A lost Amazon world just reappeared in Bolivia

(sciencedaily.com)

77 points by ashishgupta22093 days ago

5 comments

ChrisArchitect3 days ago
Non-syndicated Source: <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2025/11/06/landscapes-that-remember-indigenous-peoples-thrived-amazon" rel="nofollow">https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2025/11/06/landscapes-that-...</a>
nephihaha5 hours ago
[flagged]
- dspillett2 hours ago
 By storing carbon they are meaning that the wetlands literately store CO2, and if they are allowed to break down that carbon will largely be released back into the active cycle and be part of our current atmospheric problems. Much like the oceans hold an amount CO2, a large amount because of their size, but as they heat up this is less efficient so they hold less and the excess seeps into the atmosphere.Those areas are probably not capturing/trapping further carbon, they have probably been at an equilibrium point for quite some time with some entering & leaving the system without the overall amount not increasing, but they are effectively storing a notable amount that would be released if the properties that enable them to hold onto it degrade.
- smallnix4 hours ago
 What is the difference between "storing carbon" vs. "trapping carbon"?
 - stronglikedan4 hours ago
 probably mostly pedantry, but a lot of things can naturally store carbon, so maybe trapping carbon is specifically the unnatural capture of it?
 - scythe3 hours ago
 In the first case the carbon dioxide is already concentrated, and in the second it has to be extracted by processing (at least) 2500 tons of air for each ton of carbon dioxide obtained. There are easier cases for carbon capture, when CO2 can actually be captured at the point of release (steel and cement plants, landfills) but atmospheric extraction is hard. Of course, plants can and do process lots of air (by it blowing over the leaves) but massively increasing plant growth is also hard.
- ks20481 hour ago
 Did you read the article?
 - lysace1 hour ago
 Did you? All of those phrases appear in it.
 - ks204836 minutes ago
 Just because a phrase appears, doesn't lead to what you said. "UNESCO" appears once, but no where says UN people "are being brought in to administer it".
 - lysace32 minutes ago
 What "did I say"? Keep in mind that I am not nephihaha.
 - Swenrekcah1 hour ago
 Those are real words, that’s true. The following however is anywhere from not true to wild speculation without any factual basis.>Global responsibility sounds like the direct opposite of self-determination.>Some United Nations NGO bureaucrats being brought in to administer it, without acknowledging local knowledge. Getting UNESCO to administer it is not "honoring indigenous traditions">Also "store carbon", is more cargo cult pop science.>They are probably trying to refer to trapping and reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but this is a misleading way of doing so.
 - lysace45 minutes ago
 > Those are real words, that’s true. [...]Yeah that's a strawman.
moi23882 hours ago
Ah right. So when ancient cultures cut down forests for canals and farming it’s “ biocultural continuity”, and when we do it’s destructive. Makes sense.
- stetrain27 minutes ago
  When I had one piece of birthday cake it was "a celebration" but now when I eat two entire cakes by myself it's "gluttony" and "concerning for my health." Makes sense.
- Zigurd2 hours ago
  Scale and speed matters. Population scale. The capabilities of equipment and tools. So, sure, have a copper axe and go cut down a forest.
fwipsy4 hours ago
Amazing and humbling to read about technological marvels from 1400 years ago. It really puts our modern achievements in a new light. It's tempting sometimes to think of innovation as a recent phenomen, but people have been innovating and solving the same problems for thousands of years. To be honest, I didn't even know they HAD e-commerce back then!
- anon8487362851 minutes ago
 People seem to take for granted that since agriculture is one of the oldest technologies, it must be a "solved problem" and our modern approach is optimal.When in reality, modern industrial agriculture is one of the most ham fisted and naive approached to the problem: just bulldoze, fertilize, irrigate, and spray everything into submission. With many negative consequences of course, which we generally refer to as "unsustainable".Because understanding all the complex relationships within an ecosystem, and then how to engineer it to yield surplus material for human use without intolerable negative consequences, is in fact a cutting edge and poorly grasped science.The "biocultural legacy" is an empirical approach to this problem refined over milenia, which we would do well to understand and appreciate.