Generalization is a gigantic risk in communication. You take a part of the whole and generalize the part of the whole, as in the old game of insane logic. The dog is a mammal, has 4 legs and bark. The cat is a mammal, has 4 legs so it barks…
602 scientists signed a paper and published in the Science magazine, in a text written by the biologist Laura Kehoe, of the University of Oxford, says that Europe, the second largest customer in Brazil needed to stop importing deforestation. This is linked to the data from 2018 where there were 7900 km2 of deforestation in the Amazon.
In the document scientists demand three things: Human Rights, Improved Traceability, Participation of Scientists and Indigenous Communities in Public Environmental Policies.
These humanistic and environmentalist desires are legit. Where is the error? In taking the deforestation, where 80% of it is linked to crime, such as land grabbing, land not assigned to any owner, or dozens of landowners because of illegal documents, deforestation in settlements where there is no economic viability or ownership of lots stimulating deforestation to survive, subsistence agriculture by local communities and illegal timber exploitation.
A timber trade that we would need to discover urgently who the customers are, and where these customers of illegal timber exploitation crimes in the Amazon are.
The generalization of the fact and its association with agribusiness is what I see as a serious mistake. In such regards could we make a link between the need of several countries to reach very low production cost to beat the highly subsidized European agriculture? How is the configuration of such competition? It needs further studies for these two points.
This generalization that says the US $500 million of our beef exports to Europe are originate from these deforestation, or that the grains, chicken and pigs come from inhuman and non-sustainable exploration in Brazil is a bad mistake of generalization, putting all the Brazilian agriculture and the population of the country in a bad position, and associated with crime.
This leads us to an insane logic, like the cat that should bark just because is a mammal and has 4 legs like the dog. Do we have problems in ours production chain? Of course, who hasn’t? But link one of the top agriculture countries entire to crime is an exercise of bad faith, to say the minimum.
I want to point out that I met one of the pioneers of the Amazon’s sustainable cattle ranching in Carlinda, Mato Grosso, a dentist who became a cattle rancher, Dr. Celso Bevilaqua.
In the Amazon there is fishing, a sustainable livestock farming, for example, and for Brazilians awareness and European scientists as well, we receive investments from international development funds, which includes money from the Queen of England herself.
In the sustainable livestock farming in Amazon, what the scientists states does not fit and does not allow any generalization and connection with crime, besides precious works of commitment to sustainability, for example Agropalma for palm oil, among hundreds of other great examples.
Therefore, an old biblical wisdom says to separate the chaff from the wheat, not generalization… Associate the crime of illegality of the lands, illegal timber exploitation and land grabbing to the Brazilian agribusiness is a naive thing or Machiavellian bad intention very well structured for commercial and economic ends against the economy and the Brazilian people.
Illegality in the Amazon is a matter of law and justice and not a result of the far majority of Brazilian producers, serious and valorous, in fact from all the races in the planet. Including Europe, the one that wants to give us moral lessons, as if they still had the royal authority of the court.