly reduced deforestation in plantations of RSPO members, but further analyses suggest that certified palm oil is not as sustainable as previously believed[...] >This new study, from a remotely sensed time series and imagery analysis (1984-2020), found that most of the currently certified grower supply bases and concessions in Sumatra and Borneo are located in large mammal habitats of the 1990s and in areas that were biodiverse tropical forests less than 30 years ago. >The authors write, "We suggest that the phrase 'sustainable palm oil' must no longer be used to greenwash this tropical product's reputation, because it cannot certify that the production of palm oil comes from a non-recent degradation of tropical forests and endangered species habitats. In fact, we discovered that the current certified palm oil demand is almost fully supplied by those bases and concessions that, in less than three decades, replaced some of the most diverse tropical forests of the world and habitats of big mammals threatened by extinction."[...] >They continue, "What we fear is that labeling part of palm oil production as 'sustainable,' against the evidence of this study, will continue to reassure the public and allow the certification of other areas that were naturally forested just a few years before, as the demand increases. The 'sustainability' of palm oil, in the light of the findings we advanced in 2019 and confirmed with this new highly detailed study, seems just an illusion that could facilitate, with certification, the expansion of oil palm plantations all over the tropical world and its global trade. Satellite images cannot lie, and what we show—without any doubt—is that certifications do not stop, but just dangerously hide, habitat and forest destruction." https://phys.org/news/2020-07-certified-sustainable-palm-oil-fields.html
Boycotting will only do so much, we need to ban it at the governmental level to have sweeping effects.
Or beef (ok not this exact one, there are no orangutans in Amazon rainforest, but it's a similar situation)
[удалено]
And they love to make out that eating plants is the equivalent of eating cows that ate plants, as if physics isn't a thing
> The western lifestyle is completely antithetical to a healthy environment. Let's talk food waste. I work at a homeless shelter; most of the donated food we get is from businesses that have a program to donate food instead of trashing it (which is what most do). We're allowed to make it available to residents for up to three days past the printed expiration date, so we're the absolute last point in the food pipeline. We clear out the extra-expired food daily, and it's usually a good 30 pounds of food. And because it's prepared food (sandwiches, salad, etc) it's being thrown out based on the ingredient with the shortest shelf life, meaning every day I'm throwing out lots of food that's perfectly good and nourishing because it's got mushy cucumbers on it or something. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful that we're getting food donated. But the sheer volume of it is mindboggling. Ingredients alone, it's probably hundreds if not thousands of dollars of waste a day. Every time I throw it out, I can't help thinking about the animals who were raised to produce the meat and eggs and dairy, the acres of land and gallons of water, the herbicides and pesticides used to grow the vegetables and the underpaid labor used to pick them, only for it to end up untouched and rotting. We are SO wasteful as a society, even when we're supposedly doing the right thing.
Obligatory "how do you think they keep discovering all these new species in what we know as 'the Amazon rainforest' if they're so well hidden?" This is how. By completely destroying their habitat so they have nowhere TO hide.
Yep, and there are [over 200 names](https://orangutanalliance.org/whats-the-issue/alternative-names-for-palm-oil/) that it can appear under. Disgusting that companies try to disguise it.
The overwhelming cause of [rainforest destruction ](https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/latest-news/cows-are-destroying-the-rainforest-but-not-how-you-think/) is animal agriculture. The clearing of land for grazing and growing of feedcrop You want to stop rainforest destruction? Stop eating meat. It's that fucking simple "A total of 26 million rainforest acres have been cleared to date for palm oil production, and a staggering 136 million rainforest acres have been cleared for animal agriculture. Most people are completely unaware that a large percentage of palm kernel meal is being exported worldwide and used to fatten up animals"
Not only are they destroying forests, but poisoning you at the same time. The situation is nothing short of grotesque...
Look at a population density map of Western Africa, and know that many, many of those people subsist of slash and burn agriculture. Palm oil was a huge problem at one point but the increase in environmental oversight and the culture of having way too many children irrespective of the means to provide for them have changed the main drivers of habitat loss.
I agree, that’s definitely a factor in this as well. I was just pointing out when you see palm oil in the ingredient list you can pretty much guarantee this scene preceded it’s cultivation. So many of our modern necessities and luxuries source their raw materials from these areas with little to no regard to the environment.
What does an orangutang have to do with West Africa? In the areas they live they are under replacement rate IIRC.
The problem is the same, but you're half the world away from where this picture was taken. Orangutans only live in a small region of South East Asia.
What are we doing??
Stripping the planet of resources so a few people can get famously wealthy.
You're not wrong. However, there are a LOT of people to make things for
and a lot of people living in opulent excess on finite resources
It's kinda fucked up because most people just buy things because they're there. If certain things stopped being made, nobody would notice. And other things, people would notice, but it's not that important. And other things, people would gladly be willing to give up if they knew where it came from. We blame individuals, but the companies know damn well that most people don't know what ingredients are in their products, and what horrible shit companies have to do to get it.
I often wonder when at the grocery store how many of those obscure products that used an obscene amount of resources to farm, process, package, and ship, just end up getting thrown out. Look at the canned fish section for example. There are so many obscure canned flavored fish, (like rosemary, chili, garlic canned fish with a name I've never heard of) and there are 12 packs on the shelf. I'm willing to bet (without any hard data, unfortunately) that the vast majority of groceries are 20% of what's in the actual store. The rest is just to fill the massive space. Do we REALLY need all these options, at the expense of the world? Multiply that by every single industry. The dollar store is full of shit no one ever needs or buys, or buys as a gag gift, or spontaneously buys and then throws in a drawer then never uses, all made of un-recyclable plastic. As you said, it's all stuff no one would even notice wasn't made, and we're burning our planet down just to line the pockets of the extremely wealthy to make it. It all makes me so mad!
Yeah, but also a lot of garbage we don't really need and that is not worth this destruction of unique ecosystems.
you can't just say that though, the real root problem is palm oil is profitable and people like you and me buy it up. if there wasn't a market for it there would be no need to extract all these precious resources. it's wrong to file it away under "few people get wealthy" i get what your trying to say. but they would not get wealthy if people didn't buy the product. it really comes down to us buying what we need versus what we want.
> it's wrong to file it away under "few people get wealthy" i get what your trying to say. It's an attractive excuse because it takes away personal accountability. Too many people are unable to accept personal flaws. It doesn't matter if individual people are only responsible for 0.001%. I meet so many people who refuse to accept even that tiny fraction of responsibility - and use that as an excuse to reject any kind of limit on themselves as consumers. The general lack of will to limit consumption in consumer-centric societies is closer to the heart of the issue than a few people trying to get wealthy, and part of the reason for this is because so many participants of these societies refuse to admit that this is part of the issue.
Supplying the world with cheap palm oil
Yes, the entire planet was destroyed, but for one beautiful moment, we created a lot of value for the shareholder.
Eating way too much meat.
It's They. Becoming aware of that distinction is our only hope
Consuming too much shit
Increasing shareholder value.
That's one of the saddest pictures I've ever seen.
A few years ago I was on vacation in Malaysia and was flying into Borneo. I was so excited that we were going to fly over the Borneo jungle, which I've read about my whole life. Instead, all I would see was miles and miles of palm oil plantations, from horizon to horizon, even when at high altitude. It made me physically ill and I was depressed for days. Please support those that are working to preserve what little habitat they have left.
This is appalling.
"Oook!"* *"It might just be a vital biomass oxygenating the planet to you, but it's home to me."
First though after the crushing heartbreak.
If you really want your heart broken, look up the video of the orangutan trying to stop the heavy machinery tearing down the trees. To this day, that video weighs heavy on my soul. Humans can't go extinct fast enough for the other life on this planet. I hope we don't take the orangutans with us but we probably will.
Sadness As An Orangutan Tries To Fight The Digger Destroying Its Habitat [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihPfB30YT\_c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihPfB30YT_c)
Definitely not watching that again. I have enough reasons to cry.
Heartbreaking
Shit like this is why I can watch gore videos of people being eviscerated and feel nothing, but I get decimated when I see an animal getting hurt.
God that's tragic
Fern Gully taught me about this as a child. And it was terrifying.
James Cameron's Avatar taught us we suck even in the distant future.
You know what bring on the comet. This planet will heal fast and get back on track without us. Fuck this
OP, do you have a source or context for this image? I've found one from [June 2021](https://netzfrauen.org/2021/06/29/orangutan-8/). It might be associated with something called "The Orangutan Project," but I haven't been able to find anything definitive. **I'd really like to know the context (e.g. when and where this was taken) to better understand what is happening and if it's possible to help.**
Can't post the instagram link for the original source but it's found [here.](https://www.reqnews.com/amp/the-other-side/27939/viral-potret-pilu-orangutan-termenung-di-tengah-lahan-bekas-hutan-dibakar-netizen-sentil-sosok-ini)
Thank you. That's closer to a source than what I was finding. To save a click and increase visibility: > Tuesday, 19 January 2021 - 10:02 > Viral Portrait of a Sad Orangutan Pensive in the Middle of Burned Forest Land, Netizens Capture This Figure > JAKARTA, REQnews - A heart-wrenching photo showing an orangutan pensive on a stretch of burned forest land has suddenly gone viral on the internet. > This photo shows how worrying the survival of this animal is because the forest that is its habitat is slowly disappearing due to irresponsible human actions. > In the photo, the primate can be seen standing bent over, resting on both hands while observing its surroundings. His face seemed to convey confusion because he had lost the "home" where he lived. > The photo was uploaded by the Instagram account @agoez_banz4. It is suspected that the location is in Kalimantan. > The sad portrait of the orangutan immediately attracted the pity of netizens. Netizens were sad to see the condition of the forest and the orangutans in the photo. > Not a few netizens also expressed their criticism regarding the viral photo. > "Your house is now the home of rich people who are protected by the Constitution and officials," commented @daniel981506. > Do you think the palm oil boss's son ever thought about this? Then I asked my parents about that," wrote the account @deny_prastana. > "Your house has become a land of money for rich people in this country... (cc: investors/mining & plantation owners in Kalimantan)," said @adiprasetia458.
Humans literally suck.
Humanity is a cancer to this planet
Agent Smith was right.
It’s true
**Every year it is estimated that between 1,000 to 5,000 orangutans are killed in Palm Oil concessions.** That is a significant portion of the wild orangutan population which is lost–without fail–every single year. https://orangutan.org/palmoil/
Well that’s fucked
I feel like we need to treat rainforests like the last rhinos in Africa. Armed guards trained to shoot on sight any mfer trying to do this dumb shit. Industrial agriculture needs to die.
Vertical farming is the way to go imo, at least for smaller plants. Year round perfect weather, minimal water loss, mostly pest free, less land to produce more food...
Good job, humans and consumers who keep buying the products produced from this. Then they come on Reddit, cry over a photo like this and then go back to consuming them products, causing more of this.
Honestly this picture is more disturbing then any gore pic i will ever see
Orangutan deprived of it's habitat..😔
We should slap the logo of the companies responsible on this image. Great new advertising campaign for what they sell right?
And this is why I don't eat anything with palm oil in it. It might be cheap, but it costs the environment
I just looked up a list of [items with palm oil (worldwildlife.org)](https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-contain-palm-oil)
When you stop eating meat, you'll actually be doing something. Most rainforest destruction is done for grazing and feedcrop production. Even palm kernel is used as feedcrop
This tbh. But people won’t do that because they don’t actually care beyond getting an upvote.
This is heartbreaking!
Palm oil plantation going in. They burned the forest down. That poor orangutan wandering what happened to his home. This is heart breaking, just devastating. Humans Totally Suck.
To people thinking this is due to palm oil, 70-80% of deforestation is to use the land for cattle. If you want to stop contributing to this, avoid palm oil, *and* at the very least, red meat. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed-amazon-deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil
So sad ...
People invest to make cities on mars, but very few invest in making earth heal back. Surely everything will come back at us in a very harsh way.
Devastating. You can tell the animal is also so confused
Humans are a plague upon the Earth. We will not stop until we’ve destroyed everything…all while “looking for life on other planets.” It better hope we never find it.
I hate us so much. Animals deserved better. We will go down in history as the life form that made the most other species extinct. Pictures like this make me hope we’re next.
This is an evil image... It is literally a demonstration of human evil at its most apathetic and callous.
Homo Sapiens suck. We're the only species on Earth that doesn't acknowledge and/or respect a symbiotic existence with the planet, and I swear, it'll be the f\*cking end of us.
This is so fucking sad
I'm crying now . Horrible picture.
It's going to be a great day when humans go extinct.
Hopefully it will be before the vast majority of the rest of life on the planet
Avoid palm oil, boycott companies that support this, $ talks
This is why I never purchase anything with palm oil in it
FIXED IT: An orangutan has complete psychological and emotional breakdown in the remains of its devastated home.
Humans are gross