Which is better : Deforestation or Reforestation?
It decide which is better. We need to cut down trees, because it provides a job for lots of people. We use it in many different ways (writing down notes on, firewood,furniture,protection,building, and decor). Then again, the amount of trees/forest have gone down to 6% of the Earth is covered in forest. When it used to be 12% not long ago. And trees are the main source of how we get oxygen.
Reforestation
Side Score: 12
|
Deforestation
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I'd hate to go on like the environment is a thought that i have night and day, because it isn't. But i'm in favour of deforestation, but then again it depends on which country you're talking about. In a country like Iceland that hardly has any trees etc. it would be lovely to have some reforestation, but in a place in Africa where trees and plants are not used for anything useful to be honest. Deforestation would be ideal to use the area for land which in effect could be used for things more useful things like cooperations, businesses, houses etc. Side: Reforestation
1
point
1
point
Reforestation would be better since it promotes the well being of nature. As mammals, we need oxygen in which the trees provide. It also gives humanity ample food to survive. Whereas deforestation only provides us with lumber. Thus it would be more practical to have reforestation. Side: Reforestation
yes ,reforestation is better than because .you are cutting the tree it makes the area unfit and it can be no rain full and the hope us from air polution that mean the breath in carbon and oxegn out this give god climate and making air warming because all thing we have not to cut them there the basic needs of our life ,,,,,,,,,,,, cause this all we have not cutting down them Side: Reforestation
1
point
I believe reforestation is the best of the two options. I visited Iceland about 10 years ago, and it was almost impossible to find a tree growing anywhere. Iceland used to have trees, but the population practiced deforestation to the point where 100% of the tree population of Iceland was consumed. Now there is areforestation project underway, but the standing joke (no pun intended), is "if you get lost in an Icelandic forest, just stnad up!". This is a very true statement as the growth (the little bit there is) is so young, that they are not much more than mere seedlings. Side: Reforestation
|
There are plenty of forests on the planet, and through evolution humans have been given the ability to create technology to destroy forests. Since we are able, we should take advantage of our technology and utilise the planet's resources in order to benefit us. If a lion is given meat, it is able to, and does talk advantage of it if it benefits it. If a cow finds a patch of grass it is able to, and does talk advantage of it, if it benefits it. If humans are given a forest, and are able to, they should take advantage of it because it benefits us. Side: Deforestation
I don't think either thing is "better". There are benefits to both. I don't want to completely deforest the Earth, but deforestation creates products that human beings find useful. At some point, I believe we should be reforesting at a greater rate than we are deforesting, but I don't believe that the situation is pressing enough to do it immediately. As for the issue of global warming, that situation isn't pressing yet either in my opinion. Side: Deforestation
1
point
|