Sltldr: “They’re just throwing away money, planting trees in the desert for them to die.”
The Great Green Wall is a top down, big government intervention that has little to no local buy-in and isn’t sustainable without continued big government funding.
Not surprisingly, the funding has mostly dried up, and so has the land.
Reminding people that this method DOES IN FACT WORK, when the article heavily suggests it is the method, not the people performing the method, that is the problem seems valuable to me.
There is nothing wrong with the science behind the Great Green Wall. As empirically proven in the other massive de-desertification project that is on a similar scale.
The problem is, very specifically, capitalism and its systemic failures.
Oh, so you just don’t know or care what a “TL;DR” is. Very cool. (It’s a summary, by the way.) Above, I’ve provided an open-access article highlighting the accomplishments (I’m not saying that snarkily like in scare quotes) of China’s GGW initiative.
…Yes, I provided an alternative summary. Very good. I’m glad you recognized that I did that and explained it for the class, little one.
I don’t know why you people (violently pejorative) get so angry when people don’t mindlessly reply in the exact same way that you do, but it is something you need to get over.
You’re not on reddit anymore. American Neoliberalism isn’t welcome here, and soon will not be welcome anywhere on the planet after your Regime leader’s actions over the last few years. You need to get over your programming sooner, rather than later.
Alternative summary feels intentionally misleading, when it’s clear your intention was not to summarise but start a discussion on a related tangent (which is appreciated).
Oh, yeah, I remember the time someone provided a summary of Tom Sawyer, and when I thought it was lacking, I gave an “alternative summary” which was a crappy, nakedly biased opinion of elements not even in the book and mostly focused on how Huckleberry Finn is a way better character in his book. That’s how summaries work.
If you don’t understand direct on topic comparisons just say so.
If there’s a story about how Hamburgers are an unpopular food that fails to satisfy hunger because McDonalds is failing, one would be correct in providing a summary of that story with the additional information that Burger King sales have increased in order to show the premise of the story is incorrect or incomplete.
I know for a fact you lower class of the Amerisraeli empire learn this within the first few years of your education, in between pledges of allegiance and Israeli-written alternative history facts.
Do I need to point you to an actual definition of a “summary”? I’ve been chalking it up to tankie bad-faith, but at this point, I’m wondering if it’s just aggressive tankie stupidity.
“With the additional information?” Okay, I’m back to assuming bad-faith over illiteracy. Motherfucker, 1) that’s outside the boundaries of a summary, and more importantly 2) none of what you said is in the article. Like that’s not a summary. That’s not even an analysis. A “TL;DR” isn’t “here’s my shitty opinion on this topic not at all explored in the article.”
Serious question, do you have autism?
Yes. Did you know that the word comes from the German Autismus, coined as an alternative to the term at the time “autoerotism”? Derives from Greek “autós + ismós” – “self-ism”.
Removed by mod