An interesting interview with one of India's leading conservation activists.
I post this article as a backgrounder to what Lisa raises as a question. I
am not too conversant either with the 'ethical jargon'. At risk of sounding
the fool with my ideas on conservation (ecological genetics, etc) I would
like to offer one suggestion.
http://www.oneworld.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?root=129&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esa
nctuaryasia%2Ecom%2Fgreenpeople%5Fashishkothari%2Ehtml
The average North American consumes more wood, more fossil fuels, and more
animal protein than any other people on the face of the earth by at least
50%. Exceptions include New Zealand which is the largest consumer of animal
protein in the world....
Whereas most North Americans live a life of conspicuous consumption without
really understanding where and how that consumption in a mass consumer
society impacts biodiversity, and ecosystem function, it should be apparant
that many living in small rural communities do not. For instance in India it
may appear that even though there is a high population density, the
prospects for conservation is much more solvable (rationalized) than it may
be in North America. The ecological footprint of one person in India must be
at least 20% that of the North American. Funding by governments and business
cannot solve the declines in biodiversity in North America. If 1 billion was
spent on creating and protecting habitat in North America, this would not be
a lasting solution. There are far too many coal fired electric plants in
North America, and far too many that are being planned and constructed to
reduce emmissions of mercury for instance. Instead of rationalizing
conservation, the primary method of conservation is to 'preserve' areas
where some unique features are found (rare populations of species,
spectacular beauty, or recreational significance). What gets left flowing
through the seive is the honey or necktar ....so to speak. If as much as 5%
of the land in North America were protected, this would leave 95% of the
land (and sea coast) placed into the sieve. Soil conservation, preservation
of all riparian areas, air and water protection should be mandatory on 90 to
99% of the land and sea coasts.
Whereas in India the primary cause of defaunation may well be habitat loss,
it is people that are the direct and proximate cause through their basic
drives to obtain shelter, food and clothing. In North America it is not
basic needs that drive the exploitation and overexploitation of habitat, but
rather lifestyles which depend on high consumption of energy, efficient and
quick transportation, large buildings which are energy inefficient (almost
everyone uses an air conditioner in the summer, and then vacations in the
tropics), et cetera. One figure that comes to mind is the amount of roads in
the US. It is staggering to think how high that density is. It is about 1 -2
% of some of the most productive land in the world. Yet where do the
politicians agree to preserve areas for conservation? Deserts, Swamps, Ice,
Tundra and Rock, areas which are very necessary to preserve, but also areas
which will not contribute much to biodiversity. What happens when there is
peteroleum discovered in say the Arctic National Wildfire Refuge? Yes. There
are more constraints on conservation than there are on exploitation.
In North America it is not just population density that threatens wildlife,
but it is the emissions of mercury, acid deposition, erosion of soil, and
displacement, fragmentation, etc. that cumulatively impact life in all it's
forms. It is a sign of 'everday irrationality' when short term economic
expediency ruins critically valuable wildlife habitat. This everyday
irrationality is indicated by 'overgeneralizations' and drawing conclusions
from inadequate sets of evidence (not looking at all the evidence). Our
lifestyles on the whole are unsustainable and more importantly cannot be
maintained for long....unless we become more rational and begin a true
're-valuation' based on a careful analysis of what really matters the most
in life.
http://www.oneworld.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?root=129&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esa
nctuaryasia%2Ecom%2Fgreenpeople%5Fashishkothari%2Ehtml
----- Original Message -----
From: Chiaviello, Anthony <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Just some thoughts,
> My lack of exposure to ethics jargon is showing, sorry from here, too! -Tc
> Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
|