You Don't Even Need Nuclear War,
Just Cut Down More Trees!
 

When one hears 'Amazon Rain Forest', usually images of tall green trees and lots of plants and insects come to mind. When one hears 'nuclear', usually an image of a  mushroom cloud appears. Trying to link the two seemingly disparate things is a seemingly unnatural process, but they are linked.

Nuclear weapons are quite a recent invention, their unprecedented power  has made the extinction of the human race a very definite possibility. We saw demonstrations of their power in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The concept behind nuclear weapons, though relatively new, already has enough importance that there are Worldwide Discussions, International Treaties and Global Debates on nuclear issues.

The Amazon Rain Forest  has been in existence for thousands of years (Rainforest Alliance, 1999) Ever since we knew how, we humans have been studying it, first for the sake of knowledge, but then, for medicines, discovery of new species etc. We have since learned that the Amazon supplies 20% (Raintree, 2002) of the world's oxygen and consumes poisonous carbon dioxide, in other words, the Amazon rain forest is necessary for life on Earth.

The Amazon rain forest is home to half of the world's 30 million species of animal and plant life (Forests.org, 1994). Its importance stems not only from the fact that it produces a substantial fraction of the world's oxygen, which is vital for life, but also in the medicinal value of its flora and fauna. Already, 25% of western pharmaceuticals are derived from rain forest extracts (PBS, 1996) and we have only barely scratched the surface. Thousands of species of trees are becoming extinct every year before we have had the chance to test them. Numerous cures and/or treatments could be available in the forests, but we may never find cures for cancer or AIDS since the forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate.

In addition, without the Amazon's trees, there would be nothing to hold the soil together, so rain and wind would easily remove the once protected soil. Erosion would be widespread in Brazil and the rivers would become even more silted than they currently are. Substances like mercury, while stable in the earth, become poisonous in water, and fish would accumulate them to pass on to organisms higher up in food chain, namely humans. The entire area may even suffer from desertification.

Increased carbon dioxide levels enhance the Green-House Effect and we all should be aware of this process, publicized as Global Warming. Furthermore, the consequences of Global Warming, are dangerous enough to warrant thorough discussion on preventing them from occurring. These consequences include; reduction of usable dry land area due to  rising of ocean levels and subsequent depletion in agriculture and probably flooding of cities. Innumerable deaths will be the outcome of these events, and with the same fate befalling other forests of the world, there will be two factors working against the existence of life as we know it; no land and no oxygen. The planet is on that doomed trail, and we know exactly where we will end; yet this issue is of the lowest priority to most large corporations and governments. These corporations are some of the biggest supporters of deforestation under the guise of 'Sustainable Development', although they are interested only in short term profit. Even the Brazilian government is willing to destroy the Amazon.

The destruction of the Amazon has already begun. It began decades ago with the gold rush of the 1970's and flooding of the Amazon with miners, loggers and subsistence farmers. To clean the gold, the miners use mercury, most of which is released into the environment poisoning fish and humans, but that alone is not the most devastating influence on the Amazon. Loggers and subsistence farmers using the 'slash and burn' agricultural method, cut down forest trees at an unimaginable rate, but this by itself is not the most dangerous influence on the Amazon.
These attacks on the Amazon are becoming increasingly easier with the development of roads which plunge deeper and deeper into the heart of the Amazon. This is the most dangerous aspect. The so-called 'development projects' are making destruction much easier.

In addition to many small development projects, the Brazilian government has a four billion US dollar project underway for the development of the Amazon termed, 'Avança Brasil' or in English, 'Advance Brazil' (Laurance et al., 2001). This major undertaking will increase the number of highways (by 6,200 miles), waterways, dams, ports and other infrastructure in the Amazon region and effectively wipe out enormous sections of the forest. Scientists have projected the remaining life in the Amazon to last no more than forty years at the current rate of destruction, and they say that in twenty years, only about 5% of the rain forest will remain in its pristine state. We are nearing the end of the Amazon's life; very soon we will have to face any dire consequences that await us without it.

The Amazon issue appears to be a long term problem, and for that reason, it is regularly shelved so that more "pressing" issues can be dealt with. Issues such as nuclear weapons are some that replace it.

The world's nuclear history has been very destructive and unstable. From its initiation during the second World War, through to the annihilation of about 240,000 Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, through the cold war and now to nuclear proliferation, uncertainty has fueled the world's  fear of nuclear war. Many countries covet the power and influence established by countries with nuclear weapons. This is the reason that some of the current nuclear powers started their weapons program. A citizen of Brazil even wrote to a journal suggesting that Brazil develop nuclear weapons, and other countries (like Japan) are undoubtedly considering the bomb.

At this point in time, several countries have nuclear weapons, and among them are countries experiencing intense international conflict like India and Pakistan. To date, there have been no known nuclear attacks, countries have been resisting the urge to use nuclear weapons. Only a small nuclear attack is all it would take to start a large thermonuclear war however. The escalation principle is simple, if a country is attacked, it will retaliate with a counter-attack, each time a country attacks another however, it attacks with greater force than the previous attack. A nuclear war can easily start in this way, and it therefore means that each nuclear power has a great responsibility to the people of earth to resist the use of nuclear weapons.
A nuclear bomb is effective in causing destruction, death and pain in three ways; its initial blast wave vaporizes anything in its path, the intense heat then radiates to kill remaining life, and thirdly, the radiation spewed out brings on extreme suffering to anything leftover. A nuclear war will involve use of several bombs by each nuclear power involved, the end result will be a  lifeless planet for the few (if any) survivors to live on.

So, both the death of the Amazon and Nuclear war will cease the existence of life on the planet as we know it today. The question now becomes, 'What are the connections between the two?'
Well firstly, death by Amazon is a slow and drawn-out process which does not seem to be getting anywhere until it is too late to stop it. Contrary to this however, for those within a certain radius of a bomb's epicenter, death by Nuclear war is instant. Several others are not fortunate enough to be vaporized by the initial blast, and must suffer with deformed bodies, immense pain and radiation sickness. The images of these suffering people have been broadcasted to the world through movies, documentaries and books. These grotesque images will remain in the minds of many as a reminder of the devastating effect of a nuclear weapon. This difference could be an important factor in determining which of the two death methods has a greater impact on the society.
The links that we immediately make with each method are different. Maybe for some, the thought of the Amazon rain forest doesn't conjure any feeling of death at all. This could be due to the fact that the Amazon is a natural entity and it is also a life-giving resource. Its purpose throughout history  has been to recycle carbon dioxide for oxygen, that is,  keep us alive. Nuclear weapons on the other hand were made for war, so it is easy to associate them with war. We also have countless examples of war's effects, so it is  natural to think of destruction.
Death by nuclear weapons is more direct than death by the Amazon. Connecting the actual death with the physical bomb is logical; if you're nearby, you die, else you may live. Death by the Amazon is a little more convoluted. Death of the Amazon sets up certain natural processes (like increase in world's carbon dioxide levels, melting of the ice caps, erosion) which make life more difficult until death evolves out of them. The association of the actual death with the cause is more indirect.

Owing to the fact that politicians and the media publicize nuclear issues more frequently than stories relating to the Amazon, to the common man, the nuclear issue would appear to be a much larger concern. A feedback loop is created however, whereby the politicians and media get more publicity by discussing, raising nuclear issues because they appear to be a greater concern by the public.

Countries holding nuclear weapons can also use them to assert their power . The greater publicity or speculation there is about a country's nuclear arsenal, the more leverage that country has over its enemies. It acts sort of like a reminder to the world, that the country in question may have nuclear weapons.
Even though the two death-processes are quite different, they share some similarity. The society has at least realized that death can result from both and multiple groups are organized in each case to oppose those who  want the two processes to continue. The fact of the matter remains that the two methods can end the world. Do we have the luxury of focusing on one while the other continues unabated? Even that scenario is not our case since both processes are continuing. It is almost as if it is a race to see which can end the world first; the slow and steady tortoise, or the speedy but unpredictable hare!

We can no longer sit by and watch our world become evaporated nor can we allow it to simply expire. Unless we all have no belief in carrying on our legacies or in continuity, we should be vigilantly pursuing peace and harmony; peace among world countries, where the need for nuclear weapons is non-existent; and coexistence with the forests, living in harmony with nature.
 

Ryan F Allard(Class of 2006)
 
 

Send inquiries to: furness@mit.edu