Environment vs People

In the one corner, we have the environmentalists, saying, "Save the owls, save the trees!" In the other, we have a bunch of loggers saying, "Screw the owls, our families are starving!"

In one corner we have environmentalists saying, "Stop burning the rainforests!" and in the other, we have all kinds of people saying, "I burn these trees for space to plant my crops, or I starve."

In one corner we have environmentalists saying, "Protect Alaska," and in the other we have millions of consumers saying, "Lower gas prices!"

Personally, I'm something of an environmentalist because I can afford to be, but I can certainly see where others are coming from. The earth is a tough old bitch (if still beautiful) and can take a whole lot of crap from us, but sometimes it seems like we're pushing it. There are no easy answers, but how do you propose we settle things? Should the environmentalists just back off? Should we pay loggers not to log? Should we try to teach people alternative methods of feeding themselves than slash/burn? What do you think?

 

I think it would be better if the whole thing weren't so political. Is Alaska really in danger, or is capitalism just unpopular?
It's hard for me, a captialist, to really appreciate many parts of the environmental movement. It's hard for me to sift thru which issues are truly relevant to the environment, and which ones are just socialism hiding behind something more benign. I'm sure we all agree that no one wants mother nature to be sick. I think everyone wants to do the right thing.

 

It all comes down to Economics for me.

how much are people willing to pay for better living conditions? How much are people prepared to pay for cleaner air and water. History has shown that most societies put high prices on such things, and are willing to sacrifice to acheive some measure of good environment.


However, on the other side, we should not forget that the environment includes the conditions we live in. Therefore, to me, it makes little sense to spend billions upon billions of dollars a year to lower the greenhouse gas emissions marginally, when the same amount of money can serve the water and health costs of much of the developing world over the same period.

 

Ah, the developing world...this is just my rather oddball opinion, but I think the world's developed enough. Simply, there are way too many of us *to* feed to make that a priority.

My best solution? Take all the stupid people and make them eat vaccuum. We don't need 'em anyways.

My realistic solution? Enforce a child limit similar to what China has. One kid per couple. That would shrink our population down to acceptable levels and ensure that any child coming into this world would be actually wanted.

Cris~

 

It would also create a critical imbalance and a situation where a rough 25-30% of the world's GDP would have to be spent to ensure the survival of retirees, unless you choose to euthanasize all retired people under certain conditions...

Environment should be paid a little more attention, though. And it'd be good not to stop developing new techs, because we need cleaner and massive energy sources the like of Fusion power, and we need to cease using oil for other purposes than the creation of chemical organic products. It's pretty possible to have cars run without oil, electric cars already exist and, when fueled with nuclear / fusion / solar electricity they create very little pollution compared to oil-using cars. The same goes for most other uses of oil as an energy source.

 

Destroying the earth to further capitalism and appease a nation of brainwashed capitalists who don't know anything else and so can't change and don't want to, is a shame.

But, that's the real American legacy. That's what we'll be remembered for in the annals of history.

 

I wouldn't put things this dramatically, and not limit it to the US.
But this is the way our world is currently going, and there'll be nobody to remember us for causing its destruction if money is still given a more important place than environment.

 

"Destroying the earth to further capitalism and appease a nation of brainwashed capitalists who don't know anything else and so can't change and don't want to, is a shame."

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.



Re: developing world and population. Don't you realize that as countries develop, they pollute LESS (after the initial increase) per capita and pay more attention to environmental issues. Most importantly, their birth rate decreases in line with the rest of the developed world.

 

See US refusal to lower greenhouse effect gases and refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol for a good counter-example.

 

There needs to be a balance between enviromentalists and capitalists; between nature and people. Therefore let both extremes work hard to try get what they want and a balance will follow. Hopefully a balance that is the most beneficial. What we have right now isn't perfect, but it's becoming better.

It's true that as our level of prosperity rises we can afford to pay more attention to the enviroment. We humans have screwed up some but all in all we're correcting it. The air is cleaner; the water is cleaner; and although it needs to be cleaner still, it's getting there.

And ditto, Red-Seven. The more developed countries to pollute less. Which is why I'm not worried.

Cristalia, limiting people to one child is unrealistic and cruel. It seems to me that as nations become more prosperous and more populated, people have fewer children. It tends to balance itself out naturally.

Your idea for launching people into a vacuum is nice though. There's a lot of people on this planet that are taking up unnecessary space ...

 

....and ensure that any child coming into this world would be actually wanted.

Ummm. . .no. What about rape victims who had a kid from that?

 

Developed countries are not only villainous in their own pollution, but also hypocritical (and unfair!) in their environomentalist desire for developing nations to preseve land, protect animals, etc.

A blanket statement, certainly, but also the premise for an essay I wrote last year. Incidentally, I found the paper while cleaning out my hard drive this morning. Just for the sake of this thread, I'll post it before sending it to the recycling bin. It's a bit lengthy, so please skip to the next post if you are so inclined.
_______________________________________

In the three-day duration between May 14 and May 16, 1979, the Left Frontist state government of West Bengal ordered the forcible evacuation of refugees who had resettled in forest reserves after becoming both socially and politically displaced in their native India. As the established settlement was an essentially illegal encroachment on protected forest reserve, the forced evacuation was ostensibly executed in the name of conservation and environmentalism. Yet Ross Mallick intimates that the underlying motives were profit and the tourist industry: "Seeing the area of the massacre and realizing it was also a tourist attraction [brings] home the conflict between environmental preservation and development" (Mallick 104). In the section of his essay entitled "Environmental Priorities," Mallick addresses the relevant issues inherent in any occupation on any land allocated for preservation. One may draw distinctions between his perspective and arguments and those of Gary Snyder.

One component of this "evacuation," now referred to as the Marichjhapi Massacre, ultimately ended in the deaths of hundreds of refugees. An holistic estimation of fatalities claims that of the 14,388 families who sought refuge in West Bengal, 4,128 "'perished in transit, died of starvation [a plausible effect of the government-sanctioned economic blockade], exhaustion, and many were killed in Kashipur, Kumirmair, and Marichjhapi by police firings,'" while the other 10,260 returned to their previous locations (111). No official investigation into the massacre has taken place, nor has any disciplinary action.

Officially, the Untouchable refugess' occupation of the island of Marichjhapi was "illegal encroachment on Reserve Forest Land and state- and [the] World Wildlife Fund- sponsored tiger protect" (115). While acknowleding the fact that the environmental movement was not involved in the eviction, Mallick draws attention to the fact that the movement nonetheless achieved a consequential victory. Mallick's criticism starkly contrasts with Snyder's opinion regarding some of the principles adopted by conservation movements.

As chairman of the Project Tiger committee, Dr. Karan Singh was criticized for subordinating the indigenous peoples' interest under those of the endangered tigers. In his own criticism, Mallick asserts that the organizational imperatives of [certain] groups associated with conservation "necessiate downplaying and ignoring the human costs paid by poor people for environmental preservation." Subsequently, he argues that a folklore revolving around and preaching mutual dependency, i.e. that the natives need the tigers and vice versa, is invented (by Westerners) to render the lives lost in a necessary and accepted light, all a price demanded for the sake of preserving nature. Furthermore, he states, "For poor people there is no advantage to having tigers for it is they who pay the price with their lives, while the tourist operator and the politicians they finance reap the benefits." (116)

Mallick further addresses the dangerously political overtones now inherent in conservation programs. "While 'the Burmese army is razing entire Karen villages, killing, raping, enslaving, to make way for the biggest nature reserve of its kind in the world...to attract millions of tourists,' the deaths of thousands of villagers has not prevented environmental organizations from cooperating with the military dictatorship" (117). Mallick surmises that conserva

 

we need to find the right balance. we can expand and prosper without destroying the environment, we just don't because it's too hard or too expensive. we are killing ourselves and we won't change because the end is still a ways off. there's no immediate danger, so no one feels that we need to take immediate action. the problem is, by the time we start seeing serious effects and want to do something about it, it will already be too late. we need to learn to live with the plants and animals without killing them, or we're just killing ourselves.

 

I've always been a fervernt environmentalist, and IMO the planet's needs are a priority over those of anyone else. But I do understand the needs of people. I would try to give the people an alternative that wouldn't be exactly their first choice but at the same time would be reasonable and would not compromise the environment.

For example...

In the one corner, we have the environmentalists, saying, "Save the owls, save the trees!" In the other, we have a bunch of loggers saying, "Screw the owls, our families are starving!"

Maybe we can get these loggers another job. We can always use more custodians (esp. for the boys' restroom <shudders>).

In one corner we have environmentalists saying, "Stop burning the rainforests!" and in the other, we have all kinds of people saying, "I burn these trees for space to plant my crops, or I starve."

Maybe we can put these guys to use in trying to convert areas that have suffered from desertification back to less arid form, then they can grow crops there.

In one corner we have environmentalists saying, "Protect Alaska," and in the other we have millions of consumers saying, "Lower gas prices!"

This is where alternative fuels come in.

 

Maybe we can put these guys to use in trying to convert areas that have suffered from desertification back to less arid form, then they can grow crops there.

Good point, but who is going to pay for that? Chopping down trees is profitable. Restoring areas is not. For those people it's a basic necessity of life. It's a simple matter of economics.

Only when the level of living rises, such as here, can we start looking at how to save our planet because we have the money and time available to do so. When we realize what we're doing to our plent, then we'll start finding ways to harm it less. And we're already doing so.

This is where alternative fuels come in.

Again, it's a matter of economics. If there was an alternate fuel that cost the same as oil, we'd probably be using it already.

 

Lordban, I dealth with Kyoto indirectly in my first post.

There are certainly scientific problems worth paying attention to, and trying to remedy. There isn't a question that there are things wrong with the Environment.

However, it's also crucial to ask the important follow up questions: how much of a problem is this, what will the solution cost, how much better will the solution make things, and finally, what else could we spend our money on?

 

Good point, but who is going to pay for that? Chopping down trees is profitable. Restoring areas is not. For those people it's a basic necessity of life. It's a simple matter of economics.

I know, and that has always been a problem. But many earth-friendly techniques, like crop rotation, are still profitable. And the rise of alternative fuels like hybrid technology in autos may mean that soon, in the US at least (and the US is, what, the world's biggest polluter?) the pollutive output will decrease significantly.

In any case, perhaps some international relief organization could financially compensate for the loggers-that-are-moved-to-the-deserts.

 

Hi there. I have a few things to add.

First of all, I think it's artificial to oppose "the environment" to "people", since people are obviously dependent on the environment. The environmentalists I know are not anti-human; in fact the reason the environment is so important is that without it, we all die (or move to the moon).

One of the main problems is that the dominant economy in practice today is one that does not take very many long-term effects into account. A healthy planet and diverse ecosystem is very important to a lot of people, but it is not represented in most economic decisions, because it cannot be bought and sold on an open market.

There is a serious movement called "eco-economics" or something, which is an attempt to place environmental values within a free-market system. That way, decisions can be made based on real costs and benefits which take into account the importance people place on the environment.

Also, on another point, while the so-called "developed" countries do tend to have smaller families, they also use more resources per capita than not-so-developed ones. Use of resources - not pollution - is the main environmental impact. It's hardly debatable that the world as a whole could not sustain its entire population living with the current level of consumption in Europe (to say nothing of the US).

 

A lot of stuff that the environmental wackos make up is not true. For one thing that place in Alaska where they want to drill isn't really the same as they want you to think it is. They make it seem like drilling oil in that area means that the drillers will dump oil all over the place and all the poor animals will get dumped on. This is not true, but some people are ignorant and they believe the environmental wackos. WE ARE DEPENDENT ON OIL FROM THE MIDEAST BECAUSE EVIRONMENTALISTS DON'T WANT US TO DRILL IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.

I can think of another example. The spotted owl scam. These things have been found nesting in Kmart signs, don't think that they can only nest in certian trees. PEOPLE LOST JOBS OVER A LIE.

 

Calling one side of a discussion 'wacko', or marginalising an entire point of view based on the extremists within that group, isn't right. It's poor debating conduct, and not polite or open-minded.

Your assertions about Oil economics is simplistic, and flat-out wrong. Yes, more domestic drilling will lessen dependence on foreign sources. However, Middle Eastern Oil dominates the world market, and will directly affect all prices. Also, it is unlikely that we could replace much of the 60% of Oil consumed that has foreign origins with sustainable American sources. And there's more...

I hardly think that K-Mart signs are a viable ecosystem for a bird. Your point doesn't address the balence of costs and priorities about whether or not to artificially rescue endangered species, or take steps to protect certain ecosystems. Are those things important to us? How important? Those are the questions that need to be asked and answered.

 

Yes, a lot of the world's oil does come from the Middle East, but it doesn't have to be that way. There are other sources.

As for logging industry, trees can be replanted, and areas can be reforested. I am from a town in Ohio with a papermill that does logging in the surrounding area. After an area is logged they replant trees.

People's jobs depend on logging. It feeds families. That should be a priority above a bird.

 

Thats wrong. Its not 'starvation'. Its..

'screw the owles, these birdies will maek a right price on the black market!'
and; 'food? nah, I just want to screw the environment , cause we need the money.. because we have been held back by the countries who are pro-environment, even though THEY are hippocritical, as they started with so much pollution'.

Environment was here before us. It deserves the earth more.

 

"Environment was here before us. It deserves the earth more."


Please explain the logic of this statement, notably the personification of 'Environment'.

The argument for environmental protection only holds any water when used in context of fascillitating sustainable human development. Na Wibo is right in saying that the 'either-or' nature of the title is misleading.

 

The Earth is strong. However, her growth and healing processes takes centuries.

Think of how long it took for the development of the tropical rainforest belt. Here comes Homo Sapiens and very rapidly destroys A LOT of growth that took a long time to grow. It disrupts the balance. Has anyone noticed the shifts in weather and rain fall over the past 25 years?

I fear that with human's rapid pollution of the planet, the Earth may not have time to heal.

 

Although the theory of global warming is logical, the effects of gloabal warming, so far have not been serious. If the Earth is warming up, then why is it 40 degrees F in Ohio the other night? It's May.

Also, some people say that the reason why recent tornados, hurricanes, and floods have been so devastating is because if global warming. The truth is that these storms are more destructive because they now have more stuff to destroy, because of an expanding population.

And last, many scientists are predicting another ice age. Isn't that the opposite of global warming? At least stick with one or the other.