This documentary describes some of information incredibly one-sided, and some of information is also completely misleading, this is an undeniable truth. But I didn't come here to say that. That would make this comment all too cliché.
Once they made an argument. This argument was the claim that a product killed babies. I call it "claim" because although this product was sold in such high volumes that specific year, infant deaths were ridiculously low. To prove it, they chose to attack the person who founded the company first, because of how morally inferior he is. They did the last thing a documentary should do, namely, an ad hominem. Then, after mentioning that Ikea's products are cheap and easily disposable, they went to the part where they obtained the trees illegally, but the trees obtained there were very healthy and the person who stated this was saying this by emphasizing how high quality the trees were. At the end of the documentary, a woman said that Ikea's specific product is expensive. The documentary is full of such inconsistencies. Ikea does not need such a thing, friends, this company already buys green space to grow its own timber. Also, cutting trees for a product in forests is not a problem. If timber is obtained in a forest for a product, that forest is used over and over again by planting trees. In the documentary, an atmosphere is created as if the forests are left to their fate after they are cut down. The problem starts when the structure of the soil where these trees are cut down changes. So you can buy printed books and furniture with peace of mind. After all, in the documentary, the furniture company that manufactures in America does not buy its timber from space. As a statistician, I'm emphasizing that, as mentioned in the documentary, if big retail companies had used a forest for one time to cut down trees, we would have lost all of our green spaces much sooner. The problem is not cutting trees, I repeat, changing the soil structure is the main problem. You can cut a tree to print a book and use the same area over and over again, but if you destroy the diversity of trees in a region and replace it with a farmland or plant a single type of tree, the soil structure will change. At one point in the documentary, it was said that 73 percent of people in America do not know about wall fixing. This can't be serious can it? Is there no earthquake education in America? There can be no other explanation for this level of ignorance.
Once they made an argument. This argument was the claim that a product killed babies. I call it "claim" because although this product was sold in such high volumes that specific year, infant deaths were ridiculously low. To prove it, they chose to attack the person who founded the company first, because of how morally inferior he is. They did the last thing a documentary should do, namely, an ad hominem. Then, after mentioning that Ikea's products are cheap and easily disposable, they went to the part where they obtained the trees illegally, but the trees obtained there were very healthy and the person who stated this was saying this by emphasizing how high quality the trees were. At the end of the documentary, a woman said that Ikea's specific product is expensive. The documentary is full of such inconsistencies. Ikea does not need such a thing, friends, this company already buys green space to grow its own timber. Also, cutting trees for a product in forests is not a problem. If timber is obtained in a forest for a product, that forest is used over and over again by planting trees. In the documentary, an atmosphere is created as if the forests are left to their fate after they are cut down. The problem starts when the structure of the soil where these trees are cut down changes. So you can buy printed books and furniture with peace of mind. After all, in the documentary, the furniture company that manufactures in America does not buy its timber from space. As a statistician, I'm emphasizing that, as mentioned in the documentary, if big retail companies had used a forest for one time to cut down trees, we would have lost all of our green spaces much sooner. The problem is not cutting trees, I repeat, changing the soil structure is the main problem. You can cut a tree to print a book and use the same area over and over again, but if you destroy the diversity of trees in a region and replace it with a farmland or plant a single type of tree, the soil structure will change. At one point in the documentary, it was said that 73 percent of people in America do not know about wall fixing. This can't be serious can it? Is there no earthquake education in America? There can be no other explanation for this level of ignorance.