“Environment must be destroyed since they are poor” is not the arguing point.


送交者: Latino2 于 2005-5-19, 20:29:16:

回答: I agree, and don't think those who actually carry out cutting should be blamed. 由 mangolasi 于 2005-5-19, 19:53:03:

No doubt this notion is deadly wrong.

The arguing point was: to make conservation work, poor people’s livelihood must be addressed.

I work on conservation biology. These days if I write a proposal for conservation programs of any kinds, say wild animals, rain forest, watershed ……, I almost have to have an agenda on how the improvement of the local poor’s livelihood will be done. Otherwise, there is no way the proposal can be funded.

Yes, the trend of materialism should not be encouraged. However I mentioned before, the rule of the game is set by the rich countries, including Germany. Brazil actually is not bad at all, the countries in sub Saharan region are in much worse situation. It’s so easy for the riches to tell the African natives hunting “bushmeat” is wrong. What other opportunities they have?

The foundmental difference between Fagus and myself is that he didn’t think economics has anything to do with conservation. We knew that repeating slogan won't work.



笔名: 密码(可选项): 注册笔名请按这里