Two Nuggets of Info here....
Heard from Radio UFM100.3 this morning:
1) the traditional method of slash and burn is actually environmentally-friendly!
So far, what we have been hearing from the media is that this traditional method harms Mother Nature as not only does it contribute to the haze (air pollution), it also releases carbon emission (global warming), esp if peatlands are involved. Peatlands happen to be great carbon sinks; burning them releases the carbon into the air.
But apparently, burning is 'green' as the resultant ashes make for good natural fertilizers, hence no need to use chemical fertilisers which can poison the soil, not to mention the cost involved and alleged health risks on food grown using chemical fertilisers. As much as 70% of the soil in China is polluted due to the excessive and improper use of artificial/chemical fertilizers and pesticides (see link HERE). Clearing forests the traditional way by small scale farmers has not led to the haze of the magnitude we see today. It is the MNCs today burning huge tracts of land that has amplified the haze problem to the scale and magnitude it is today.
Cost-wise, you want to know that burning the forests to clear land for planting is not only faster, but 'some 300 times cheaper than using machines'. (source: Mind Your Body, The Straits Times 27 Jun 2013)
2) social media does not lead to one having diverse views from multiple perspectives!
Makes for a useful rebuttal! The thing about social media, you want to remember, is that you can shut out those voices that you find irritating and unconvincing. There may be a multitude of views out there in cyberspace, but it depends on your willingness to go and read those views. Otherwise, you are not likely to acquire the multiple perspectives afforded by those views. And in reality, what happens is that we tend to gravitate towards those views that we like, thus denying ourselves of the multiple perspectives. In a nutshell, the benefits of social media are often dependent on the viewer's willingness to access those views. An analogy: the postings here in my blog can help you acquire much-needed content for your writing, but they are just sitting here in my blog, and unable to reach you unless you are willing enough to make the extra effort and time to come here and read them -- and that's provided you know this blog exists in the first place!
1) the traditional method of slash and burn is actually environmentally-friendly!
So far, what we have been hearing from the media is that this traditional method harms Mother Nature as not only does it contribute to the haze (air pollution), it also releases carbon emission (global warming), esp if peatlands are involved. Peatlands happen to be great carbon sinks; burning them releases the carbon into the air.
But apparently, burning is 'green' as the resultant ashes make for good natural fertilizers, hence no need to use chemical fertilisers which can poison the soil, not to mention the cost involved and alleged health risks on food grown using chemical fertilisers. As much as 70% of the soil in China is polluted due to the excessive and improper use of artificial/chemical fertilizers and pesticides (see link HERE). Clearing forests the traditional way by small scale farmers has not led to the haze of the magnitude we see today. It is the MNCs today burning huge tracts of land that has amplified the haze problem to the scale and magnitude it is today.
Cost-wise, you want to know that burning the forests to clear land for planting is not only faster, but 'some 300 times cheaper than using machines'. (source: Mind Your Body, The Straits Times 27 Jun 2013)
2) social media does not lead to one having diverse views from multiple perspectives!
Makes for a useful rebuttal! The thing about social media, you want to remember, is that you can shut out those voices that you find irritating and unconvincing. There may be a multitude of views out there in cyberspace, but it depends on your willingness to go and read those views. Otherwise, you are not likely to acquire the multiple perspectives afforded by those views. And in reality, what happens is that we tend to gravitate towards those views that we like, thus denying ourselves of the multiple perspectives. In a nutshell, the benefits of social media are often dependent on the viewer's willingness to access those views. An analogy: the postings here in my blog can help you acquire much-needed content for your writing, but they are just sitting here in my blog, and unable to reach you unless you are willing enough to make the extra effort and time to come here and read them -- and that's provided you know this blog exists in the first place!
posted by Dark Shadow | 6:08 PM
<< Home