Stephen Aldrich and a team of researchers recently received a more than $157,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to study land conflicts affecting deforestation in Brazil.
More...
More...
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Professor receives grant to study deforestation in Amazon
- Thread starter Jason Svoboda
- Start date
WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?
Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
sycamore tuff
The Renn Level
And people wonder why the government of the United States of America is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt.
BankShot
The Kleuh Level
Someone give 'em a primer on the "Hatfields & McCoys"...and today's "deforestation" of West Virginia by coal mining firm$.
bent20
The Odum Level
It's not in debt because an Indiana State professor is receiving a science grant to conduct a study. The unvirsity is receiving $83,000 through this grant, how is that a bad thing? Does everything posted in the pub thread have to turn into a stupid political pissing match?
The point is, a country in debt like us should not be giving ANY grants. We spend money like we have it and we don't.
BankShot
The Kleuh Level
We all know that RESEARCH has l-o-n-g been a cornerstone of the American university system...grants come in all shapes & sizes, public & private. Does anyone disagree that WITHOUT these funds, ingenuity and progress are thwarted?
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
bent20
The Odum Level
Exactly. How do we as a nation continue to compete with other world leaders if we don't fund such initiatives? And I don't know what the public/private funding break down is on this grant. Just seems like a silly thing to jump on. To those who preach about a reduction in spending, that's fine, but we're talking about a government that spends billions and you're going to get picky about a $157,000 grant? You mention $16 trillion in debt and point to a $157,000 grant as an example of how we got there. That just doesn't make any sense. It seems that at times people attack any spending put towards education and I really don't understand that logic.
sycamore tuff
The Renn Level
It is in debt because of this grant and a multitude of wasteful spending over the last century. We need to start somewhere in reducing the debt. These are easy targets. How are we to expect washington to tackle the hard ones if they can't target the easy ones first
Sorry, but you are dead wrong. The National Debt is at $16T and increasing because of MANY programs. The most expensive are:
- Social Security
- Medicare/Medicaid
- Defense Spending
- Interest on the National Debt
- Those 4-5 programs account for approx 88% of the Debt. 88%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, bitch, whine and complain ALL you wish BUT matching grants of $83K aren't even RAIN DROPS in the national debt bucket; they're one of the H molecules
sycamore tuff
The Renn Level
I am not dead wrong. You have agreed with me. Like I said , If Washington can't target the easy cuts how are we to get them to target the hard ones (SS, etc.).
this is a drop in the bucket...true! Agree completely, who cares...who cares is right!
So...here is the data I can tell you without ever setting foot in the Amazon. Deforestation causes problems throughout the eco-system which has ramifications for on the entire world. The Amazon provides many medicinal opportunities as well as many inherently important things to the entire planet. If we continue to cut down the rain forest we will permanently damage the entire planet....and we might end up killing an endangered rodent or bird due to lack of habitat.
It isn't the fact that the study is $83,000. It isn't the fact that it is a grant, it isn't the fact that a grant is occurring. It is what we study that I find problem with. How many studies have occurred on the rain forest in the past 2 decades alone? I don't know but I have to believe it is hundreds. For me that is where I question it...but I am not in a position to question it, I really don't care!
But studying deforestation will not lead to ingenuity or improvement of anything within the US? I certainly don't see how that is possible. But, smarter people than I, make very good livings studying things that amount to absolutely nothing...
So...here is the data I can tell you without ever setting foot in the Amazon. Deforestation causes problems throughout the eco-system which has ramifications for on the entire world. The Amazon provides many medicinal opportunities as well as many inherently important things to the entire planet. If we continue to cut down the rain forest we will permanently damage the entire planet....and we might end up killing an endangered rodent or bird due to lack of habitat.
It isn't the fact that the study is $83,000. It isn't the fact that it is a grant, it isn't the fact that a grant is occurring. It is what we study that I find problem with. How many studies have occurred on the rain forest in the past 2 decades alone? I don't know but I have to believe it is hundreds. For me that is where I question it...but I am not in a position to question it, I really don't care!
But studying deforestation will not lead to ingenuity or improvement of anything within the US? I certainly don't see how that is possible. But, smarter people than I, make very good livings studying things that amount to absolutely nothing...
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
No, I'm not agreeing with you. My point was ALL of "these easy cuts" would be 12% of the budget, cutting 12% of the budget is NOT going to retire the debt.
You want to retire the debt; petition Congress to retire the debt, DEMAND a fundamental FIX for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
We can study the deforestation problem all we choose; Brazil will continue to deforest, we deforested our nation, now Brazil is doing the same, the difference? WE don't think THEY should do it.
bent20
The Odum Level
Just because there have been studies doesn't mean we know all there is to know about something, or as much as we need to know. It's presumptive to think there is no more value to be had through such studies, or that it will only benefit, or protect, South America. I think it's pretty impressive that we have someone from ISU involved in such activities, but for some of you if it's not the basic meat and potatoes of education it's not worth funding. That philosophy, if allowed to flourish, will run any university into the ground.
I have a idea. Publish the amount of all funding showing the source and to whom, however separately, listing funding for activity to be applied to classroom only on one hand, and all other research on another. Not to hinder either, however this will show the type return we are getting on our investment. There should be nothing to hide here, should there?
bent20
The Odum Level
If it's public funding, the information is available. Not sure how you plan to analyze it though.
BankShot
The Kleuh Level
Is it easier to change the molecular biology of the BEAST, or influence it's eating HABITS?
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
That is true however, there is no explanation as to the end use of the research this funding will be used for. It may eventually trickle into a classroom
Sorry for the stumbling around above... Bank about anyone can analyze a situation when funding for education is not only smaller but is also often misapplied, from my point of view. Deforestation is far more important than some of the off the wall stuff, I am sure you will agree, need not to be pursued with funds currently available. The prime mission for ISU is education thru the courses offered, so it is difficult to justify research outside these classroom needs, at this time.