Saving Planet Earth & the BBC Wildlife Fund
I was very honoured to asked to be a Trustee of the BBC Wildlife Fund, which is the recipient of the funds raised by the Saving Planet Earth season on BBC TV over the past two weeks. As I write it has raised over £1,200,000. Which I suppose puts into perspective most people's views on the (un)importance of Saving Planet Earth. It's remarkably little, compared with Comic Relief. But we always knew that most people put the short term as much more important than the long term. And it is probable that the majority of the inhabitants of Britain, still think that climate change, the disappearance of rainforests and loss of biodiversty are all issues that won't affect them personally. How wrong they will probably prove to be.
Over the past few weeks there has been a lot written about ways of saving the planet -- magazines including BBC Wildlife, Radio Times and the Independent on Saturday -- have all proffered their advice. But not one of them have mentioned reducing family size. Switching off a few lightbulbs, recycling a newspaper or two, and cycling to work, all have negligible effects compared with not having any children. It may be politically incorrect to even mention the subject (certainly it seemed to be under the reproductively prolific Blair leadership), but it's an incontrovertible fact that it is the single most effective way of combating global climate change, preserving wildlife habitats, and preserving biodiversity. The burgeoning human populations in all parts of the world are unsustainable, and until politicians (and aid agencies) face up to that fact, the world is in dire straits.
But back to Saving Planet Earth. The season culminated in a concert in Kew Gardens, which was broadcast throughout Friday evening with various celeb's in attendance. Certainly not my idea of entertainment -- but it is argued it's a way of attracting an entirely new audience, and making them aware of the problems facing the planet. Only time will tell if this was worthwhile. I personally have a fairly low opinion of the average Sun reader (one of the areas where Saving Planet Earth was promoted), and would argue in favour of sticking to the normal target audience of Grauniad/Times/Indie readership. The argument against being that we would be preaching to the converted. But then aren't the converted are more likely to reach deeper into their pockets? Aren't they more likely to be policy makers? The readers of the Sun may have disposable income, but are they likely to respond? I'd put my money on the Opera-going, Royal Academy members, and Courtauld visiting public any day. But I make absolutely no claims to be a pundit on any of these issues -- which is why I would be interested to hear alternative views. How important is mass opinion? If the Iraqui war is anything to go by, not much. And that is probably a related issue......
But back to Saving Planet Earth. I was very encouraged by the fact that Sir David Attenborough did bring the human population issue into the picture, right at the begining in the very first broadcast of the season. Let's hope that moves it up the agenda.
Sunday, 15 July 2007
Friday, 6 July 2007
BBC Saving Planet Earth; Ramblings on the Ethiopian wolf
Last Monday's film of Graham Norton in the Ethiopian Highlands looked at the plight of the Ethiopian Wolf (aka: Simien Fox, Simien Wolf, Ethiopian Fox). Apart from the fact that Norton made a first rate, and serious presenter, it was a good illustration of the the real problems facing wildlife. HUMANS. The erosion of the wolf's habitat by the rapidly increasing human population, gradually creeping into the more remote and inaccessible habitats, such as that occupied by the wolf.
And with the humans come their domestic animals which carry rabies, distemper and other canine diseases fatal to the wild wolves. The solution: a massive vaccination campaign. Expensive, but effective. But meanwhile the human population continues to grow.
Interestingly, the one solution not mentioned was captive breeding -- which in the case of the wolf is an obvious safeguard. Canids are all relatively easy to maintain in captivity, and there is no reason why the Ethiopian wolf should be an exception -- surely it would make sense to have a small self sustaining population? However, there is clearly a conflict of interest in operation since the Ethiopian Wolf project featured in the BBC film is funded largely by the Born Free Foundation. This foundation also funds Zoo Check, and according to their website "The Born Free Foundation believes that wild animals should not be kept in captivity".
This is clearly a simplistic approach, and while I personally agree that whenever possible it is best to maintain endangered species in the wild, sometimes captive breeding is an essential part of conservation. Furthermore there is little question in my mind that zoos can and often do play, a very important role in education. There are plenty of good reasons, in my view, why wild animals should continue to be kept in captivity. I recognise that hand-reared orphan animals, or injured animals have no real role in conservation, but whenever I am brought one, I try and rear it. From Bank Voles to herons, from foxes to rooks I have reared dozens. As did the inspiration behind Born Free, the late Joy Adamson. In most cases it is irresponsible to release those animals back into the wild, for a variety of reasons -- as indeed the Adamson's found out to their cost. So surely the best place for these animals is in a well run zoo, where they can educate another generation, who may never get the chance to see animals in the wild?
And as far as the Ethiopian wold is concerned, an ex situ breeding group is surely an essential part of any conservation strategy for the future.
And with the humans come their domestic animals which carry rabies, distemper and other canine diseases fatal to the wild wolves. The solution: a massive vaccination campaign. Expensive, but effective. But meanwhile the human population continues to grow.
Interestingly, the one solution not mentioned was captive breeding -- which in the case of the wolf is an obvious safeguard. Canids are all relatively easy to maintain in captivity, and there is no reason why the Ethiopian wolf should be an exception -- surely it would make sense to have a small self sustaining population? However, there is clearly a conflict of interest in operation since the Ethiopian Wolf project featured in the BBC film is funded largely by the Born Free Foundation. This foundation also funds Zoo Check, and according to their website "The Born Free Foundation believes that wild animals should not be kept in captivity".
This is clearly a simplistic approach, and while I personally agree that whenever possible it is best to maintain endangered species in the wild, sometimes captive breeding is an essential part of conservation. Furthermore there is little question in my mind that zoos can and often do play, a very important role in education. There are plenty of good reasons, in my view, why wild animals should continue to be kept in captivity. I recognise that hand-reared orphan animals, or injured animals have no real role in conservation, but whenever I am brought one, I try and rear it. From Bank Voles to herons, from foxes to rooks I have reared dozens. As did the inspiration behind Born Free, the late Joy Adamson. In most cases it is irresponsible to release those animals back into the wild, for a variety of reasons -- as indeed the Adamson's found out to their cost. So surely the best place for these animals is in a well run zoo, where they can educate another generation, who may never get the chance to see animals in the wild?
And as far as the Ethiopian wold is concerned, an ex situ breeding group is surely an essential part of any conservation strategy for the future.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Our new web site
We need feed back.
The new donations pages appears to be giving donors a lot of problems. In our quest to make things simpler, we appear to have made donating more complex.
So feedback please. Part of the problem appears to involve the need to register -- but this is a process common to most shopping sites. But if anyone dwelling in cyberspace has ideas of how we could simplify our donation process, please let us know. And conversely, if anyone likes the new donation pages, let us know as well.
We always try to be responsive, and listen to our supporters needs. But to do this we need feedback. So over to you, in the big blue yonder.
The new donations pages appears to be giving donors a lot of problems. In our quest to make things simpler, we appear to have made donating more complex.
So feedback please. Part of the problem appears to involve the need to register -- but this is a process common to most shopping sites. But if anyone dwelling in cyberspace has ideas of how we could simplify our donation process, please let us know. And conversely, if anyone likes the new donation pages, let us know as well.
We always try to be responsive, and listen to our supporters needs. But to do this we need feedback. So over to you, in the big blue yonder.
IMF and Africa
The WLT is often asked why we don't have any projects in Africa. And the simple answer is that we have yet to identify an NGO we feel could carry out a land acquisition, and manage it sustainably into the future. But we are looking, have identified some potential partners, and will probably announce a project soon.
Millions of conservation dollars, pounds and Euros have been spent in Africa, and the conditions for wildlife have continued to deteriorate. Most of this funding has been completely wasted, despite the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of researchers from the developed world have got their masters' degrees and PhDs researching the demise of the wildlife. The IMF recently pointed out that misapplied aid can be disastrous. The G8 group of nations have called for an increase of £13 billion of aid to Africa, but the IMF has pointed out this could have an adverse effect if it is not spent thoughtfully. Aid agencies continue to raise millions in Britain to 'wipe out poverty' in Africa, without having a clue what the environmental impacts are. If you don't believe me, ask any of the big agencies for copies of their EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessments) for a range of projects. Or try asking them what their policies on human population are. This is a fine example:
Dear Mr Burton,
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
Thank you for your interest in the work of Christian Aid.
But hang on, surely the root cause of poverty is a rapidly expanding, unchecked human population, dependent on limited resources?
Comments on a post card or by email please.......
Millions of conservation dollars, pounds and Euros have been spent in Africa, and the conditions for wildlife have continued to deteriorate. Most of this funding has been completely wasted, despite the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of researchers from the developed world have got their masters' degrees and PhDs researching the demise of the wildlife. The IMF recently pointed out that misapplied aid can be disastrous. The G8 group of nations have called for an increase of £13 billion of aid to Africa, but the IMF has pointed out this could have an adverse effect if it is not spent thoughtfully. Aid agencies continue to raise millions in Britain to 'wipe out poverty' in Africa, without having a clue what the environmental impacts are. If you don't believe me, ask any of the big agencies for copies of their EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessments) for a range of projects. Or try asking them what their policies on human population are. This is a fine example:
Dear Mr Burton,
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
Thank you for your interest in the work of Christian Aid.
But hang on, surely the root cause of poverty is a rapidly expanding, unchecked human population, dependent on limited resources?
Comments on a post card or by email please.......
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Cool Earth -- Frank Field's new idea
The Internet is now littered with articles about Frank Field's brilliant new idea for saving the rainforests. An idea that the World Land Trust has actually been implementing for over 17 years. There is one major difference. We are working entirely by supporting local NGOs, and have a lot of carefully established experience. Unfortunately the massive publicity generated by the Cool Earth and Frank Field has led to a backlash of criticism, claiming that it is a form of green imperialism; I hope and doubt this is true, but only time will tell how effective the organisation is. And this is an issue which we at the WLT have been very aware of, and over the years have made sure that it is a criticism that cannot be levelled at our activities. But our main concern is that bad publicity can often rub off on others.
Over 10 years ago criticisms of Sting's Rainforest Foundation led to a massive decline in donations to our work, despite the fact that our approach was radically different. Criticisms of Tomkins and other multi-millionaire businessmen buying up wilderness have a knock on effect on our work. Fortunately, the World Land Trust is now well enough known to survive most of these problems, but land purchase is always going to be a sensitive issue. It is a vital tool in the bid to save biodiversity, provided it is done with the support of local people at all levels, from the communities to the governments concerned. Finally a major issue is that publicity-seeking high profile projects can often have very negative effects by inflating land prices. This is bad for conservation, and bad for local people. This is an issue we have to grapple with constantly
Over 10 years ago criticisms of Sting's Rainforest Foundation led to a massive decline in donations to our work, despite the fact that our approach was radically different. Criticisms of Tomkins and other multi-millionaire businessmen buying up wilderness have a knock on effect on our work. Fortunately, the World Land Trust is now well enough known to survive most of these problems, but land purchase is always going to be a sensitive issue. It is a vital tool in the bid to save biodiversity, provided it is done with the support of local people at all levels, from the communities to the governments concerned. Finally a major issue is that publicity-seeking high profile projects can often have very negative effects by inflating land prices. This is bad for conservation, and bad for local people. This is an issue we have to grapple with constantly
Friday, 29 June 2007
Scientists are a threat to endangered birds
US Scientists are a threat to endangered birds
The current issue of the American Bird Conservancy's newsletter (June 2007) http://www.surfbirds.com/sbirdsnews/archives/2007/06/
raises an issue that appears to be controversial in the Americas. I write it like this, because in Britain and most other parts of the world the issue would not be controversial; it would be clear cut. And that issue concerns collecting rare and endangered birds, and birds new to science.
Some American ornithologists still believe it is OK to kill birds for museum collections, even if they are very rare -- an anachronistic position hardly any British ornithologists would condone. And in case anyone doubts this, there is a very clear example: in 2006 scientists from Louisiana Museum netted and killed two out of the three known specimens of the Jocotoco Antpitta just discovered in Northern Peru.
http://appl003.lsu.edu/natsci/lmns.nsf/$Content/Newsletters/$File/2006+-+November.pdf
With a total world population, including the Ecuadorian population at no more than 200 birds, and the possibility that the Peruvian population was less than 10, it was clearly totally unjustified for the birds to be killed, simply to adorn the drawers of an American museum. Old World scientists have been describing new species (let alone confirming known ones) by methods that do not involve destroying them for several years. Advances in DNA sampling, combined with digital photography have made the conventional type specimen, if not redundant, at least non-essential, for critically endangered species.
It is high time that all responsible scientific institutions, as well as conservation organisations, came out with unequivocal positions condemning the scientific collecting of endangered species. And, as the ABC article points out, that almost inevitably includes almost any newly discovered species, as the very fact that they have only just been discovered will almost certainly mean that they are very rare, if not endangered.
It is also an example of how CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora) fails to protect some of the rarest wildlife. The species protected under CITES have to be listed in one of the three Appendices; consequently if a species is newly described or so rare that there is arguably no trade in it, then it is likely to be unprotected. And while there are exemptions for scientific specimens to be moved around the world, it should be totally contrary to the spirit of CITES to allow specimens of this nature to be collected and shipped to American museums.
First of all, the international scientific and ornithological community should publicly condemn the museum, and its staff for these actions. They should also condemn the National Geographic Society for funding such an activity.
Second, the Parties to CITES should find a mechanism to prevent such specimens being allowed to be sent to museums.
The following quote from the Louisiana Museum Newsletter for November 2006 illustrates the cavalier attitude the the killing of some of the world's least known and probably rarest birds:
With his fifth grant from the National Geographic Society’s Committee for Research and Exploration, and a gift from a good friend of the Museum, Staff Research Associate John P. O’Neill planned and led an expedition to a remote area of northern Peru. The aim of the expedition was to explore the southern section of the Cordillera del Cóndor on the border of Ecuador in the department of Cajamarca.....
..... After only a few days Santiago was able to see and then collect an antpitta – the first specimen from Perú and a new species for the LSUMNS collection! He also found other interesting birds such as two species of tapaculos (family hynocryptidae), a variety of hummingbirds and tanagers, and many other birds, most of which did not occur at the 1800 meter base camp. He soon also collected a specimen of the Flammulated Treehaunter, Thripadectes flammulatus, a member of the family Furnariidae, and one of the few members of that family for which no tissue existed. This is especially important because of Dr. Remsen’s and Dr. Brumfield’s NSF-funded project to study the phylogeny of this huge Neotropical family of birds .....
..... While the saga of new birds was ongoing at the higher camps, the Schmitt’s and Sandesh Kadur arrived at the base camp on June 29, adding great talent to the kinning and hunting efforts. Jonathon, only 17 years old, has already been on several expeditions and is now a skilled hunter and an excellent preparer of specimens. He concentrated his efforts on collecting the dozen or more sympatric
species of Tangara tanagers that were at the 1800 meter camp, as well as other interesting species (including the only specimen of the Equatorial Graytail, (Xenerpestes singularis), collected on the expedition. This small member of the furnariid family is very poorly known. Shortly after the Schmitts arrived, Santiago went out one morning and came upon a flock of Whitebreasted Parakeets and managed to collect two specimens – a new species for Perú and also for the LSUMNS collection!
Finally we had to make a schedule to take down the camps, stop preparing birds, and prepare to leave. Our allotted time had run out. With the almost continuous rain of the previous 50 days or so the trails were now nearly three feet deep in thick, gooey mud. Thanks to our new local friends we were able to get enough mules to get all of our stuff off the mountain and down to where trucks could be used in only two days. Some work had been done on the road and we were able to slip and slide down to where it was dryer. We actually made it out from camp to Jaen in three days – a iracle! Soon we were in Jaen where it was warm and dry, sleeping in beds, eating in a restaurant, and all was peaceful. But, in reality, we knew that we had not finished our work in the Cordillera del Condor, and likely would not be able to go back. That’s the way it is in Perú – there is always more to do and there will always be new discoveries. We do not seem to have found any new species, but we did get two species new for Peru and new for the LSUMNS collection and we have many interesting records of birds from an area that was once a total biological unknown.
I might also add that a major book on the birds of Peru written by Tom Schulenberg, Doug Stotz, Dan Lane, and I, and illustrated by 13 of the world’s best artists is now in press (Princeton University Press).
When the World Land Trust first learned of this issue, the Chairman of the Trustees immediately wrote to BirdLife International requesting that it take a firm stance against such collecting.
The current issue of the American Bird Conservancy's newsletter (June 2007) http://www.surfbirds.com/sbirdsnews/archives/2007/06/
raises an issue that appears to be controversial in the Americas. I write it like this, because in Britain and most other parts of the world the issue would not be controversial; it would be clear cut. And that issue concerns collecting rare and endangered birds, and birds new to science.
Some American ornithologists still believe it is OK to kill birds for museum collections, even if they are very rare -- an anachronistic position hardly any British ornithologists would condone. And in case anyone doubts this, there is a very clear example: in 2006 scientists from Louisiana Museum netted and killed two out of the three known specimens of the Jocotoco Antpitta just discovered in Northern Peru.
http://appl003.lsu.edu/natsci/lmns.nsf/$Content/Newsletters/$File/2006+-+November.pdf
With a total world population, including the Ecuadorian population at no more than 200 birds, and the possibility that the Peruvian population was less than 10, it was clearly totally unjustified for the birds to be killed, simply to adorn the drawers of an American museum. Old World scientists have been describing new species (let alone confirming known ones) by methods that do not involve destroying them for several years. Advances in DNA sampling, combined with digital photography have made the conventional type specimen, if not redundant, at least non-essential, for critically endangered species.
It is high time that all responsible scientific institutions, as well as conservation organisations, came out with unequivocal positions condemning the scientific collecting of endangered species. And, as the ABC article points out, that almost inevitably includes almost any newly discovered species, as the very fact that they have only just been discovered will almost certainly mean that they are very rare, if not endangered.
It is also an example of how CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora) fails to protect some of the rarest wildlife. The species protected under CITES have to be listed in one of the three Appendices; consequently if a species is newly described or so rare that there is arguably no trade in it, then it is likely to be unprotected. And while there are exemptions for scientific specimens to be moved around the world, it should be totally contrary to the spirit of CITES to allow specimens of this nature to be collected and shipped to American museums.
First of all, the international scientific and ornithological community should publicly condemn the museum, and its staff for these actions. They should also condemn the National Geographic Society for funding such an activity.
Second, the Parties to CITES should find a mechanism to prevent such specimens being allowed to be sent to museums.
The following quote from the Louisiana Museum Newsletter for November 2006 illustrates the cavalier attitude the the killing of some of the world's least known and probably rarest birds:
With his fifth grant from the National Geographic Society’s Committee for Research and Exploration, and a gift from a good friend of the Museum, Staff Research Associate John P. O’Neill planned and led an expedition to a remote area of northern Peru. The aim of the expedition was to explore the southern section of the Cordillera del Cóndor on the border of Ecuador in the department of Cajamarca.....
..... After only a few days Santiago was able to see and then collect an antpitta – the first specimen from Perú and a new species for the LSUMNS collection! He also found other interesting birds such as two species of tapaculos (family hynocryptidae), a variety of hummingbirds and tanagers, and many other birds, most of which did not occur at the 1800 meter base camp. He soon also collected a specimen of the Flammulated Treehaunter, Thripadectes flammulatus, a member of the family Furnariidae, and one of the few members of that family for which no tissue existed. This is especially important because of Dr. Remsen’s and Dr. Brumfield’s NSF-funded project to study the phylogeny of this huge Neotropical family of birds .....
..... While the saga of new birds was ongoing at the higher camps, the Schmitt’s and Sandesh Kadur arrived at the base camp on June 29, adding great talent to the kinning and hunting efforts. Jonathon, only 17 years old, has already been on several expeditions and is now a skilled hunter and an excellent preparer of specimens. He concentrated his efforts on collecting the dozen or more sympatric
species of Tangara tanagers that were at the 1800 meter camp, as well as other interesting species (including the only specimen of the Equatorial Graytail, (Xenerpestes singularis), collected on the expedition. This small member of the furnariid family is very poorly known. Shortly after the Schmitts arrived, Santiago went out one morning and came upon a flock of Whitebreasted Parakeets and managed to collect two specimens – a new species for Perú and also for the LSUMNS collection!
Finally we had to make a schedule to take down the camps, stop preparing birds, and prepare to leave. Our allotted time had run out. With the almost continuous rain of the previous 50 days or so the trails were now nearly three feet deep in thick, gooey mud. Thanks to our new local friends we were able to get enough mules to get all of our stuff off the mountain and down to where trucks could be used in only two days. Some work had been done on the road and we were able to slip and slide down to where it was dryer. We actually made it out from camp to Jaen in three days – a iracle! Soon we were in Jaen where it was warm and dry, sleeping in beds, eating in a restaurant, and all was peaceful. But, in reality, we knew that we had not finished our work in the Cordillera del Condor, and likely would not be able to go back. That’s the way it is in Perú – there is always more to do and there will always be new discoveries. We do not seem to have found any new species, but we did get two species new for Peru and new for the LSUMNS collection and we have many interesting records of birds from an area that was once a total biological unknown.
I might also add that a major book on the birds of Peru written by Tom Schulenberg, Doug Stotz, Dan Lane, and I, and illustrated by 13 of the world’s best artists is now in press (Princeton University Press).
When the World Land Trust first learned of this issue, the Chairman of the Trustees immediately wrote to BirdLife International requesting that it take a firm stance against such collecting.
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Poverty: who is responsible
For the past 50 years aid agencies have been sending billions of dollars-worth of aid to Africa, propping up, often corrupt, governments, creating markets for the products of the industrialised world, dumping unwanted surpluses, and distorting local economies and creating dependency. Droughts and other catastrophes, both natural and man-made occur, and will continue to occur, at regular intervals, and the aid agencies launch emergency appeals to save the starving, to send food, medicines, shelter etc. And meanwhile the human population continues to grow, further outstripping local resources. Millions of people are forced into urban slums or refugee camps, where they become totally dependent on further aid.
When an aid agency rushes in, does it ever consider the long term consequences? Or the ecological implications? Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should not show compassion, but when compassion is highly selective, and politically or economically motivated, then I think searching questions should be asked.
None of the aid agencies, whether government funded or NGOs are consistent in the way they apply their criteria. They are always making subjective judgements on where to send their limited funding. They are already 'playing god' -- all I am suggesting is that the short term tactics should always consider the long term strategic implications of aid; and in particular the ecological aspects, as in many cases the human population is part of that ecosystem. This is very rarely considered, and as a consequence, throughout the world impoverished populations continue to grow at an alarming rate. When disasters strike they will cause untold misery and suffering -- surely it is just another form of genocide? Most aid to Africa appears to be used to treat the symptoms of poverty not the causes. To use a single example close to my heart -- goats and livestock are given to poor farmers to alleviate hunger. But the cause of the poverty is often the habitat destruction caused by too high a human population, which in turn owns too many grazing animals, which are destroying the very resource on which livestock depends -- as well as displacing entire ecosystems.
Short-sighted?
SS Bob, Bono and others may believe they can 'make poverty history'. Personally I think this is an utter delusion if you try and do it with aid, whether it is food or cash. And history is on my side. Aid the way it is delivered by most western agencies is another form of imperialism -- thrusting our values on unrelated cultures. What appears superficially altruistic is in fact far from it. As many more qualified than I have pointed out most foreign aid benefits the donor country more than the intended recipients.
And finally, have any of the agencies, and altruistic individuals claiming to want to wipe out poverty actually thought what the implications are? How much water, how much energy, how much food is needed? Where will it come from? I personally do not believe in miracles. I am a rationalist. And if you look at these issues rationally, there simply are not enough resources to go round.
When an aid agency rushes in, does it ever consider the long term consequences? Or the ecological implications? Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should not show compassion, but when compassion is highly selective, and politically or economically motivated, then I think searching questions should be asked.
None of the aid agencies, whether government funded or NGOs are consistent in the way they apply their criteria. They are always making subjective judgements on where to send their limited funding. They are already 'playing god' -- all I am suggesting is that the short term tactics should always consider the long term strategic implications of aid; and in particular the ecological aspects, as in many cases the human population is part of that ecosystem. This is very rarely considered, and as a consequence, throughout the world impoverished populations continue to grow at an alarming rate. When disasters strike they will cause untold misery and suffering -- surely it is just another form of genocide? Most aid to Africa appears to be used to treat the symptoms of poverty not the causes. To use a single example close to my heart -- goats and livestock are given to poor farmers to alleviate hunger. But the cause of the poverty is often the habitat destruction caused by too high a human population, which in turn owns too many grazing animals, which are destroying the very resource on which livestock depends -- as well as displacing entire ecosystems.
Short-sighted?
SS Bob, Bono and others may believe they can 'make poverty history'. Personally I think this is an utter delusion if you try and do it with aid, whether it is food or cash. And history is on my side. Aid the way it is delivered by most western agencies is another form of imperialism -- thrusting our values on unrelated cultures. What appears superficially altruistic is in fact far from it. As many more qualified than I have pointed out most foreign aid benefits the donor country more than the intended recipients.
And finally, have any of the agencies, and altruistic individuals claiming to want to wipe out poverty actually thought what the implications are? How much water, how much energy, how much food is needed? Where will it come from? I personally do not believe in miracles. I am a rationalist. And if you look at these issues rationally, there simply are not enough resources to go round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
